Texsox

The point I was starting at is thus. The closer we get to one tax per person, the simpler things are. As it is now, we pay income tax, sales tax, property tax, tolls on roads, sin taxes, etc. etc. then we start creating things (corporations) so we can tax them too. Taxing a corporation is basically grouping us up to pay another tax. I use to believe the fairest way hypothetically to fund the government is to divide the cost like a restaurant bill. Here's the cost divided evenly between everyone between 25 and 75 years of age. But I now realize that the poorest taxpayers would be paying a much higher percentage of their income then someone with more resources. I also realize if we tried to have everyone pay the same price, and it was based off the poorest person, we would not be building an America we would enjoy living in. So the garduated income tax program is the fairest that provides an America we want to live in with world class roads, military, etc. But wouldn't it be grand if we could stop there? No other taxes. Sorry Kap, perhaps not as wacky as you were hoping

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 01:08 PM) A corporation (not company) is recognized as its own entity that pays taxes so the individuals running it are protected from liability, the corporation assumes all the liability (that's a quick, down and dirty definition) Which is why I prefaced this with "in nature". A corporation is a legal entity, not a natural one.

I noticed some of our best posters, those with the most extrensive baseball knowledge have been slightly wrong on a number of things, others seem to be too worried about their reputations to admit it. Anyone else care to be big men and fess up? I'm thinking of some people who will say they will be the first to admit their mistakes. Floyd in particular has proven some well known, intelligent posters wrong. So please feel free to add your name to the I was wrong about Floyd list . . . (NSS )

Broad stroke comment. In nature a "company" doesn't exist. It does not eat, sleep, drink, crap, or reproduce. A nation is made up of people, not "companies". Why don't we actually tax people and not things? Another thought we cut taxes on people so they can stimulate the economy by buying more products from companies that will not be paying taxes?

QUOTE (YASNY @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 12:45 PM) Wish I could have done Bill more justice on the write up. For some of these players you had to see them play, you had to following the team. For those of us that followed that team, no write up is necessary, for those that didn't, no write up would make a difference. Perhaps he was popular because he was one of the more consistent on the team. He anchored that side of the infield and could be counted on for some offensive highlights.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 12:46 PM) That '77 team grew on a lot of people. And it was more a sum of the parts then the parts. And perhaps it was because we knew it was a "rent a player" situation and the player wasn't renting us.

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 12:57 AM) It's "favorite" white sox players, so his achievements are only part of the equation. What makes someone a favorite is different for every person who took the time to vote. I didn't vote for anyone who I didn't see - which dates back to 1978 or so. That left quite a few of the all time great Sox - Fox, Aparicio, Pierce, Shoeless Joe, Appling, etc - off my list. Does that invalidate my list? No it doesn't invalidate your list at all. My comment was partly tongue in cheek, if you read this thread you will see how much I agree with you. BTW, based on the date you mentioned, you would have seen his play.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 12:09 PM) What about the line of thought that goes "companies don't really pay any taxes, they just collect them from their customers and pass them on to Uncle Sam"? That is an excellent thought, and correct in a lot of examples. But if one company can avoid paying the taxes and their competitor is paying, that gives them an advantage. I believe you have to look at the types of taxes. For example a .90 per pack cigarette tax effects every company the same. Property taxes is variable and does not have the same effect on every company.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 08:31 PM) My oldest son turned 15 today. I feel so old. Gesh, you are a youngin'

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 11:46 AM) The funny thing is that I had absolutely no recollection of making that until it was bumped. I've probably made others in the past like that, and they just got lost in the shuffle. Good thing I never promised to give my middle nut if something did or didn't happen. I never make a bet against something I'd like to see happen.

I said we had two good options at 3rd. That's looking very shaky. We might not have one.

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 10:42 AM) Oh, it's coming, just no reason to jinx Gavin with time left in the season. we'll see That was a bold prediction, I'll give that to you.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 10:38 AM) Hmmmm, I dont remember it being about gamethreads as much as complete posting priveledges...... Maybe it might save your blood pressure if Gavin is successful That's how I remember it It may take more than a post here to cleanse that. This was locker room bulletin board material. Epic actually. I'd be thinking of a much bigger mea culpa.

Great choice, glad he made the list.

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 10:32 AM) Gavin Floyd.....there, I've cleansed myself of the stupid "guarantee" I made. good luck on cleansing that with one post.

I thought this team would contend, so not too many. At this point the Garland trade. I thought it would have turned out worse. I thought Konerko would be better. I thought Crede would have started slower, but finished. Wrong on both. I always think this is the year Buerhle wins 20+ I had the Tigers higher and the Twins lower.

We can encourage companies to do the right thing with deductions (if you are for them) loopholes (if you are against). For example by investing in alternative energy sources an incentive to the company to save on taxes is good for the US. Receiving a tax incentive to build a factory in a certain area or perhaps a baseball stadium can be good for us as well. Another way, is venue shopping. Showing a greater profit in a foreign country. Here is an example for those unfamiliar. Company A owns a factory in Mexico. The Mexico manufacturing company builds a product with their cost of $2.00 and sells the finished goods to the US distribution company. The US arm in turn sells 1,000,000 units to WalMart at $3.00. Here is were the game is played. They could transfer the item at $2 and show no profit in Mexico. They could transfer it at $3 and show no profit in the US. Both processes catch the ire of the respective governments. Using this to avoid paying US taxes is bad for us. So as always there is no clear cut answer. Overall, their employees generally pay taxes, receive wages, and contribute in that way. I've read some well opinioned articles that business should never pay any sort of tax.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 10:03 AM) When I said Congress, I meant state Congress, since we were discussing the state level raises here. And I meant to say it also applies to the Gov. I guess I should have said "State Assembly and Executive" to be more clear. I should have assumed that. I thought we were on a tangent. The minimum requirement should be no pay raise without a surplus.

Imagine a Presidential race in the 1960s through 1980s when Russia was not mentioned. That to me is probably the most interesting tidbit I saw there.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 09:54 AM) This is called goal alignment. Its basic business. If the lawmakers are getting the same increase in real wages that their constituents are, that does two great things. One, it motivates them further to create job growth and development, instead of smokescreen B.S. actions. Two, it creates more trust between lawmakers and their constituents, because they are in the same economic boat, on a RELATIVE basis. I think its very fair. If wages in the state aren't keeping up with inflation, why should Congress get raises and no one else does? Overall, I believe this is a better system than what we currently have, but should Congress be tied into State benchmarks? I agree that state reps, governor, etc should be tied to state benchmarks, but I think COngress should have national benchmarks.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 10, 2008 -> 09:59 PM) Man, you just can't give your BDS a rest for one f***ing post, can you? Look at the light hearted way the picture is posted and maybe make a funny post, not a partisan post. What the hell are you going to do if Obama loses? You will be un f***ing bearable. Two things, Decaf buddy. And if you think he will be unbearable after an Obama loss, imagine what an Obama win will bring. OK three things. (1st Photo of Bush) If this was Clinton, I would puke, Bush makes me laugh.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 10:19 AM) You guys are crazy. For one, money should NEVER be a consideration in why someone wants to run for office. Most of these guys are rich already, the money is a secondary concern. It should be all about working for the public. And of course rich people are better at running the government. We would not want to attract anyone who actually needs the salary. There is a balance. You get what you pay for. Millions is crazy, but $5,000 and a bag of chips is equally crazy.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Aug 8, 2008 -> 06:22 PM) In response to your quote which appears to be gone, there isnt a single person in the world who doesnt break some victimless crime every once in a while. Crimes like that shouldnt be enforced by cameras. Whats next, cameras in peoples houses to see if they cut the tags off their mattresses? Cameras to prevent people from jaywalking? Liberals inability to govern themselves and thirst for the government to control every aspect of their life baffles me. If they want shootings on the south side to stop maybe they need better cops not more cops. I hope I dont have to explain why Blowjobavich claiming he needs more money is so criminal it should piss off every Illinoisan. The man is so corrupt and irresponsible financially and now people are going to defend something like this? Liberals want the government to control every aspect? Let's review. The liberal is saying don't speed and there will be no fines to pay. The conservative is saying people will break the law and speed and will have to pay fines? Who can't control themselves? The governor is corrupt, so don't enforce laws? Brilliant! Drunk, are you telling me conservatives are against the enforcement of laws? The end user can remove the tags from a mattress. But you are correct in one thing, with a Governor like this Illinois can't defend anything.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 09:53 AM) We could give them all 50% raises and still come out ahead if they would eliminate the sweetheart pension deals they get. They should be on social security liek the rest of os, or 401k programs that THEY pay into. They should all be strung up for pushing that theft of tax dollars on us without the people getting any say. And Tex, before you say 'well, you elected them', that doesn't matter. Even if you threw them all oout the next cycle as punishment, you think the new guys are gonna end that cushy perk? No way. Actually you did not elect the benefit packages. My comment is mroe along the lines is the government needs to be competitive in salary and benefits with the private sector. The disagreement is whether or not a state rep should be considered the same as a shift manager at McDonalds, a regional manager at All State Insurance, or the CEO of a 100,000,000 company. And before you say they should pay for the privilege of being a State Rep or work only for expenses like George Washington, I think it is unrealistic and you should want to recruit the best possible person.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 09:35 AM) so in your mind, the President, Govenor, Lawmakers, etc are the same as a Dental Hygenist in Burbank, IL? They should be treated the same way, and compensated the same? Couldn't one argue, that being the Govenor of Illinois is a bit more important than your average joe? One can argue anything I believe the American public, over all, would do well with giving law makers merit raises or at least have some criteria for the raises other then longevity or inflation. Perhaps on the state level there will be a raise if There is a net reduction in the state debt, or increase in the surplus There is a net drop in the unemployment rate Crime is down etc In other words, reward them for doing a good job. Have all the lawmakers with the same incentives besides getting reelected.