tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3358107861621380505.comments2013-10-31T02:50:19.090-07:00The Audacity of ReasonRyan T. Darbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06536296607286554798noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3358107861621380505.post-52580441969275488982013-10-31T02:50:19.090-07:002013-10-31T02:50:19.090-07:00I have enjoyed the privilege of studying under Joh...I have enjoyed the privilege of studying under John as one of his law school pupils, and then working for him on a number of his constitutional law cases. <a href="http://www.criminallawyerorangecounty.net/" rel="nofollow">orange county criminal defense lawyer</a><br />albina N murohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08139646674252673476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3358107861621380505.post-40835713270428935932011-10-16T15:34:39.790-07:002011-10-16T15:34:39.790-07:00That's what taxes are ALREADY for (or should b...That's what taxes are ALREADY for (or should be). Wanna pay more? Come to Italy: we have a wonderful social system. And I'm wondering why people is protesting even in such a beautiful place...gdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12836304631601045092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3358107861621380505.post-20209037132175812682011-10-12T18:38:50.859-07:002011-10-12T18:38:50.859-07:00Maybe she does give it away. I'm actually sure...Maybe she does give it away. I'm actually sure she does. But OWS is a completely separate movement than a charity. This is a national thing. Sure, giving money to a homeless man helps him eat. But does giving a homeless man money fix roads, build schools, create jobs, or provide health care? No, that's what TAXES are forAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3358107861621380505.post-7325937071572679092011-02-14T11:46:15.364-08:002011-02-14T11:46:15.364-08:00The city ban was called the "Small Business a...The city ban was called the "Small Business and Neighborhood Store Protection Act." Was it?<br /><br />The day the SD city council repealed its ill-advised DE FACTO Walmart ban, there were over 20 of us speaking against the ban (well, against the anti-choice law) and maybe 60 who favored the ban. But of the 60 pro-ban speakers, not ONE owned (or worked in) a small business! Almost ALL were labor union members.<br /><br />And not just members -- it was shop stewards and higher union officials from a variety of supporting unions. And almost all spoke about the evils of Walmart -- not the evils of big box stores.<br /><br />It became painfully clear that this was a labor union measure. The cc vote was 7-1 for the repeal, after it initially was passed by a 6-2 margin. <br /><br />The frisky part of me wanted it to go to the ballot. We would have won by a 2-1 margin -- or better.Richard Riderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00093024292205684588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3358107861621380505.post-89209183611738724412011-02-09T10:03:30.168-08:002011-02-09T10:03:30.168-08:00First, the notion that "small business" ...First, the notion that "small business" refers to all entities that elect to be taxed on a pass-through basis (LLC's, partnerships of all kinds, S Corporations) is a stretch. Many of our largest companies, and particularly many of the wealthiest individuals, choose such a form purely for tax reasons (see the Koch brothers, many large service businesses). Small business, those that actually create the vast majority of jobs, should be defined by sales (under $5 million? under $50M?), not their tax treatment.<br /><br />Second, in most small businesses, such as the ones I have owned and managed over thirty plus years before becoming an attorney (my law firm is a small business on both the tax and revenue criteria), wages are a small element in overall cost. In most manufacturing businesses, labor accounts for 2-10% of sales. In most service businesses, that percentage might be as high as 40-50%. In other words, to rationally decide to make a new hire, one must look at far more than the wages and benefit "burden" involved.<br /><br />Third, businesses big and small almost never pay the "posted" tax rates. Small business owners pay for cars and other perks through the business, thus reducing their taxes. They expense capital equipment, whether legitimately used in the business or not (SUV's over 6,000 lbs. driven by owners and their families). They derive all sorts of untaxed benefits by owning a small business. As for bigger businesses, they pay a small (2-15%) of their net income (already manipulated downward in ways that would make a contortionist ache).<br /><br />Yes, taxes do factor into the equation, but businesses hire when there is a demand for their service or product, such that the incremental profit makes it rational, not because taxes are low. If there is no demand, the tax rate doesn't matter.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00444133627281687743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3358107861621380505.post-38840526743422354282010-10-08T09:13:12.035-07:002010-10-08T09:13:12.035-07:00Are you still obsessing over what the written Cons...Are you still obsessing over what the <i>written</i> Constitution means? Have you not learned to abstract from the words of that old rag the majestic principles that will arrive us at the golden shores of utopia? Let's stop bothering with those fusty old Founders. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the cappuccino of loafers and miscreants. <br /><br />Randy Barnett at Volokh pointed out a key passage from Steeh's ruling:<br /><br /> “The Court has never needed to address the activity/inactivity distinction advanced by plaintiffs because in every Commerce Clause case presented thus far, there has been some sort of activity. In this regard, the Health Care Reform Act arguably presents an issue of first impression.”<br /><br />If the Court has never addressed this issue, and since the Constitution itself certainly does not go so far, then why in the world has Steeh failed to follow the Constitutional doctrine <i>as it now exists</i>, which would require him to hold that the individual mandate is not authorized by the Constitution? And liberals wonder why their judges get called "activists."Tim Kowalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02196125161888520769noreply@blogger.com