See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy - ticked off in Diamond Bar, CA | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
2. Waking up from a nightmare; America’s harsh reality « Northern Thoughts And Reflections
3. Cheat Seeking Missiles » Firing The Success Retro-Rockets
4. This is was never a stimulus plan but a TAX and SPEND plan! | Robert Opyd (baghdad-bob)
5. The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » Going John Galt?
6. Atlas is shrugging « Right Minded Online
7. Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Thoughts About The Whole “Going Galt” Meme
8. Going John Galt: Stop–UPDATED « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #640275
   On March 5th, 2009 at 2:22 pm, zeroangel said:

   corkie:

   She might be bad at articulating herself, but I honestly believe she’s thinking about the situation correctly.

   …and I honestly believe that she is either ignorant or disingenuous. Fact is, we can’t read her mind and she isn’t here to ask, so we don’t know.

   In any case Stillwaiting said it best:

   She doesn’t want to pay higher taxes that will be used to socialize the US. Good for her!!! Someone should tell her she doesn’t need to lay off staff. To reduced her taxable income she could actually add staff or just put a little less effort into generating sales.

2. #640302
   On March 5th, 2009 at 2:30 pm, corkie said:

   On March 5th, 2009 at 2:22 pm, zeroangel said:

   Arg. Did you see my reply to Stillwaiting?

3. #640325
   On March 5th, 2009 at 2:40 pm, zeroangel said:

   corkie:

   …and I would respond thusly:

   The whole point is about making less net income so that you pay less to the government.

   Earlier another poster pointed out, why not just accept less pay?

   Why not just hire people to stand around and not do anything?

   If you are just trying to deny the government income there are plenty of better ways to go about it then start laying off people.

4. #640432
   On March 5th, 2009 at 3:52 pm, corkie said:

   On March 5th, 2009 at 2:40 pm, zeroangel said:

   Why not just hire people to stand around and not do anything?

   If you are just trying to deny the government income there are plenty of better ways to go about it then start laying off people.

   Are you serious? Staff require effort (even if they’re just standing around). Less staff means less effort. It’s kinda like reducing your hours. It kinda fits with what I believe about her situation.

5. #640443
   On March 5th, 2009 at 4:01 pm, zeroangel said:

   corkie:

   Is that so? So let’s say you “hire” someone to stay at home and do nothing. Let’s say you donate some money to get a tax write-off. Or, again, why not simply accept less pay? Why not accept less pay AND use the extra $50,000 to hire someone to help manage the business and in effect you exert less “effort.”

   I can’t help but think you are torturing language here because you just don’t want to admit what this “Kay” person is saying is just silly.

   Not only silly, but will needlessly result in some people becoming unemployed.

6. #640485
   On March 5th, 2009 at 4:39 pm, corkie said:

   On March 5th, 2009 at 4:01 pm, zeroangel said:

   Who’s being silly?

   Do you have any business experience at all?

   Why would she reduce her revenues AND pay useless employees? That would be a double hit.

   Or are you seriously suggesting that she should put the extra effort required to maintaining her revenue AND hiring new employees?

   It seems as if she, like many of us, is thinking about reducing her efforts of generating income. In making such reductions, it’s logical to cut the activities which generate the least amount of profit (note to chapoutier: that doesn’t mean that the targeted activities are UNprofitable). None of your ideas mesh with that.

   I don’t think there’s anything silly about what she’s saying. However, I am doubting your business experience.

7. #640497
   On March 5th, 2009 at 4:52 pm, chapoutier said:

   In making such reductions, it’s logical to cut the activities which generate the least amount of profit (note to chapoutier: that doesn’t mean that the targeted activities are UNprofitable).

   If she is cutting activities that are even marginally profitable, she certainly could not expect to end up “keeping the same amount” could she?

8. #640531
   On March 5th, 2009 at 5:36 pm, zeroangel said:

   corkie:

   This is getting tedious and crossing into ridiculous “Arguments from authority.”

   Business experience or not; and yes I do have some; you have yet to explain away why she shouldn’t instead take a lesser salary or donate to charity for a tax-exemption.

   Either way could conceivably lower her taxable income and thus reach the desired goals without needlessly firing employees.

   PS. What Chap said.

9. #640533
   On March 5th, 2009 at 5:38 pm, zeroangel said:

   PPS. To be clear, my business experience involves not running my own business but being a production manager and purchasing manager in a small business. That said, I think I have just one or two things to offer about how a small business gets run.

10. #640536
    On March 5th, 2009 at 5:42 pm, zeroangel said:

    *purchasing agent and one of only two in the company.

    Sorry.

11. #640561
    On March 5th, 2009 at 6:10 pm, zeroangel said:

    PPPS.

    … and I hope this puts this to bed.

    I understand exactly what you are saying. You are saying that what “Kay” means to say is that she is cutting marginally profitable activites because of dimishing returns due to higher taxes above $250,000. This will allow her to make the same “ammount” where “making the same ammount” means “making the same ammount per unit of effort.”

    I get it. I just think you are wrong and are torturing the plain meaning of words because you don’t want to admit what seems plainly obvious: that she actually thinks a person with a taxable income of $249,999 actually brings home more after taxes than a person making $250,000. This is plainly false.

    No doubt you will try to say thatit is me that is reading it wrong. I am sorry, I just don’t think so, and unfortunately, “Kay,” is here to clarify (or backpeddle).

12. #640563
    On March 5th, 2009 at 6:12 pm, zeroangel said:

    *”Kay” isn’t here

    Sorry for the rapid fire posts but I was hoping to end this thread .

13. #640565
    On March 5th, 2009 at 6:16 pm, corkie said:

    On March 5th, 2009 at 6:10 pm, zeroangel said:

    You understand my point, but don’t believe my candor?

    I wouldn’t have jumped into this thread if I didn’t honestly believe what I’m saying. Believe me, I know how involved these debates can get, and I don’t decide to take the plunge lightly.

14. #640568
    On March 5th, 2009 at 6:18 pm, corkie said:

    On March 5th, 2009 at 4:52 pm, chapoutier said:

    If she is cutting activities that are even marginally profitable, she certainly could not expect to end up “keeping the same amount” could she?

    Arg. My note to you was merely a comment regarding the whole bad manager issue. Forget it, I shouldn’t have reopened it.

15. #640675
    On March 5th, 2009 at 7:46 pm, Stillwaiting said:

    On March 5th, 2009 at 2:22 pm, zeroangel said:

    Thanks, you and Chap both made great (and logical) points throughout this messy thread.