Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: willcousa who wrote (455682)	9/9/2003 7:14:17 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

neither, I was giving Bill a pass on that issue. He is saying that 100k savings in employee headcount costs in the US translate directly to the corporation bottom line. I gave him a pass and said, ok apply it to earnings. Now of course a company that cuts a 100K employee is not going to see an 100K increase in earnings but just for arguments sake it would have to be gross I would guess. If we taxed employee payrolls and corporations with a flat tax, then I believe his argument would hold. The whole problem from my vantage point is that the employee is taxed for social security as if it is not a tax, but instead some form of "insurance" (LOL) and then the employee pays corp and state income taxes too. You are looking at a 40% tax bracket routinely. Corps don't pay that. fwiw from light reading, Ciena already gave a $10 million project to Vipro from India. Ciena had another big project and their estimate to have it done in SF bay was $15 million. Vipro bid $5 million and got this project as well. The latest round of layoff is because of Vipro taking both these projects to India.