Ping Larkin
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 4 Nov 2009 18:54 On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:48:55 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:40:32 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:10:25 -0800, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:02:38 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>John Larkin 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Also, with all the common dissing of shareholder value one must not >>>>forget one thing: Who started the company and who sunk money into it? >>>>Right, shareholders. They take risks and, rightfully, they want to be >>>>rewarded for taking those risks. At least in America. >>> >>>That's true for IPOs. But after that, the stocks usually become poker >>>chips in a big gambling operation that's disconnected from the >>>company's real performance. Nobody much buys stocks for dividends any >>>more. >> >>THe do expect the company to grow. Profits turned back into growth or >>turned back to the shareholder, either way the shareholder's worth >>increases. > >Most stockholders don't get value from the company's profits. They get >it from selling their stock to others. Right, because the company, thus its stock, has value. >The value of the stock is largely perceptive, The value of everything is perceptive. >sometimes driven only by the positive feedback of >its own increase or decrease in the market. Kinda like everything else. >When you buy a share of >stock on the market, the company gets no investment from that >purchase, except for IPOs and new issues. No, you're transferring your stake in the company to someone else. When I sell a used car Government Motors gets no money from the resale either. >The dot.com boom had lots of >cases of stocks increasing wildly in value as the underlying companies >had massive losses on absurd business models. Certainly, though irrelevant. >The stock market is mostly a gambling pool, with a house cut. Any investment is a gambling pool, with a house cut. Just bury your money in your mattress. Don't worry. Be happy.
From: dagmargoodboat on 4 Nov 2009 19:10 John Larkin wrote: > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >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. The government doesn't publish financials--it just does whatever it wants to. It doesn't have a CPA, and it doesn't have to obey the law. Handy, eh? Hey, since Mr. Obama's touting the benefits of "competition" in healthcare, how 'bout a competitor for the IRS? You know, to provide services cheaper, better, and faster? Oopps, I just burped and accidentally created or saved 3 jobs. How do I collect my $750K? -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: John Larkin on 4 Nov 2009 19:20 On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:10:09 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >John Larkin wrote: >> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >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. > >The government doesn't publish financials--it just does whatever it >wants to. It doesn't have a CPA, and it doesn't have to obey the >law. Handy, eh? > >Hey, since Mr. Obama's touting the benefits of "competition" in >healthcare, how 'bout a competitor for the IRS? You know, to provide >services cheaper, better, and faster? > >Oopps, I just burped and accidentally created or saved 3 jobs. How do >I collect my $750K? Your attempt at parody can't begin to approach the insanity of Obamareality: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMNoef6xDenBbHWO0Im6rIjDmAgAD9BOSE601 "At Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, director Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula said she followed the guidelines the Obama administration provided. She said she multiplied the 508 employees by 1.84 � the percentage pay raise they received � and came up with 935 jobs saved." John
From: ChrisQ on 5 Nov 2009 08:32 John Larkin wrote: > > 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 > We do in the uk and the rest of europe. It's call vat, or value added tax and is payable on just about everything at a fixed rate of 17.5%. Service industries and lawyers included :-). No one likes it, but it seems to work. The more you consume, the more tax you pay. Some things are exempt, but not many. My guess is that it's only a matter of time before the us does something similar... regards, Chris
From: Richard the Dreaded Libertarian on 5 Nov 2009 13:52
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:34:00 -0800, John Larkin wrote: > > 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. No, that's another tax on income, which is wrong. With a purchase tax, the doctors and lawyers and other bureaucrats will pay their tax when they buy toys and boats and SUVs and stuff. Thanks, Rich |