Post 'em if you've got 'em.

Ohio  (8% reporting) Updated: 8:45 p.m.
Kerry 54%
Edwards 32%

Of course, with Edwards dropping out, his votes don't mean too much right now.

COSI

DENIED!

sad state of affairs, apparently now they will have to lay people off or decrease their already deficient hours of opening.
it's pathetic when most of the cool places to go in town are only open during work hours during the week, and then it makes it a clusterfuck to try to go there on the weekends...

It's pathetic when corporate heads get greedy and don't bother to work with what they've got. It's even more pathetic when we give huge tax breaks to companies and they get private donations and they charge $12/per adult ($17 if you want the honor of seeing a movie) and they still can't pull it together. Makes me wish they had never touched that beautiful historic building in the first place.

They could always make the cuts from the top (read: bigwig's salaries), but money grubbing corporations never do that.

agreed. pay the bigwigs less and the peons who do the actual work more.

just out of curiosity, do you happen to know the "bigwig's" salaries, cause that's a common charge, but i'd have something to back that up.

"You're fired!"

You probably won't get anything to back that up. It is class envy. Just as is the hate for corporate tax cuts.

If you tax the corporations more, because you think they are rich, the loss of profit will be passed on to the people everyone wants to protect. It will be made up by cutting back employees or raising the prices of the product the corporation provides. If you don't believe it, go into business for yourself, build a large company (if you can pay your taxes as a small one), and see if you think you should be taxed more, or make the same wages as your employees.

Now, granted, there are corporations that will not use the tax cuts for growth, but for their own profit. There are exceptions.

COSI cut their own throat. I used to go there every year with the family, but could not afford it after they opened their fansy smasy new place. If you are gonna have to raise your prices to own the new place, you are missing the purpose of it in the first place. It is for the children. ALL the children. Not just the upper class children.

That's funny considering Step's avatar is aiming a gun.

Okay.

COSI is non-profit, not a big corporation. Yet they act like one.

They earn $19.12 million year through private donations, programs, etc. (Wolfe/Dispatch donated $200,000 in 2001). They spend $18.14 million to keep it afloat. 16% is in salaries/administration for their 324 employees. They have 18,843 volunteers (people they are not paying).

Compare that to the Ohio Historical Society's 11% spent on their 528 employees. And it's half the cost for admission. COSI gets 35% of it's income from donations. OHS: 16%.
OHS isn't moving to new fancy digs. OHS is losing money badly and they haven't asked us to pay for it.


From The Business First 2003 Book of Lists

Did I say I hated tax abatements? I'm in commercial real estate, bub. What I "hate" is when companies are given the abatements and still can't swing it.

Class envy? I'm doing just fine with my economic status. I know not envy.

Why not instead, let the peons take all the risks and be responsible for all the taxes of their own business, and hire other peons to do the work after they spend years of not making any money trying to build their business, giving them a job, providing income for them, and growing the economy by them spnding that money at other business', therefore providing demand for a product that another peon makes, causing him to have to hire more peons, starting the cycle all over again.

Nah! Instead let the peons take all the risks and be responsible for all the taxes of their own business, and hire other peons to do the work after they spend years of not making any money trying to build their business, AND pay the hired peons more money than the peon that starts the business makes. That's fair.

Let me know if you ever start a business. If it grows into something big, I am sure you will pay me more than you will make.

It's not our problem that you don't know how to shelter your income.

No, I didn't say you hatd them. I said it is the same emotion driving the hate for the two.

You are correct, like I said, some companies to do not use the tax cuts for to grow the business as they are supposed to, and cause their own downfall. But there are many other reasons a company may fail even with the tax cuts. It is not fair to assume it was because they abused tax cuts or pay their CEO's too much money.

I don't care why they're failing. I'm not paying for it.

OH! I see now..I think.

Are you saying that when a corporation gets a tax cut, it is somehow taking money from you? Or, how do you pay for a failing corporation?

Um... the .5 mill levy that was just shot down?

that's 'cuz guns are for pussies

anyway, duffy's gonna boot this thread over to "whatever..." if we don't relate this to the music scene in C-bus real quick.

Um...ok. I agree with ya there.

I thought you were saying; when a corporation gets a tax cut, it costs you.

Carry on.

of course every corporation uses it's massive tax cuts and off-shore tax free reincorporations specifically to create new jobs, and not to pay extravagant bonus packages and salaries to CEO's and board members. who, of course, would never hire accounting firms to both do yearly audits and consult on how to best cover losses and inflate gains, which they will in turn ignore when doing their audits, and which will artificially inflate stock prices. and, of course, those CEO's would never dump their stocks hours before the company has to "restate it's earnings" causing the stock to massively plummet and obliterate thousands of mutual fund portfolios. nah, Bernie Ebbers, Dennis Kozlowski, Jack Welch, Joe Nacchio, Kenneth Lay, Jeff Skilling, they want the big tax breaks, they hire lobbyist to get laws passed on their behalf, they wine and dine politicians, because they're worried about jobs.

yeah.

remember that thing called a "free market?" i believe that has something to do with a level playing field, whoever the best at what they do is able to succeed, well then, they deserve the success, right? how can it be a free market if the corporations with the most political influence and deepest pockets can tilt the playing field even further in their direction by getting tax breaks that smaller, upstart companies can't get simply because they can't kiss the right asses? look at it this way, General Motors can demand that a city in Michigan build them a factory and give them tax breaks for 10 years, because if they don't, boom, 10,000 jobs are going to Mexico or China. and then, after a year or two, if they still think they can get cheaper labor, move anyway. and guess what, it happened. now, go down to Hound Dogs and tell the owner that he should threaten the city of Columbus that he'll move to Dayton if his taxes aren't cut in half over the next 10 years. you think they'll throw him out of city hall, or just laugh in his face? what you are suggesting is not only harmful to small business, because it gives larger corporations more power and control, but it is inherently anti-competitive and AGAINST EVERYTHING AMERICAN STANDS FOR! ok, i got a little carried away on the last part, but the rest is on point.

either give tax breaks to all corporations, or none. picking and choosing b based on the size of the gorilla is unfair and wrong.

Preach it brother!

Many times, it is the SMALL business owner that needs the tax cut.