«

On 5/2/2011 8:31 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
> news:4dbb53e5$0$12516$...
>>
>>> Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
<snip>
>>>>
>>>> Ugh! Their fries are too mushy, no crunch in them at all.
>>
>> Only in some of the franchise places. At Coney they sometimes get them right.
>> Well done and crisp on the outside and soft on the inside.
>
> You can shoot me now in light of this confession: I've never been to the one in
> Coney Island. I've never been to the Statue of Liberty or the Empire tate
> Building either (and I never made it to World Trade Towers).
>
>

Two out of the four are still waiting for your visit.
The new Nathans is not as good as the old. When I was dating my wife, we
used to go there at 2:00 AM after watching the submarine races. My Army
reserve unit sent me for training at Ft. Hamilton. Somebody would make a
breakfast hot dog run at about 6:30 AM.
The revised is nowhere near as good as the old, but as I said earlier,
sometimes they get it right.


--
Peter

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.

--
Peter

On May 3, 6:07*am, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> 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.

On May 3, 6:40*am, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> 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.

How ? why should a company employ more people to produce the same
quanitity of product.

> Certainly this would be a better way to spend my tax
> dollars than buying a new car for that bum down ......

That depends what that bum spends it on doesn't it, food
an America car or a Japanese camera ?
Or even a gun, I saw a rather nice 4 barrel hand gun on the antiques
road show a couple of days ago.
Lancaster made in London.

On 5/3/2011 1:07 AM, Bill Graham 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!

Walter is a businessman. I have advised SMBs. All you can do is bluster
about what a Republican says would encourage a small business to hire.
Obviously you were looking in a mirror when you say: :stark raving mad."


--
Peter

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 Graham"<>
>>> 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.

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 Graham"<>
>>> 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.


--
Peter

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?

--
Peter

On Tue, 3 May 2011 12:11:28 -0700, "Bill Graham" <>
wrote:

>Whisky-dave wrote:
>> On May 3, 6:07 am, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> 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.

>"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.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Wed, 04 May 2011 09:35:49 +1200, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

>On Tue, 3 May 2011 12:13:23 -0700, "Bill Graham" <>
>wrote:
>
>>Whisky-dave wrote:
>>> How ? why should a company employ more people to produce the same
>>> quanitity of product.
>>
>>
>>Don't have much imagination, do you Whiskey-dave?
>
>Why should a company employ more people to produce the same quantity
>of product? Unimaginative minds want to know.

They owe someone a favor?

They're being blackmailed?