If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
New DSLR lenses from Nikon
|
#162
|
|||
|
|||
New DSLR lenses from Nikon
On 2010-02-13 14:45:15 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:
"Peter" wrote in message ... "Bill Graham" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote in message ... "Bill Graham" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote in message ... We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not humanity. Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in my pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor, that doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief. Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our society? Please clarify. -- Peter Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's still not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it is oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being great. - We passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi, we are fast heading to 60% and above. So you want the benefits without paying for them. I get it, you should only pay for the direct benefits you think you need. Not to help society as a whole. Just start with a few common costs. Since you know how much to spend, why don't you fill in the blanks. Military: = ? Education = ? Domestic security protection = ? Road maintenance = ? Court system = ? Helping our genuinely indigent to survive = ? Come on Billy boy, you have investments. What is the cost of the government helping to maintain the integrity of your money. If you expect the benefits of living in our society without paying for them, you are a worse thief than Robin Hood. -- Peter Well, the problem (as I see it) seems to be in the definition of, "Benefits" If you live in a padded cell, and the government does (literally) everything for you, then Peter would say life is perfect, and we owe everything to our government. Bill would say we are all slaves to our government and they are of no more use to us that any slave driver is to his property. In the above example, I think the government's use should fall somewhere less than 20% of our gross effort, and you seem to think that it should fall somewhere over 50% of our gross effort. So, the lines are drawn, and all we have to do is argue over where they should be. My argument for my position on the matter is that the more I do for myself, the more freedom I enjoy. You position is the more the government does for us, the easier life will be for the most people. I don't count living in a padded cell as, "life". I want a little more than just breathing. But, to each his own....... Bill, The time has come for you to come out of retirement and join the Palin team. Who knows, you might make a fine Palin Party, Secretary of The Treasury, or Vice President? If you remember to bring a Sharpie you could be one of her speech writers. ....and I am sure she will have all your health needs covered. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
New DSLR lenses from Nikon
On 2010-02-13 08:06:23 -0800, Alan Browne
said: On 10-02-12 19:16 , C J Campbell wrote: On 2010-02-11 13:10:40 -0800, Bruce said: On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:40:46 -0800, Savageduck wrote: ...and since VAT is a "value added tax" an imported item arriving a port of entry would have the taxed "added value" of the freight costs to move it from port of entry to point of distribution or sale. That would also apply to the cost of transport on domestic products. That could be considerable for some landlocked states. That is unless transport is given a VAT exemption Wrong, because the consumer pays VAT only once, at the point of sale. All the VAT that was charged on any intermediate expense, including transport, is reclaimed by the retailer of the product or service. Otherwise, the consumer would be paying tax on tax, and that doesn't happen. It sure happens in the US. We have all kinds of taxes on our taxes, including paying sales tax on items that already have been taxed for their labor, business and occupation, and various excise taxes. We pay alternative minimum tax, which really is an income tax on our income taxes. At various times we have had income tax surtaxes, where you compute your income tax then add a percentage. We had a surtax here on income taxes up until a few years ago. It ended when the gov't got over the hump and had surplus budgets (a Liberal government balanced the books; the Conservatives overspent like crazy). Surpluses that were cutting into the national debt. But with the recent recession, the gov't (CONservative) has found the excuse to deficit spend again. So I hope the surtax comes back to help iron that out. Unlike the US, people in Europe (Italy, Spain and Greece excepted) and Canada seem to understand that you can't have debt running away unchecked without taxes. Either get the spending under control (as Canada and most of Europe have done) or add taxes or both. But you (the US) can't let deficits accumulate w/o raising taxes. Sure you can. You just print the money and pay for everything with inflation. :P You do realize that tax revenues showed record increases under the Bush administration, do you not? Apparently, people were less inclined to shelter their income and were more likely to make real investments. As for the housing bubble that caused the recession, that is hardly Bush's fault. Nor is it solely the fault of American banks. The dual-idiocy of Bush W, was to start a major and semi-major war while reducing taxes. Total insanity. (But winning a 2nd term was more important - a lesson from Daddy's failed 2nd term attempt as he raised taxes in the first term). Perhaps it is time that we let Europe pay for its own defense instead of the US footing almost the entire bill. But if Bush was an idiot for running a deficit, what is Obama for running a deficit that is several orders of magnitude greater? Further, the US has been running trade deficit after trade deficit for decades. Again, the American consumer at some point will have to settle their debts (and this will drive down asset prices as cashing out inevitably occurs against a sliding dollar). The trade deficit was the result of the dollar being strong, not weak. You know, I am beginning to think that courses in basic economics ought to be mandatory. The US is like that neighbor down the road with the great house, country place, 3 luxury cars, a boat (big), country club members, etc, etc. but who are running the whole thing on massive debt. It is unsustainable. A fire sale will ensue. Funny man. I just ordered my broker to sell all my stock in the Bank of Greece, even though Germany says they will do a short-term bailout. Germany's credit is good (for now) but it is not good enough to bail out Spain, Italy, Portugal, or the other weak economies of Europe. I also sold all my British Telecom (should have done that a long time ago). In any event, unemployment is now higher than what Obama said it would be if his stimulus package was not passed a year ago. And despite the 'stimulus' the United States now has joined Spain and Italy in having worse credit than Coca-Cola. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
New DSLR lenses from Nikon
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
... "Peter" wrote in message ... "Bill Graham" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote in message ... "Bill Graham" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote in message ... We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not humanity. Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in my pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor, that doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief. Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our society? Please clarify. -- Peter Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's still not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it is oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being great. - We passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi, we are fast heading to 60% and above. So you want the benefits without paying for them. I get it, you should only pay for the direct benefits you think you need. Not to help society as a whole. Just start with a few common costs. Since you know how much to spend, why don't you fill in the blanks. Military: = ? Education = ? Domestic security protection = ? Road maintenance = ? Court system = ? Helping our genuinely indigent to survive = ? Come on Billy boy, you have investments. What is the cost of the government helping to maintain the integrity of your money. If you expect the benefits of living in our society without paying for them, you are a worse thief than Robin Hood. -- Peter Well, the problem (as I see it) seems to be in the definition of, "Benefits" If you live in a padded cell, and the government does (literally) everything for you, then Peter would say life is perfect, and we owe everything to our government. Bill would say we are all slaves to our government and they are of no more use to us that any slave driver is to his property. In the above example, I think the government's use should fall somewhere less than 20% of our gross effort, and you seem to think that it should fall somewhere over 50% of our gross effort. So, the lines are drawn, and all we have to do is argue over where they should be. My argument for my position on the matter is that the more I do for myself, the more freedom I enjoy. You position is the more the government does for us, the easier life will be for the most people. I don't count living in a padded cell as, "life". I want a little more than just breathing. But, to each his own....... You completely avoided the question. What is the basis for your 20% How are you going to ensure that you have the right to do more than just breath. Try filling in the blanks and tell me what can be eliminated. -- Peter |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
New DSLR lenses from Nikon
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
... Peter wrote: "Ray Fischer" wrote in message .. . Peter wrote: "Ray Fischer" wrote in message I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive. If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting $1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing products to sell. How about some examples: You are making accusations of clear violations of rhe SEC Regulations. What regulations? What violation? It's no violation to lay off hundreds of people. It's no violation to get $20,000,000/year. Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first. LOL! Is that what they tell you? They? Suggest you get over your bitter pill and learn something about the reality of business before you open your mouth. Says the rightard who cannot actually refute what I write. In a public company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of the owners. ROFL! The board represent the shareholders?!? And you really believe that? And just how do you think a director becomes a director. By being selected by the board. He/she is elected by vot of the shareholders. You may be that stupid, or not, but don't assume that I am that stupid. We both know that the vast majority of such elections are decided when the board recommends someone for the position. When was the last time a board member got fired by the shareholders? When was the last time shareholders picked a board member? Or CEO? Read this and learn. http://www.investopedia.com/articles.../04/082704.asp You must be pretty stupid. You didn't even notice that that doesn't answer either of my questions. To maintain and grow a healthy company. A good manager recognizes that the workers are the lifeblood of the company. If any of your beliefs were true then we wouldn't see corporations spending so much to hire and train workers only to fire them a few years later and then repeat the process again. My statements are based upon personal observation and experience. You statements are based on naive worship of corporations. Sure, there are some good CEOs, but there aren't many. More than you would admit. Less than you would admit. Wow! You certainly are a fountain of misinformation. I'm not a part of your cult of stupidity. When the incomes of CEOs explode and the incomes of workers actually fall then it's clear who is scamming whom. You show the shallowness of your position by resorting to personal attacks. It is clear that you have no business experience. Bye -- Peter |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
New DSLR lenses from Nikon
"tony cooper" wrote in message
... On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:06:24 -0800, Jürgen Exner wrote: C J Campbell wrote: On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" said: [replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below] "Jürgen Exner" wrote in message C J Campbell wrote: And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax...... He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King County and the city of Bellevue). He wouldn't spend any more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a regressive tax system..... ??? What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again? He's referring to the "FairTax" movement. It replaces the income tax with a consumption tax on retail sales (essentially, a "sales tax") with a rebate to taxpayers with incomes below a certain level. There are some advantages to the proposal, but it stands little chance of advancing. There's more to it than I've outlined above. Yup! Lots more. there are a lot of advantages, but it cannot sell politically. -- Peter |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
New DSLR lenses from Nikon
"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010021316481660903-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... On 2010-02-13 14:45:15 -0800, "Bill Graham" said: "Peter" wrote in message ... "Bill Graham" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote in message ... "Bill Graham" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote in message ... We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not humanity. Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in my pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor, that doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief. Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our society? Please clarify. -- Peter Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's still not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it is oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being great. - We passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi, we are fast heading to 60% and above. So you want the benefits without paying for them. I get it, you should only pay for the direct benefits you think you need. Not to help society as a whole. Just start with a few common costs. Since you know how much to spend, why don't you fill in the blanks. Military: = ? Education = ? Domestic security protection = ? Road maintenance = ? Court system = ? Helping our genuinely indigent to survive = ? Come on Billy boy, you have investments. What is the cost of the government helping to maintain the integrity of your money. If you expect the benefits of living in our society without paying for them, you are a worse thief than Robin Hood. -- Peter Well, the problem (as I see it) seems to be in the definition of, "Benefits" If you live in a padded cell, and the government does (literally) everything for you, then Peter would say life is perfect, and we owe everything to our government. Bill would say we are all slaves to our government and they are of no more use to us that any slave driver is to his property. In the above example, I think the government's use should fall somewhere less than 20% of our gross effort, and you seem to think that it should fall somewhere over 50% of our gross effort. So, the lines are drawn, and all we have to do is argue over where they should be. My argument for my position on the matter is that the more I do for myself, the more freedom I enjoy. You position is the more the government does for us, the easier life will be for the most people. I don't count living in a padded cell as, "life". I want a little more than just breathing. But, to each his own....... Bill, The time has come for you to come out of retirement and join the Palin team. Who knows, you might make a fine Palin Party, Secretary of The Treasury, or Vice President? If you remember to bring a Sharpie you could be one of her speech writers. ...and I am sure she will have all your health needs covered. If the government spending was at the level he claims to want, he will be very busy: Digging holes to safeguard his money; target practice; worrying whether his doctor really had a medical license; whether his grandchildren's teachers were competent to teach; growing his own food because of worry about adulterating substances; etc. -- Peter |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
New DSLR lenses from Nikon
On 2010-02-13 14:51:05 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:
"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message ... C J Campbell wrote: On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" said: [replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below] "Jürgen Exner" wrote in message C J Campbell wrote: And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax...... He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King County and the city of Bellevue). He wouldn't spend any more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a regressive tax system..... ??? What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again? jue I am talking about the new "progressive" idea of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax. The super rich would make out like bandits, since they have the bulk of their money invested, and spend only a small fraction of their incomes. But people like me, who are retired, and spend everything we get on our living expenses would be paying for all the costs of the society. Why do I get the feeling you do not know the difference between a progressive and a regressive tax? These are distinct economic terms that have nothing to do with whether a tax is "good" or "bad;" they just describe the manner of taxation. "Progressive" taxes collect a higher percentage of income as income goes up. "Regressive" taxes collect a higher percentage of income as income goes down. "Neutral" taxes collect the same percentage of income from everybody. Sales and VAT taxes are called regressive because people with lower incomes tend to spend a greater percentage of their income than people with higher incomes who tend to save and invest. Sales and VAT taxes are ultimately dependent on sales. The poor spend a higher percentage of their income on sales and VAT taxes than do the rich. For this reason it is common (but by no means universal) to mitigate the adverse effects of these taxes on the poor by exempting certain necessities, such as food and drugs. Income taxes are supposed to be either neutral or progressive -- the poor pay a lower rate than the rich. In practice, however, you cannot make income taxes too high or the rich will take steps to shield their incomes from taxation -- as in the extreme example of Sweden. Another extreme example is the United States, which has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, resulting in many US corporations to move as much of their operations as possible to friendlier tax climes. Thus the rich can afford to escape taxation, leaving the poor to pay taxes. A nominally progressive tax system turns into a regressive one. From what I can see here, most of the people arguing about this subject have probably never taken a basic course in economics in their entire lives. Either that, or they forgot everything they ever learned. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
New DSLR lenses from Nikon
C J Campbell wrote:
On 2010-02-13 14:51:05 -0800, "Bill Graham" said: "Jürgen Exner" wrote in message ... C J Campbell wrote: On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" said: [replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below] "Jürgen Exner" wrote in message C J Campbell wrote: And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax...... He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King County and the city of Bellevue). He wouldn't spend any more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a regressive tax system..... ??? What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again? jue I am talking about the new "progressive" idea of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax. And what on earth does that have to do with the claim that VAT is more regressive than sales tax as was discussed in this branch of the thread? I'm done with the NG. In the past at least you get catch a good advice once in a while but the signal-to-noise ratio has gotten so low that it's absolutely worthless to keep trying. I am sure you won't miss me. jue |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon DSLR: Does 3d matrix metering work with these lenses...? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 3 | October 26th 05 01:01 PM |
Nikon D70 dSLR or Nikon CP8800 Non dSLR (Non-CCD Cleaning!!) ?? | Digital Photography | 62 | March 18th 05 08:41 AM | |
Nikon D70 dSLR or Nikon CP8800 Non dSLR (Non-CCD Cleaning!!) ?? | Digital Photography | 0 | March 3rd 05 06:48 AM |