Well, my friend Liz thinks that Jimmy Kimmel is not funny, not funny at all. (I'll be honest with, I can't remember why she feels this way, but I think it has something to do with the Man Show) Well, I'll say this, Liz is wrong- this is crazy funny; and this is even better. Watch for all of the cameos in the second clip.
As my friends in Montreal would say: c'est tres funny. Yes, they realize that they should say tres drole (or, rigolo, according to http://www.wordreference.com/enfr/funny) but they use English words all over they pseudo-french conversations.
Later,
B
Friday, February 29, 2008
Jimmy Kimmel is so funny
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
in regards to the lower taxes on companies, not rich people:
ok, so i know you have a bunch of econ classes under your belt... but did they not teach you that companies ARE rich people? if ford gets a whole bunch of money b/c of lowered taxes, do you think they are going to put it somewhere useful to the econmy? bonuses, corporate jets, and conferences in the bahamas... and let me tell you, it's not going to be $35,000/year joe blow taking the jet to a tropical paradise with a pocket full of cash...
if you want to help the economy, give tax breaks to companies that pay their employees good money. there, now my wanting ordinary people to get paid enough to live on, and your wanting to keep business costs down have met! common ground!!!
p.s. the matt damon and ben afleck songs made me laugh for half an hour
JaBaL:
You theory is interesting, giving tax breaks to companies that better benefit the lower and middle class, but it fails on several fronts.
The first is that it is hard to target companies that benefit these favored groups. Laws, especially tax laws, have to have specific parameters to be enforceable. These parameters that would have to be set for this law to be effective could be manipulated; and firms that didn't live up to the spirit, but did live up to the letter of the law could benefit from this law.
A second reason that your proposal would fail is that enforcing compliance to these new parameters would prove expensive. Companies would claim that they do comply; some bureaucrat at the IRS would claim they didn't, and a lawsuit would entail. Resources would be lost to the system, not employed in an economy growing activity.
A third area where your plan would fail is that the firms that treat their employees well might not be the most efficient at asset allocation. If it is true that the "good" firms are as efficient as the "bad" firms AND the "good" firms are advantaged (through tax breaks); then the economy will suffer as capital is inefficiently allocated.
Another two points to make, that are not strictly germane to your proposal, are as follows:1) companies are not people, hence not cutting taxes on the wealthy but corporations, and 2) its about lowering costs for all companies, not just the ones we prefer.
The first point is a fine distinction, but a necessary one. While people do own companies, companies are not people - especially C-corp companies. The tax laws that apply to people do not apply to companies, and vice-versa. A firm can take in revenue, apply costs against it, and only pay taxes on the profit. Now, C-corps can hold income at the corporation (S-corps, LLC’s, and LLP’s must pass income and losses to the owners every year) indefinitely. This income can be spent on new jets (which employs thousands of blue collar workers making coin), new equipment, more workers, etc. It does not set in the family trust where it makes sure that Mr. Big Wig’s kids never have to worry about earning a living. When a company does pass along the extra money along to its owners (through a dividend or a stock buy back) the proceeds received by the owners are taxed again. (Once for corp taxes and again for individual taxes)
The second point is important in that society can benefit from lower prices on goods. If the good companies get a break, and lower prices (or inflation slows, take your pick) then society is better off. If the bad companies do the same, then society is better off, too. It does not have to be a zero sum game.
In conclusion, your idea is a good one, but there are too many obstacles to keep it from being particle. The costs associated with its implementation, and the uncertainty of advantaging the “good” firms makes it a risky play.
Later,
B
Post a Comment