Ping Larkin
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 6 Nov 2009 18:47 On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:58:56 +0000, ChrisQ <meru(a)devnull.com> wrote: >krw wrote: > >> Just what I like, a regressive tax. ;-) > >The way it works is that the tax is made on the final product. If you >buy in parts, services or just about anything used in the course of >business, you are allowed to reclaim the vat before it is finally sold. >The final tax is charged on the finished product sold to the consumer. I >guess it could be considered regressive, but most taxes are where non >essentials are concerned. Not that i'm defending it, just explaining how >it works. We all know how it works. I said I liked progressive taxes. Those that use government services pay for them, which is only right. >> >> No way. How do you expect the Demonicrats to control society without >> the power to tax indiscriminately? > >I can't really comment on that, but many people in europe, including >myself, were gratefull for any change that got rid of Bush and co, >irrespective of which party he hailed from. More Europeon "logic". Say Hi to slowman, when you kiss. >In the end, it's not the *party*, but what's best for the *country* at >any given time. It's always a compromise between what you as an >individual think and the rest. It's an insult to the intelligence to >suggest that any one party always has all the right answers. The *party* stands for something. That's why the *party* is important. >In the uk, the labour party have been in power since for ever. They will >almost certainly be kicked out in the elections next year, because they >are seen as being a spent force, are becoming too arrogant, >authoritarian, lacking clue and are completely out of touch with the >mood of the nation. The Demonicrats have only been in power 11 months and are already too arrogant, authoritarian, lacking clue and are completely out of touch with the mood of the nation. >Labour are supposed to be the left wing party and much was expected of >them to solve some serious social issues, but they failed completely and >got us involved in an unwinnable (we can debate that) war, who's ethical >justification has never been demonstrated. Add to that all the stasi >like stuff they are trying to introduce and it's a classic case of >reversion to type. Closet authoritarian and anti libertarian to a man :-)... You think lefties are going to solve *any* problems? The dew's still wet on you.
From: JosephKK on 8 Nov 2009 11:44 On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:50:14 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:32:35 -0800, >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>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. The value of the stock is >>>largely perceptive, sometimes driven only by the positive feedback of >>>its own increase or decrease in the market. When you buy a share of >>>stock on the market, the company gets no investment from that >>>purchase, except for IPOs and new issues. 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. >>> >>>The stock market is mostly a gambling pool, with a house cut. >> >>House cut? How is it extracted and who gets it and how? Inquiring >>minds want to know. >> >>> >>>John >>> > >Brokerage and asset management fees. Brokerage fees are mostly gone now, and on average the various asset manage management fees are way excessive (largely hangovers from the early 1900s when it took considerable resources). >And the more subtle extraction of >value from the system by can't-lose automated trading, inside deals, >VC parasitism, and management cut-outs. All of these occur, however not all VC are parasites, though an unmanageable high proportion are. >In Las Vegas at least you get >free drinks. > >Whining minds are answered. Since when is asking a question whining? > >John
From: JosephKK on 8 Nov 2009 11:49 On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:58:23 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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 Nice dodge.
From: JosephKK on 8 Nov 2009 12:11 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. Nice, you just contradicted yourself. > >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. Social Security NEVER was (and never can be) a retirement fund powered by (previous) investments. That popular misconception is foisted on the public by politicians. It is a TAX and an entitlement, always was. Pretty much the same with all of the social programs. > >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. Again a fundamental difference between Governments and Businesses. > >Suppose John Larkin decided to report only 2/3rds of his company's >income--what would the IRS think of that? They would get around to him in a few years, they would like the penalties and interest on penalties and interest on penalties and interest to build up a bit first. > >Madoff was a rookie, a piker. He did far more damage than Mil liken before him. Then again, citizens (be they natural or fictitious) can be held liable for their misdeeds, politicians and governments normally can't. Though the blurring of any distinction (often unto extinction) between the wealthy and the government has been with us for millennia.
From: JosephKK on 8 Nov 2009 12:24
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:05:48 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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? I can neither agree nor disagree, there was no model presented to support the assertion. Though personally i expect that it is at best a half truth. > >And why not have sales taxes on lawyers and auto repair and hair >cutting? > >John I prefer removing exemptions and exclusions for legal practice first, auto repair and hair cutting already charge sales tax, you just did not notice. |