Texsox

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 08:22 PM) We go and double the size of our employment pool with some of the best benefits any company can offer. How are you able to do that an stay competitive? Other industries have killed themselves with great benefits.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 01:16 PM) That's still my all-time favorite song. I hummed it to my ex-wife

OMG it's accounting porn for Kap I do not think there is enough fuel for this to get really good.

The "I was wrong about Floyd" is a whose who of Soxtalk. Cool list to be on. Fathom NorthsideSox72 ZoomSlowik Milkman delivers greg775 Tony82087 Dick Allen thedoctor Aaron Rowand Floyd

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 03:00 PM) I would never get elected President because I am not afraid of how the world works. There are counter-arguements out there, but I believe the current and historical results speak to what would portend the future. Do you see ana cross the board drop in wages and benefits, or will it be stratisfied? I keep thinking we're going to see a "coming to the middle".

SS are you suggesting that American auto workers are too well paid and have too generous benefits packages? That to be competitive on a gloabl scale Americans must deal with lower wages and less benefits? You'll never get elected

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.