 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Electronics - Design Forum » Ping Larkin... |
|
Page 23 of 27 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| JosephKK... |
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:32:28 -0800, Joerg <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid>
wrote:
[quote]John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:39:02 -0800, Joerg <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:08:32 -0700, Joerg <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:48:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat at (no spam) 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.
And that's just the problem we already have. When I sit in a restaurant
with my wife and some friends on a Saturday night and there's maybe five
tables occupied that somehow tells me that a drop to four tables could
already be the end.
I suppose some people on the Nevada border cross the line to eat, or
order pizza from over the line.
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.
Which the guys running a similar business in Nevada do not have to pay.
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. ...
Nope. I could order my custom stationery in Reno if I wanted to. Or send
my watch to a repair place in Tonopah. And when the dentist would have
to slap 8.5% sales tax on a $1500 root canal & crown job people sure as
hell would drive up to Minden or someplace to get it done.
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.
[/quote]
Even if i was doing business less than earnestly, i would always have
receipts for my materials. It prevents way too many arguments. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JosephKK... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:35:56 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon at (no spam) My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:34:00 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:39:02 -0800, Joerg <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:08:32 -0700, Joerg <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:48:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat at (no spam) 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.
I suppose some people on the Nevada border cross the line to eat, or
order pizza from over the line.
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.
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.
John
Shooting politicians and bureaucrats would be more effective 
...Jim Thompson
[/quote]
That is why i keep suggesting open season on them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JosephKK... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <meru at (no spam) devnull.com> wrote:
[quote]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. We all want free market
economics, but business is now too powerfull for the good of nations.
Finding the right balance is not a job I would want.
But heck, what would I know, being in europe ?...
Regards,
Chris
[/quote]
Surprise, surprise, surprise, for once you are actually on the right
track. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JosephKK... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:08:26 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <meru at (no spam) 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
[/quote]
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. Make no mistake, i like small business, which
contributes about 70% of all job creation, i just want big government
to do its proper job by regulating big business cleanly. A foolish
quest, i know. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JosephKK... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:29:42 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam||| at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:40:32 -0600, krw <krw at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:10:25 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:02:38 -0800, Joerg <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid
wrote:
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
Even when the share price is real and through organic growth you can
still get it wrong by buying in at the top of a market cycle. I recall
that happening in a buyout of a company I was working for - the kids
with MBAs that came in to do "due diligence" were clueless and the sale
was done at the absolute top of the market. Great for the owners of
shares in the company being purchased but it sowed the seeds of
destruction for the purchaser.
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.
I thought you were arguing against me in the other thread. Now you have
made my point about the dot.com bust much more eloquently than I did.
And it wasn't just the start-ups that were caught up in irrational
exuberance - remember the 2001 telecoms crash caused by 3G phone
spectrum auctions that damn near bankrupt the mobile phone companies
when they bid way beyond their means to pay or ever make a profit after
putting in the infrastructure. Sophisticated companies who should have
known better tricked into paying way over the odds by a very cleverly
designed sealed bid auction. The likes of Vodaphone and other major
players went into tailspin afterwards.
The stock market is mostly a gambling pool, with a house cut.
Increasingly dominated by very fast program trading that only cares
about the instantaneous value of the share. Owning shares for a few
seconds to make a quick buck does nothing for the company, and acts to
amplify any market instability when things turn nasty.
Regards,
Martin Brown
[/quote]
Gosh, are your prejudices showing much? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JosephKK... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:48:55 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:40:32 -0600, krw <krw at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:10:25 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:02:38 -0800, Joerg <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <meru at (no spam) 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.
[/quote]
House cut? How is it extracted and who gets it and how? Inquiring
minds want to know.
[quote]
John
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JosephKK wrote:
[quote]John Larkin wrote:
dagmargoodb... at (no spam) 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.
[/quote]
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Larkin... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:32:35 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:48:55 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:40:32 -0600, krw <krw at (no spam) att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:10:25 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:02:38 -0800, Joerg <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <meru at (no spam) 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
[/quote]
Brokerage and asset management fees. And the more subtle extraction of
value from the system by can't-lose automated trading, inside deals,
VC parasitism, and management cut-outs. In Las Vegas at least you get
free drinks.
Whining minds are answered.
John |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JosephKK... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:23:31 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam||| at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <meru at (no spam) 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
It depends on whether they maximise the long term value of their stocks
by genuine management skill and organic growth or talk the price up with
a well constructed pack of lies and then dump the stock at peak market
leaving real long term investors to carry the can. The dot.com boom was
a pretty good example of that scam.
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.
No disagreement there. And simpler tax systems are better - but you do
have to do something smart to make sure that working harder always
creates a monotonically improving situation for most people.
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.
Remind me how it was that we ended up having to bail out banks with vast
amounts of taxpayers money? Heads we win - tails you lose casino banking.
The increasing volume of high frequency trades looks like it will be the
next variant on the theme of too big to fail high loss city trading
MFUs. Around 70% of US stock transactions are now high speed programmed
trades parasitic on the businesses they purport to be dealing in. UK
experts are worried that the trend will totally destabilise the markets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8338045.stm
They have found a new high stakes pass the parcel gambling game.
Regards,
Martin Brown
[/quote]
A little behind the times are you? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Larkin... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:18:07 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:24:05 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:08:32 -0700, Joerg <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:48:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat at (no spam) 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.
[/quote]
Have you?
John |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JosephKK... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:39:24 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 17:57:57 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:22 pm, ChrisQ <m... at (no spam) 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.
You meant "unbalance," right?
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. We all want free market
economics, but business is now too powerfull for the good of nations.
Finding the right balance is not a job I would want.
But heck, what would I know, being in europe ?...
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
[/quote]
Only after the funky accounting. Nobody really knows how profitable
really big business is except some of their accountants. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Joerg... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JosephKK wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:32:28 -0800, Joerg <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
[/quote]
[...]
[quote]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.
[/quote]
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Larkin wrote:
[quote]dagmargoodb... at (no spam) 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.
[/quote]
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Larkin... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:53:39 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:08:26 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin at (no spam) highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <meru at (no spam) 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.
[/quote]
The Nigerians don't need help from multinationals; thay are perfectly
competant to abuse themselves.
John |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Larkin... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:00:17 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote:
[quote]JosephKK wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
dagmargoodb... at (no spam) 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?
[/quote]
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:09 am
|
|