>>John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:08:32 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:

>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:48:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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

>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:08:32 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:48:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:39:02 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>wrote:

>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:08:32 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:48:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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

>> 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

>>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

>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:10:25 -0800, John Larkin
>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:02:38 -0800, Joerg <inva...@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

>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:10:25 -0800, John Larkin
>><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:02:38 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>>wrote:

>>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <m...@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.

>John

>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:40:32 -0600, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

>>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:10:25 -0800, John Larkin
>>><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>>>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:02:38 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>wrote:

>>>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <m...@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

>>> 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

>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:08:32 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>wrote:

>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:48:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

>>On Nov 2, 5:22 pm, ChrisQ <m...@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

>> John Larkin wrote:

>> 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.

> >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.

>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <m...@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.

>> >>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?

>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:39:02 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>wrote:

>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:08:32 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:48:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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

>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:10:25 -0800, John Larkin
>><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:02:38 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>>wrote:

>>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <m...@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.

> >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.

>> >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?

> 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

> 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.

>> 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.

>Relevant experience, anybody?

>Thanks

>Phil Hobbs

>>How much energy is it safe to dump into an HC-series MUX when
>>discharging a cap?  It would be convenient to be able to discharge 10 nF
>>from 5V to 0 using a 74VHC4053.  I think that is probably safe, but it
>>will certainly exceed the abs max current during the discharge event.

>>Relevant experience, anybody?

>>Thanks

>>Phil Hobbs

>I can't claim to really know, but i get this twitchy feeling that it
>would produce very small incremental damage that would lead to
>lifetime type problems.

>>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:10:20 -0400, Phil Hobbs
>><pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>>>How much energy is it safe to dump into an HC-series MUX when
>>>discharging a cap?  It would be convenient to be able to discharge 10 nF
>>>from 5V to 0 using a 74VHC4053.  I think that is probably safe, but it
>>>will certainly exceed the abs max current during the discharge event.

>>>Relevant experience, anybody?

>>>Thanks

>>>Phil Hobbs

>>I can't claim to really know, but i get this twitchy feeling that it
>>would produce very small incremental damage that would lead to
>>lifetime type problems.

>You don't know, and it won't.

>John