Ping Larkin
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 8 Nov 2009 12:27 On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:32:25 +0000, ChrisQ <meru(a)devnull.com> wrote: >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 There you go, Rich the Dreaded Libertarian, "consumption tax", go over there and see how well it is working.
From: JosephKK on 8 Nov 2009 12:48 On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:53:41 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:18:07 -0800, >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:24:05 -0800, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> 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? >>> >>>John >> >>I'll bet not a damn one of them has _ever_ been legitimately (ever >>actually having a profit) in business. > >Have you? > >John > I have been business a couple of times but had to fold up and go back to working for another. I had income each time, but after 1 year or so each time it was clear the income would never meet regular bills. It don't worry me none; i learned a lot. I will go for it again in due time.
From: John Larkin on 8 Nov 2009 13:15 On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:24:44 -0800, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. When I get my car fixed at the shop near work, they add sales tax on parts but none on labor. My hair cutter charges no sales tax on cuts but does on products. I do notice. John
From: Jim Thompson on 8 Nov 2009 13:36 On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:15:08 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:24:44 -0800, >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>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. > >When I get my car fixed at the shop near work, they add sales tax on >parts but none on labor. My hair cutter charges no sales tax on cuts >but does on products. > >I do notice. > >John Governments should cut expenses, NOT raise taxes. Furthermore I would propose that there be no taxes on income earned overseas ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Think things are bad now? Wait until Obama "takes care" of you.
From: John Larkin on 9 Nov 2009 12:37
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:44:42 -0800, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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? > You forgot to add "Inquiring minds want to know", so you have to go back 3 steps and start over. John |