Sometimes stupid loses

On 5/3/2011 9:44 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 5:46 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 12:11:28 -0700, "Bill
wrote:

Whisky-dave wrote:
On May 3, 6:07 am, "Bill wrote:
Walter Banks wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

So the government needs to give small businesses some incentive
to spend more on capital and start hireing again. Maybe a tax
break for taking on more employees?

Tax rates are not the deterring factor for small business to hire
more employees. I have owned businesses in both Canada and the
United States. More employees are hired most frequently in
response to an emerging market.

Most small business would like to earn enough to pay taxes.

w..

Most republicans would disagree with you. I disagree with you.
Obama should give a tax break as an incentive to small businesses
who hire more employees. A big enough break so that they can
realize a profit by hiureing someone else. This would directly
affect the unemployment rate. Instead he took $4000 of my tax
money and gave it to that bum down the block to buy himself a new
car with. You liberals are crazy....Stark raving mad!

Would that really work though, surely giving a company more money
is likely that
money would end up in the pockets of those in charge of it.
if you cut the taxes to a burger chain would they really employ
more burger flippers,
surely you'd only employ more staff if demand went up.

Not if you linked the tax break to the new employees. the IRS caqn
do that easily. Just put it in their form 1040.

We can see how knowledgeable you are, Bill. The form 1040 is for
individuals, not corporations.


The vast majority of small to medium-sized businesses are run through
a flow-through entity such as: partnership; LLC; subchapter S
corporation. Unless certain elections are made all tax attributes are
taxed at the individual level. Thus Bill is correct in saying that a
change could be made to form 1040 to implement his proposal. However,
as I said earlier it is not the IRS who makes the change.

The form 1040 is one of the best things the government has. It has taken
over 80 yhears to perfect, by thousands of tax cdourts and their
decisions. That's why I laugh when people want to replace it with a
National sales tax system.. What a boon to the tax lawyers that would
be! They can redo all that courtroom work for another 80 years! And, in
the mneantime, the super rich, like Bill Gates and Opera Winfrey (and
those of their ilk) would make out like bandits. If they were only taxed
on what they spend, they would take over the world in about 5 years.....:^)

Your statement has absolutely nothing to do with the original point. On
one hand you say you like our system of taxation, while on the other
hand you would somehow like to see it used as an instrument of economic
policy. To my memory there were only two people who understood how to
properly use the tax system as an instrument of economic policy. One was
Wilbur Mills and the other was Rostenkowski, who ran a very far second
two Wilbur Mills. Nobody else has ever come close.

Your constant whining about money being taken out of your pocket is on a
par with Rich Anderson's whining about nonexistent problems. For that
reason my preference will be not to respond unless you get even more
outrageous.

Trust me, I could argue either side of the issue far more effectively
than you would ever think. I do not choose to. I am more interested in
learning and perfecting my photography.
--
Peter

PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 8:40 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
John A. wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2011 22:11:12 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

John A. wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:45:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
In article 2011043018143177923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2011-04-30 17:27:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
said:

Le Snip


I once called my automobile insurance company and said, "Look.
The most dangerous car on the road is a Corvette Sting Ray.
(this was in 1963) Imagine that I am always driving one of
these, and charge me for my liability policy accordingly. Then
whenever I am driving any other car, you will be making
money." And, of course, they said, "I'm sorry sir, but we
can't do that."

I think you might find the car you are referring to is the
"Corvair" not the "Corvette."

You have your old pal Ralph Nader to thank for that. Do you
remember a little essay of his titled, "Unsafe at Any Speed"?

Don't be too sure. Insurance companies aren't stupid and do have
a large body of data to work from--they'd base their rates on
the statistics, not on Ralp Nadir's uninformed opinion.

Dunno why a 'vette would be exceptionally dangerous--even then
they had good suspension and good brakes (by US standards
anyway)--but they could go very fast and some owners tended to
do so with regularity.

Yes. They weren't dangerous. It was the drivers who were
dangerous. That's why liability insurance should be written on
drivers and not cars.

Actuaries aren't stupid. They take all the information about a
driver they can, and correlate it with average payouts for drivers
who fit a particular driver's profile. One such piece of
information is a person's driving record. Another is the kind of
car they drive.

But it doesn't take much more than common sense to figure that
even if someone with a stellar driving record suddenly goes out
and buys a corvette, there's a fair shot his driving habits might
be about to change.

I never said that everyone's liability premium had to be the same.
Those with poor driving records would naturally have to pay more
for their liability insurance. This is the case now, and there is
no reason to change it. I am just suggesting that the liability
insurance be written on the driver, and not the vehicle. Drivers
cause accidents, not cars. (People kill people, not the guns.)

Cars aren't all alike either. Some are more expensive to repair.
Some will tend to do more damage to the other car in any given
accident. Some give better or worse visibility. Some tend to be
driven by people who live around people with
more-expensive-to-repair cars.

Gee. You sond just like that lobbiest many years ago who convinced
some congressional committee to let (mandate) the insurance
companies write liability policies on cars instead of people. Sorry.
I don't buy it. It makes billions of dollars for the insurance
companies every year. From all us poor slobs who have more cars than
drivers in their families. Just another thing I bitch about that
falls on deaf liberal ears........

Your knowledge of insurance company regulations is underwhelming.
Insurance company existence, reserves, rate making and underwriting
practices are set only by the states. I have no idea what this
"lobbyist" was lobbying for, I suspect you don't either, but it
certainly would have absolutely nothing to do with the subject you are
ranting about. For you to call insurance company executives liberals
is almost laughable. Indeed, if you bother to look through the forms
filed on behalf of of publicly held insurance companies you will find
that the vast majority of the upper echelon management is Irish.

If it is the status quo, then you are going to defend it. For the life of me
I don't understand why they call people like me, "conservatives" and people
like you, "progressives". It is just the other way around. You are a schill
for the government. anything it does and any law that is on the books has to
be the word of God in your book. government can do no wrong. Insurance
companies have been cheating me on their liability policies all of my
driving life. I know it, and you are far to ignorant of my situation and
experience to be able to convince me otherwise. My brother-in-law used to
call his insurance company every morning and tell the secretary there which
car to switch his liability policy to for that day. Do you think he did this
because the insurance company had a realistic and fair billing practice? Of
course not. and he was a brilliant engineer who owned his own firm in the
Bay Area for many years.

I think I am very tired of this discussion. I have better things to do than
argue with idiots. Right now, I am trying to find out why the Social
Security administration cheats every geezer out of a paycheck I have written
several letters about this and I get no answer. It nets SS about 2.5 Billion
dollars a year. But it takes time for me to do things like this, so I will
have to bow out of this group for a while. You guys can go back to
photography. I am sorry I disturbed you.

On 5/3/2011 9:49 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 20:26:28 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/3/2011 7:56 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 19:42:16 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/3/2011 5:46 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 12:11:28 -0700, "Bill
wrote:

Whisky-dave wrote:
On May 3, 6:07 am, "Bill wrote:
Walter Banks wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

So the government needs to give small businesses some incentive to
spend more on capital and start hireing again. Maybe a tax break
for taking on more employees?

Tax rates are not the deterring factor for small business to hire
more employees. I have owned businesses in both Canada and the
United States. More employees are hired most frequently in
response to an emerging market.

Most small business would like to earn enough to pay taxes.

w..

Most republicans would disagree with you. I disagree with you. Obama
should give a tax break as an incentive to small businesses who hire
more employees. A big enough break so that they can realize a profit
by hiureing someone else. This would directly affect the
unemployment rate. Instead he took $4000 of my tax money and gave it
to that bum down the block to buy himself a new car with. You
liberals are crazy....Stark raving mad!

Would that really work though, surely giving a company more money is
likely that
money would end up in the pockets of those in charge of it.
if you cut the taxes to a burger chain would they really employ more
burger flippers,
surely you'd only employ more staff if demand went up.

Not if you linked the tax break to the new employees. the IRS caqn do that
easily. Just put it in their form 1040.

We can see how knowledgeable you are, Bill. The form 1040 is for
individuals, not corporations.


The vast majority of small to medium-sized businesses are run through a
flow-through entity such as: partnership; LLC; subchapter S corporation.
Unless certain elections are made all tax attributes are taxed at the
individual level. Thus Bill is correct in saying that a change could be
made to form 1040 to implement his proposal. However, as I said earlier
it is not the IRS who makes the change.

In these cases, the change would be made on Schedule C, then, wouldn't
it? Not the 1040.


Schedule C is a part of form 1040. Only a business that operates as
either a sole proprietorship or a single member LLC would have its
profits and losses reported on schedule C. The results of operations for
the other flow-through entities would be reported on schedule E. Any
special tax characteristics would not be listed on either schedules C or
E, but would be reported somewhere else on form 1040, depending upon the
nature of the characteristic. For example: premiums paid for self
employed health insurance are reported on page 1 as an adjustment to
gross income and on schedule SE as a reduction of self-employment
income. For further information consult your own individual tax advisor.

I always had one of those.


I don't think anybody ever had justifiable grounds for calling you
stupid. :-)

--
Peter

PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 8:54 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 1:35 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 5/1/2011 11:25 PM, John A. wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:49:21 -0700, "Bill
wrote:

snip
Exactly. The money's there, for the most part. It's just not
flowing.

So the government needs to give small businesses some incentive
to spend more on capital and start hireing again. Maybe a tax
break for taking on more employees?

IIRC they did something like that. On the other side of the
getting-things-moving coin, most of the stimulus costs were in
the form of a tax credit for everyone. The idea was that most of
the money would go to people who couldn't afford to be saving
money, and so were more likely to spend it rather than sock it
away.

IIRC in a prior rant our Billy called it something like stealing
his money and giving it away. Even when the Stimulus funds went to
certain banks, auto companies and financial service firms. That
some of this started under Pres. Bush has not stopped Billy from
blaming our current President.

I am against giving my money to anyone, regardless of who does it.
Bush was a half liberal, Obama is a 3/4 liberal. both of them are
adept at spending other peoples money. Its just that Obama (and
company) spends it like three times as fast as Bush did.

Yup! No Democrat authorized the killing of Bin Laden.

That's not true. Both Democrats and Republicans have "authorized" his
killing since 9-11-01.


Your ability to recognize sarcasm is simply one more of your
underwhelming characteristics.

Do you prefer the above statement to "woosh?"

If your sarcasm complimented some valid point or counterpoint, I would
recognize it and accept it, but when it makes a lame attempt to substitute
for that, or for an apology, then I am not interested.

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 18:33:01 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 14:18:02 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/3/2011 1:20 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 23:17:40 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:45:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
In article 2011043018143177923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2011-04-30 17:27:40 -0700, "Bill Graham"
said:

Le Snip


I once called my automobile insurance company and said,
"Look. The most dangerous car on the road is a Corvette
Sting Ray. (this was in 1963) Imagine that I am always
driving one of these, and charge me for my liability policy
accordingly. Then whenever I am driving any other car, you
will be making money." And, of course, they said, "I'm
sorry sir, but we can't do that."

I think you might find the car you are referring to is the
"Corvair" not the "Corvette."

You have your old pal Ralph Nader to thank for that. Do you
remember a little essay of his titled, "Unsafe at Any Speed"?

Don't be too sure. Insurance companies aren't stupid and do
have a large body of data to work from--they'd base their
rates on the statistics, not on Ralp Nadir's uninformed
opinion.

Dunno why a 'vette would be exceptionally dangerous--even then
they had good suspension and good brakes (by US standards
anyway)--but they could go very fast and some owners tended to
do so with regularity.

Yes. They weren't dangerous. It was the drivers who were
dangerous. That's why liability insurance should be written on
drivers and not cars.

Actuaries aren't stupid. They take all the information about a
driver they can, and correlate it with average payouts for
drivers who fit a particular driver's profile. One such piece of
information is a person's driving record. Another is the kind of
car they drive.

But it doesn't take much more than common sense to figure that
even if someone with a stellar driving record suddenly goes out
and buys a corvette, there's a fair shot his driving habits
might be about to change.

Like a mid-life crisis involving his first sports car, first
hooker, and blow job going 110mph with the top off.

I am still waiting to be convinced that liability insurance
shouldn't be written on the drivers and not the cars.

If you didn't own a car and had a drivers license, you would be
bitching the other way.

I don't think Bill understands what his auto liability insurance is.

For sure, Bill doesn't understand the way a business works. The
auto insurance companies have figured out how much in premiums they
have to charge to cover their payouts in accidents and turn a
profit. At the current time, the premiums are based on the
individual automobiles owned by the insured.

If Bill could magically change things that so they would charge the
owner for liability, regardless of the number of automobiles owned,
the premium would be the same. The insurance company still needs to
bring in amount equal to estimated payout plus profit. (A greatly
simplified formula, but basically sound)

What comfort Bill would get in having one bill for $1,000 (to make
up a number) for individual liability coverage instead of one bill
for two automobiles at $600 for one and $400 for the second is
beyond me. (Using Bill's 80% figure for the second car)

In the above scenario, if Bill sold the second car, his liability
charge would drop to $600, and in the present situation his cost
would drop to $600. Six of one...

Now Bill will come back and ask why no one can explain why the
change isn't made.

How about if you have three or four vehicles? 100% plus 3 x 80% is
340% of a policy primium. And you are paying this 100% of the time,
even though when you are driving one vehicle, the other three are
parked in your garage and can't be driven anywhere.

Simple, Bill. Under your scheme, your liability insurance goes up to
exactly the same rate as the combined rate of the three or four cars.
It's the same principle: expected outlay in payouts plus profit. I
would think someone trained in maths would be able to figure that out.

What you are driving, or what cars in the garage, have nothing to do
with it. It's projected outlay plus profit = cost to you in premium.

Whether you drive one car four times as often, or each of four cars
one-fourth as much, the expected cost to the insurance company is the
same.

I knew you'd ask.

That's right! I can only be on the road 24 hours a day, so charging me 340%
of a premium is criminal! It is not their business how many cars I have
unless I can drive more than one of them at once. Why can't you see that?
Your stupidity grows in my mind by leaps and bounds......

PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 8:59 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 1:57 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-02 22:21:31 -0700, "Bill Graham"
said:
snip

Yes. about half of us are wimps today. (all the Democrats)

Don't bet on that.

Well, at least a significant number of republicans keep guns and
ammo in their homes......

The truth comes out at last. Owning a gun sure makes you feel like a
man. Is your gun a substitute for your penis?

And where did you get, "the truth at last" from that? Where did that
absurd conclusion come from?

Did I hit a sensitive nerve?

Only because I am incensed by your gross stupidity, and refusal to
understand a simple point and address it meaningfully. You are just wasting
my time, so I should go elsewhere and do other, more useful things......

PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 8:56 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 1:40 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 5/1/2011 11:01 PM, Walter Banks wrote:


Bill Graham wrote:

So the government needs to give small businesses some incentive
to spend more on capital and start hireing again. Maybe a tax
break for taking on more employees?

Tax rates are not the deterring factor for small business to hire
more employees. I have owned businesses in both Canada and the
United States. More employees are hired most frequently in
response to an emerging market.

Most small business would like to earn enough to pay taxes.




I used to represent many small - medium businesses. (Between four
and twenty million gross.) I cannot recall any instance where a
machinery purchase was made because of a tax credit. The credit
might affect the timing of the purchase, but not whether to
purchase.

Well, I am suggesting that a large enough tax credit for hireing
another employee might be the ticket to making a significant
reduction in the unemployment rate. Certainly this would be a
better way to spend my tax dollars than buying a new car for that
bum down the block......

You mean the government paying a business to hire an employee to do
nothing? Something like paying a "farmer" not to grow corn?

No. But an incentive might be not having to pay his FICA, or
deductions for the first couple of years. or something like that....
No accounting or fees, is a pretty good incentive.....

let me put this in terms that I think even you will understand. You
need to people to do your landscaping so you hire them at the going
rate. The government will give you an incentive to hire more people.
Three quarters of their salary will be paid by the government if you
hire five more people than you really need. This three quarters of
their salary will only be paid for the five additional people. You
have now been given a good incentive to hire. Would you do that?

I might consider buying that pick-up truck I saw the other day, and putting
another crew to work, yes. If the market was there, or I suspected the
market might be there. There are lots of ways that some businesses might use
more employees, and some businesses could not use any more employees at all.
But if the incentive is there, a lot more people would be put to work. After
all we are talking about a nation of 300 million people.

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 18:36:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 3:11 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:


Would that really work though, surely giving a company more money
is likely that
money would end up in the pockets of those in charge of it.
if you cut the taxes to a burger chain would they really employ
more burger flippers,
surely you'd only employ more staff if demand went up.

Not if you linked the tax break to the new employees. the IRS caqn
do that easily. Just put it in their form 1040. "If you hired a new
employee between such and such a date and such and such a date,
then subtrack 10% of the amount on line such and such and add it
to line such and such" This kind of thing is typical of the form
1040, and new instructions like this appear every year.

You obviously have no idea how the IRS works. The forms are designed
to conform to the Revenue Code, which BTW, is enacted by congress.
Not any other entity. The IRS, after publication, notice to the
public and hearings then promulgates regulations that interpret the
Code. No! Billy boy, the IRS does not just put arbitrary boxes on
forms. Indeed about six years ago they made an error in the design
of a form
(6251.) It was a real mess to straighten out.

Of course its "e3nacted by congress". This is the same congress that
authorizes Obama and company to spend trillions and bring us deeply
into debt, is it not? What does that have to do with giving some
incentive to businesses to hire more people? It is a uniquely
liberal idea. Why are you against it? I can't even take credit for
it. It is not my idea.

I think you guys are just government schills. anything the
government does, (or at least the democrats do) is A#1 in your book.
No matter how stupid it is.

I don't know the work history of the other people in this newsgroup,
but I have been a business owner since the 70s (until I sold the
business and retired a few years ago). While I later owned a couple
of smaller businesses, the company I owned for the most time grew from
two to over 40 employees.

I would have never hired an employee based on any form of tax rebate
or tax incentive. I won't begin to explain why since you just do not
have the mental capacity understand. You know so little about it that
it would a book to explain it, and you wouldn't be receptive to
anything you don't already have an entrenched opinion about.

What you propose is almost like featherbedding with the government
being the union and the government subsidizing the extra employee.

No point = no reply.

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 17:43:14 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

John A. wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2011 22:35:52 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

PeterN wrote:
On 5/1/2011 11:25 PM, John A. wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:49:21 -0700, "Bill
wrote:

snip
Exactly. The money's there, for the most part. It's just not
flowing.

So the government needs to give small businesses some incentive
to spend more on capital and start hireing again. Maybe a tax
break for taking on more employees?

IIRC they did something like that. On the other side of the
getting-things-moving coin, most of the stimulus costs were in
the form of a tax credit for everyone. The idea was that most of
the money would go to people who couldn't afford to be saving
money, and so were more likely to spend it rather than sock it
away.

IIRC in a prior rant our Billy called it something like stealing
his money and giving it away. Even when the Stimulus funds went to
certain banks, auto companies and financial service firms. That
some of this started under Pres. Bush has not stopped Billy from
blaming our current President.

I am against giving my money to anyone, regardless of who does it.
Bush was a half liberal, Obama is a 3/4 liberal. both of them are
adept at spending other peoples money. Its just that Obama (and
company) spends it like three times as fast as Bush did.

And yet according to your other post you think businesses should be
given tax breaks, for hiring new employees, in excess of the payroll
costs for those new employees.

It would be cheaper just to have the government hire more people.

Well, that certainly is the Socialist answer: "let the government do
it".

But you want the government to pay for the people through tax
incentives. That's letting the government do it.

Yes, but my point is that even when you liberals do it, you do it
wrong....:^)

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 17:48:24 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


Only the union members get their dues deducted.

Not so in California in the 70's. I had dues deducted from my
paycheck for a while, and I was not a union member. They
conveniently seperated membership from paying dues......

But you got the same benefits as the union workers, didn't you?

I got the, "benefit" of seeing my fellow workers of lesser ability make as
much as I did for a while. (Until I was promoted out of the union.)