Ping Larkin
in [Design]
|
From: Joerg on 4 Nov 2009 11:44 JosephKK wrote: > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:32:28 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> John Larkin wrote: [...] >> Just adding the existing sales tax to services would >>> help the state deficit problem a lot. >>> >> I am squarely opposed to that. No new taxes. Many services run more than >> state-wide. It would simply increase the cost of doing business in >> California by another x percent. >> >> We already must have a huge underground economy going on and that would >> make it much worse. When I bought some PVC at a HW store the guy in >> front of me had a large amount of building & plumbing materials on his >> cart. Calloused hands, looked like a guy who does this for a living. The >> tab came to several hundred bucks, seemed like a bathroom remodel. He >> paid the entire tab in hard cash, with $20 and $50 bills, and did not >> request a bill with any of his ID on there. > > Even if i was doing business less than earnestly, i would always have > receipts for my materials. It prevents way too many arguments. He probably kept the receipt alright. But a high-Dollar receipt without a clear link that he actually paid that himself (credit card slip etc.) will certainly raise the hackles of an auditor if claimed as a materials expense. Of course since he most likely flies under the radar all the time there won't be any. Problem is, the more such businesses get milked the more of them will completely dive under, IOW not "officially" exist and never file. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: dagmargoodboat on 4 Nov 2009 14:00 JosephKK wrote: > John Larkin wrote: > > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >>Businesses powerful? Businesses are lucky to make 10%. So if you try > >>to take an extra 10%, they leave (or die). Outsourcing is just > >>capital fleeing oppression. > > >Both the oil companies and the health insurance companies run ballpark > >4% profit on revenues. And most people hate them for that 4%. > > >John > > Only after the funky accounting. Nobody really knows how profitable > really big business is except some of their accountants. Try reading a few of their financial statements. With practice it's not that hard. But you have to do it. True, they can lie, but that's not hard to spot. I avoid those. I listened to Ken Lay pitch the Enron miracle for 30 seconds and knew. Ditto Citibank, Freddie, Fannie, etc. Government's more problematic. They spin, obfuscate, underreport, hide, etc. Try reading Freddie and Fannie's reports. Or tracking down Medicare costs. All our social "trusts" are empty piggy banks, literally Ponzi schemes where the 1rst in get paid off by the latecomers. For companies, that's a felony. Pelosi's recent health care bill estimates, using /her/ outlandish assumptions, were grossly understated. Calculator abuse. I wrote that, and now AP and others concur. Were Pelosi a CEO she'd be in jail. Instead, she's Speaker. Suppose John Larkin decided to report only 2/3rds of his company's income--what would the IRS think of that? Madoff was a rookie, a piker. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: John Larkin on 4 Nov 2009 15:58 On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:53:39 -0800, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:08:26 -0800, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <meru(a)devnull.com> wrote: >> >>>Jim Thompson wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Shooting politicians and bureaucrats would be more effective ;-) >>>> >>> >>>My sentiment as well, but someone has to run run the country and try to >>>balance the budgets. It would help the west if we all stopped exporting >>>jobs to China, but you can blame global multinationals for that, who >>>have no interest other than shareholder value. >> >>No business is run as a charity. All businesses do what they have to >>do to compete and survive. And shareholders hire boards and executives >>exactly to maximize the value of their stocks; wouldn't you? So, given >>all that, tax policy should be structured to do the most good, which >>includes creating jobs so that people have earnings so that they can >>pay taxes. >> >> >> We all want free market >>>economics, but business is now too powerfull for the good of nations. >> >>Business is 100% of all economies. Business has to be powerful because >>it creates wealth and stuff. As long as businesses compete, the more >>powerful the business side of the economy, the better off everybody >>is. The miserable nations suffer from too little business, not too >>much. >> >>John > >Damn, keep those hallucinogens away from me, way too powerful. Take >another, more thorough, look at Nigeria. A classic case of abuse by >big multinationals. The Nigerians don't need help from multinationals; thay are perfectly competant to abuse themselves. John
From: John Larkin on 4 Nov 2009 16:01 On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:00:17 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >JosephKK wrote: >> John Larkin wrote: >> > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> >>Businesses powerful? Businesses are lucky to make 10%. So if you try >> >>to take an extra 10%, they leave (or die). Outsourcing is just >> >>capital fleeing oppression. >> >> >Both the oil companies and the health insurance companies run ballpark >> >4% profit on revenues. And most people hate them for that 4%. >> >> >John >> >> Only after the funky accounting. Nobody really knows how profitable >> really big business is except some of their accountants. > >Try reading a few of their financial statements. With practice it's >not that hard. But you have to do it. > >True, they can lie, but that's not hard to spot. I avoid those. I >listened to Ken Lay pitch the Enron miracle for 30 seconds and knew. >Ditto Citibank, Freddie, Fannie, etc. > >Government's more problematic. They spin, obfuscate, underreport, >hide, etc. Try reading Freddie and Fannie's reports. Or tracking >down Medicare costs. > >All our social "trusts" are empty piggy banks, literally Ponzi schemes >where the 1rst in get paid off by the latecomers. For companies, >that's a felony. > >Pelosi's recent health care bill estimates, using /her/ outlandish >assumptions, were grossly understated. Calculator abuse. I wrote >that, and now AP and others concur. Were Pelosi a CEO she'd be in >jail. Instead, she's Speaker. > >Suppose John Larkin decided to report only 2/3rds of his company's >income--what would the IRS think of that? My CPA wouldn't sign off on the tax returns, for starters. The most we dare get away with is expensing pizza for design reviews. John
From: John Larkin on 4 Nov 2009 16:05
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:26:49 -0800, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:34:00 -0800, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:39:02 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>>John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:08:32 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:48:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>>> Jobs? The current health care bill penalizes employers who don't >>>>>>> provide government-approved health care. So, when you make it a >>>>>>> greater and greater pain to employ people, the easy, obvious, and only >>>>>>> solution is to outsource, to export jobs, to hire fewer workers. So >>>>>>> of course there'll be fewer jobs. I, personally, will create fewer >>>>>>> jobs. I guarantee it. >>>>>> I'll probably hold the line at about 20 employees and do more >>>>>> outsourcing and contracting. ... >>>>> >>>>> When they go through with the net receipts tax thing in CA where >>>>> salaries are supposedly non-deductible the others will do exactly the >>>>> same. >>>> >>>> There are idiots claiming that a 5% net receipts tax is no more >>>> burdensome than a 10% tax on profits. 5 is smaller than 10, don't you >>>> see? >>>> >>> >>>Sad :-( >>> >>>Just imagine what that would do to the restaurant business alone. As it >>>is right now I am not sure that our Japanese and Thai places around here >>>will make it. That source tax would potentially push a lot of those over >>>the cliff. >> >>For a restaurant, it's just sales tax; they charge about 8% around >>here already. All restaurants pay it, and people don't order meals >>from Oregon, so it's not a competitive issue as much as it just makes >>people dine out a little less. > >A few percent is the difference between making it and failing in the >restaurant biz. >> >>I suppose some people on the Nevada border cross the line to eat, or >>order pizza from over the line. > >That is trivial and you know it. >> >>But for companies that sell stuff, and have out-of-state competition, >>a gross receipts tax could really hurt. It's a job killer. We pay >>about 10% tax on a profit of 5%. A 5% gross receipts tax would be a >>10x increase. > >So you do kinda sorta get it. >> >>I do like the idea of taxing services as well as stuff, since more and >>more of our economy is services, and the competition for services is >>mostly local. Just adding the existing sales tax to services would >>help the state deficit problem a lot. > >You are really far left whinge aren't you? Or is it only >jealousy/envy? >> >>John >> It makes sense to shift taxes to services that can't easily be outsourced to other countries, and reduce taxation on manufactured goods that can. That helps retain jobs. Do you disagree? And why not have sales taxes on lawyers and auto repair and hair cutting? John |