| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97465 is a reply to message #97409] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 13:54   |
Patrick Scheible
Messages: 768
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Morten Reistad wrote:
>> In article <51E38421.1070508@SPAM.comp-arch.net>,
>> Andy (Super) Glew <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> wrote:
>>> On 7/14/2013 12:45 PM, jklam wrote:
>>>> That doesn't work with the US income tax system because the amount you
>>>> pay in US income tax is not dependant on where your primary residence is.
>>>>
>>>> What matters is if you are a US citizen for tax purposes or not.]
>>>
>>> So have the income and hold the income producing property in an offshore
>>> company that you control.
>>>
>>> Leave the money offshore, for offshore expenses.
>>
>> Indeed. The idea of incorporating offshore is what secures the
>> tax base. Even I have an offshore pension fund. I will be taxed
>> to death if I use it as a non-pensioner, but can take income from
>> it when I retire. And if I retire in some low-tax jurisdiction
>> it will be taxed at that low rate.
>
> And why should one have to do all of this juggling? Don't governments
> understand that high tax rates result in the wealth moving out of the
> country?
Even if the tax rates are low, there's always some pathetic hellhole of
another country that will tolerate tax rates 2% lower and attract the
businesses that shop around for the best tax havens.
Followups set to a.f.c.
-- Patrick
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Unemployment Myth Bizarre? [message #97466 is a reply to message #97151] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 14:07 |
George Neuner
Messages: 4
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:31:30 -0500, Stephen Sprunk
<stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 17-Jul-13 12:46, John Levine wrote:
>
>> Other than in a few odd places like the North Dakota oil patch,
>> which is a geographic issue rather than a skills issue, and the
>> bogus non-market for overpaid CEOs, the job market stinks across the
>> board and nobody is offering higher wages than they did a few years
>> ago.
>
> I get calls from desperate headhunters every week. They're offering
> good money for good jobs, but ones I'm overqualified for and/or am not
> interested in. I'm quite happy where I am anyway.
>
> What bothers me is that everyone is getting the same calls--and turning
> them down for the same reasons. Ten years ago, I would have taken any
> of these jobs in a heartbeat. Five years ago, I would have at least
> sent a résumé. Today? I'm just not interested. The problem is that I
> don't get any calls for a _better_ job, which means people below me
> aren't getting a call for _my_ job, etc. We're all locked in place.
That's been called the "Purple Squirrel" syndrome: companies - or at
least their HR people - looking for candidates whose experience
precisely matches the job requirements rather than looking for someone
with sufficient experience to do the job.
Companies are wary of hiring obviously overqualified people because
they believe those people will jump ship if/when the economy improves.
FWIW, in most cases they are correct.
But on the flip side, HR often passes on people who can do a job
because the resume don't have the right keywords and they don't
understand how other experiences may qualify a candidate. It's been
my experience that companies which rely on HR for pre-screening
candidates have a much harder time finding good people - which makes
them more nervous than usual about hiring in a bad economy.
YMMV
George
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97468 is a reply to message #97154] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 14:12 |
Patrick Scheible
Messages: 768
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
> On 7/17/2013 10:23 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 16-Jul-13 14:01, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
>>>> Ditto for many other industries. The tech industry in particular
>>>> has been having problems for decades, hence the H-1B visa program.
>>>> Even that can only provide a few hundred thousand skilled workers
>>>> per year, though, and that is but a drop in the bucket compared to
>>>> the demand that our pitiful educational system is leaving
>>>> completely unmet.
>>>
>>> Every off shore worker I've seen hired ...
>>
>> What I said above was about US-based workers; offshoring is another
>> matter entirely.
>>
>>> was as a result of a native worker being fired, and not fired for
>>> cause.
>>
>> "Fired" means terminated for cause. What you're referring to are
>> layoffs, which is when jobs are eliminated.
>>
>
> A layoff is supposedly a temporary situation, and the workers are
> expected to be recalled when business picks up.
That's not the definition we use here. A layoff is understood to be
permanent. The person layed off may have a better chance at being
rehired than someone who never worked for the organization, but that's a
possibility not an expectation.
We call it a "furlough" or possibly a "seasonal layoff" if there's an
expectation of being rehired.
Followups set to a.f.c.
-- Patrick
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97469 is a reply to message #97156] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 14:14 |
Patrick Scheible
Messages: 768
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
> On 7/17/2013 11:24 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>
>> There's one serious problem with your theory: 1.5 million women per year
>> choose abortion. That shows they _don't_ want to have a kid, despite
>> the supposedly wonderful life of a welfare queen. So why did they get
>> pregnant in the first place? Because birth control is simply too
>> expensive for someone without health insurance.
>
> Abstinence is free.
So is denial.
Followups set to a.f.c.
-- Patrick
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97520 is a reply to message #97411] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 14:31 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 18-Jul-13 09:32, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Robert Wessel wrote:
>> On 15 Jul 2013 12:55:00 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
Please, folks, trim the quotes on your posts to just the minimum
necessary to provide context for your comments.
>>> this is just plain flat out wrong. Unearned income such as
>>> interest, capital gains, and dividends are the primary source of
>>> income for the retired middle class. ...
>>>
>>> Sheesh!
>>
>> Tax deferred* 401k and IRA distributions, as well as SS income
>> (above a certain total income limit)
>
> which is very low.
Not necessarily; you can sock away a lot of money in 401k/403b and IRA
accounts. SS benefits are generally pitiful, though.
>> and pension and annuity income (less any tax contributions in the
>> basis) are all taxed as ordinary income - not unearned income.
>
> Are you telling me that most people will not have bought their own
> stocks and bonds, reinvesting dividends, for their retirement? Are
> you telling met that most people are not doing any saving for their
> retirement but are depending on the US government and their employer
> for income after retirement?
From what I've seen, that seems to be the norm. Most people don't even
really understand what stocks and bonds _are_, much less invest in them.
If they do invest in the "market", including via 401k/403b and IRA
plans, it's likely to be through mutual funds or money market accounts.
If you think stock/bond ownership is "normal", that says a lot about the
lack of variety in your social circle.
The _average_ American is struggling to make the minimum payments on
their consumer (and/or student loan) debt. The only assets they have
are a car and (maybe) equity in their home. A savings account for a
rainy day might be able to cover expenses for a month or two.
> If you are, then I'm beginning to understand why none of you
> understand what I'm talking about.
Saying what is normal doesn't mean that we're normal as well.
> If you are, then people are really in deep shit and don't know
> it yet.
Actually, most of them _do_ know they're in really deep shit; they just
don't understand how to _get out_ of their situation because they also
see that the entire deck is stacked against them.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97521 is a reply to message #97411] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 14:38 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/18/2013 10:32 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
> Are you telling me that most people will not have bought their own stocks
> and bonds, reinvesting dividends, for their retirement? Are you telling
> met that most people are not doing any saving for their retirement but
> are depending on the US government and their employer for income after
> retirement?
Yes and yes.
* Average savings of a 50 year old $43,797
* Percentage of Americans over 65 who rely completely on Social
Security 35%
* Percentage of Americans who don’t save anything for retirement 36%
(http://www.statisticbrain.com/retirement-statistics/)
I can't claim to be a retirement genius, because most of my saving was
done automatically, but I *did* think about it from time to time and
make some decisions.
>
> If you are, then I'm beginning to understand why none of you
> understand what I'm talking about. If you are, then people are really
> in deep shit and don't know it yet.
Yes, except their expecting the "uncle sam faiery" to bail them out.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97522 is a reply to message #97380] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 14:41 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/18/2013 9:30 AM, Walter Banks wrote:
>
> At one point in the conversation with the plant manager I
> asked how much warehousing the plant had. His answer
> was my ahh-ha moment. His answer was 43 to 45 minutes.
> Well organized *Just in time* solved many problems.
>
It's wonderful until high oil prices or some international event causes
disruptions. Then everything will just have to shut down. A warehouse
provides a bit of a buffer for both piece parts and finished product.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97523 is a reply to message #97389] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 14:44 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/18/2013 10:31 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>
>>
>> there was some articles on how hedge funds lobbied congress to get their
>> income reclassified to unearned ...
>
> I hadn't heard about that.
Well, it *is* unearned, in'nt it? They usually don't do a d@mned thing
to earn it.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97524 is a reply to message #97395] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 14:50 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/18/2013 10:32 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> On 7/17/2013 9:16 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>> Why is profit such a swear word?
>>>
>>
>> Everyone likes to see a company produce something useful that people
>> want to buy, sell a lot of them, and make a fair profit. Most of those
>> things are not part of current business practices. They're all weasels
>> these days. They fire people and move stuff overseas, play games to
>> avoid paying taxes, try to cheat everyone in sight, and usually don't do
>> anything useful in the first place.
>>
> Why do you assume that 100% of business is doing this?
>
Because enough are that it's unusual to see otherwise. Apple invents
good products that people want; they're even moving some manufacturing
back to the US. M$ sells (mostly) cr@p and uses monopoly power to try
to force people to buy it. All of Wall Street are crooks; everyone has
their hand out for government money.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97525 is a reply to message #97390] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 14:33 |
Patrick Scheible
Messages: 768
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> 127 wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message
>> news:ks7bdm$935$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 17-Jul-13 15:02, 127 wrote:
>>>> "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:ks6ckt$aqf$1@dont-email.me...
>>>
> <snip>
>
>
>>>> >>> If neo-cons really want to stop abortions, they need to change
>>>> >>> the depressing economics of being a single mother--or agree to
>>>> >>> provide young, low-income women with free birth control, which
>>>> >>> is far cheaper for the govt than the alternative anyway.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The problem is that many of the single mothers choose to have
>>>> >> the kids and are essentially volunteering for welfare, so free
>>>> >> birth control would make no difference with them.
>>>> >
>>>> > There's one serious problem with your theory: 1.5 million women per
>>>> > year choose abortion. That shows they _don't_ want to have a kid,
>>>> > despite the supposedly wonderful life of a welfare queen.
>>>>
>>>> I never said anything about any wonderful life. They just decide that
>>>> being a single mother on welfare is better than the worst of the
>>>> unskilled work.
>>
>>> ... or they've been brainwashed with moral objections
>>> to abortion, or they simply can't afford one,
>>
>> Doesn’t cost much to get an abortion using RU86 etc.
>
> And where do people get that? How much does it cost?
>
>
>>
>> or they don't have a realistic idea of how
>>> difficult it is to be a single mom, etc.
>>
>> Sure, but that’s just as true of those that aren't single mothers too.
>>
>>> I've known many over the years, and most of them _tried_ to work after
>>> having a kid but quickly discovered the Welfare Trap.
>>>
>>>> > So why did they get pregnant in the first place?
>>>>
>>>> Because they like to fuck.
>>>
>>> So do most humans, but only the low-income ones tend to have unwanted
>>> pregnancies. There's a reason for that:
>>
>> Yes, few kids that age bother with birth control until they end up pregnant.
>
>
> What birth control methods are available to kids? That assumes their
> parents told them about such things...which usually isn't the case.
>
>>
>>>> > Because birth control is simply too expensive for someone without
>>>> > health insurance.
>>>>
>>>> Condoms don’t cost much.
>>
>>> But they're not very effective in practice, over the long run; you only
>>> need to mess up once, and most users mess up frequently.
>>
>> They aren't the only cheap contraceptive.
>
> They're expensive. What other methods are cheap? I don't know of any.
>
>>
>>>> Even birth control costs a lot less than cigarettes or coffee.
>>
>>> Look up the full cost, i.e. including exams every six months
>>
>> You don’t need an exam every 6 months.
>
>
> Yes, you do. To get a prescription rewnewal, you have to see the
> doctor. The only way to get any prescription renewed is to see the
> doctor.
>
>>
>> and not
>>> just the copays after your health insurance picks up most of the tab,
>>> then try to figure out how you're going to cover that on top of food,
>>> housing, clothing, transportation, utilities, etc. when you're only
>>> making minimum wage. Ain't gonna happen--
>>
>> It does for plenty of them.
>
> You are so far out of reality...
>
>>
>>> and so they get pregnant.
>>
>> They get pregnant for other reasons entirely, mostly
>> because they are essentially volunteering for welfare or
>> are too stupid to do anything to avoid getting pregnant.
>
> Very few women get pregnanat on purpose unless being on Welfare is
> a wayof life. Noone in high school tries to get pregnant; Kids
> are just learning how to do the action and havne't learned how to
> prevent the consequences.
>
>>
>>> Ironically, _after_ they have a kid, the govt is willing to give them
>>> free birth control. But not before, when it would save the government
>>> literally trillions of dollars.
>>
>> I doubt many of those who do end up pregnant
>> would bother to use it even if it was free.
>
> The males sure don't. There's myths out there which say
> that using condoms doesn't give full satisfaction. so
> birth control is usually left up to the female. Since
> adults have reality problems, kids don't have access nor
> learn about how to prevent pregnancies. Take a good
> look at Texas. It's going to be the 60s all over again.
>
>>
>> The evidence that most won't is the huge numbers
>> that have more than just the one child when birth
>> control is free after the first one shows up.
>
> There is "free" and then there is using it. For the
> pill you have to remember to take it every day at the
> same time; it's effectiveness (used to be) 95% or so.
> That's all based on the little fact that there are no
> irregular menstration prolbems. You have to pay tons of
> money to get and use the pill. Condoms require
> cooperation from the male, which is not common, although
> the AIDS thing may have helped there.
There's Norplant and similar hormone-based birth control that only
requires a shot quarterly or yearly. There's IUDs that cost a fair
amount to put in, but last for 5-7 years without requiring any new
doctor's visits. Costs money upfront but over the whole time period
it's inexpensive. If one isn't in a monogamous relationship, one should
be using condoms as well to prevent disease transmission.
Followups set to a.f.c.
-- Patrick
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97526 is a reply to message #97401] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 14:53 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/18/2013 10:31 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
> The current tax rates are trying to herd people to save
> more money via stocks, bonds, and government paper.
> Do you really want to stop that?
>
They're forcing another stock bubble. Interest on savings and bonds is
so small it's basically negative return. Where else is there for money
to go? Real estate?
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97527 is a reply to message #97452] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 14:57 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/18/2013 11:24 AM, Lawrence Statton wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>> You don't get it. If money is "saved", Congress will spend 3x
>> the "saved" money.
>
> [citation needed].
>
> I want a real source for that assertion, not "I heard it on late-night
> talk radio" or "it came to me in a dream" or "the party that I dislike
> is in power, so it must be true," but something resembly facts that
> can be verified. You're making extraordinary claims, you have to put
> up extraordinary evidence.
>
Since it's a prediction about future events it's impossible to "prove."
Based on history I'd say she's right, but as they say "past
performance is no guarantee of future results."
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97528 is a reply to message #97409] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 14:52 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 18-Jul-13 09:32, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Morten Reistad wrote:
>> Indeed. The idea of incorporating offshore is what secures the
>> tax base. Even I have an offshore pension fund. I will be taxed
>> to death if I use it as a non-pensioner, but can take income from
>> it when I retire. And if I retire in some low-tax jurisdiction
>> it will be taxed at that low rate.
>
> And why should one have to do all of this juggling? Don't governments
> understand that high tax rates result in the wealth moving out of the
> country?
.... except, even under Clinton, we had some of the lowest tax rates in
the civilized world. There was no need to cut them further, and in fact
they could have been raised and still remained relatively low.
Also, people who _do_ live in high-tax countries don't actually export
all that much of their wealth. They need to keep some at hand to live
on, and much of the rest is tied up in the _source_ of their wealth,
which can't be exported as easily as the fruits--after they have already
been taxed. Also, if they export too much, they will get hit with tax
evasion--particularly in the US, which claims the right to tax its
citizens' (and former citizens'!) overseas income and is rather good at
ferreting out people who are living off unreported income.
So, you have to change your residence as well, which isn't tough for the
wealthy, but then you're stuck somewhere with no real economy of its
own, so all you can really do for new income is speculation, which
creates no new wealth anyway, so who cares if those people leave?
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97529 is a reply to message #97456] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 15:04 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/18/2013 12:04 PM, Lawrence Statton wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>
>> CBS radio news reported a list of skills which are missing. IIRC,
>> IT work was 4th or 5th on the list. Somehow I can't believe that
>> one.
>>
>
> I don't know why you don't believe it. I see it, Sprunk sees it.
> Other people I've worked with see it. I'll say it again in short
> words that even you can understand: Qualified candidates are getting
> to be as rare as hen's teeth.
The industry is becoming too fractured. In the early 70s, if you had
experience with OS COBOL there were likely to be lots of opportunities
for you. Somewhat later it was unix and C. Now there are so many
skills involved, and they change so fast, I can't keep up with them.
There's a limit to how much one person can be proficient in, but if
you're a Python expert and the job requires Ruby on Rails [substitute
your own here] you won't be considered.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97531 is a reply to message #97401] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 15:04 |
Walter Banks
Messages: 1000
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv wrote:
> Walter Banks wrote:
>>
>>
>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> Anytime somebody starts to demand that unearned income be taxed at the
>>> same level as the high income bracket, or higher as some suggestions
>>> here implied, I get very, very worried becuase these people are
>>> intelligent and have spent a lifetime doing analytical thinking.
>>>
>>
>> Why shouldn't unearned income be taxed as income?
>
> Among other things, it's already been taxed at least twice
> at the higher rates of earned income.
Almost all money gets taxed multiple times. Money spent
buying consumer goods goes through multiple hands
before it gets to raw materials used in its production.
The issue are taxes only for the value added part of the
economy or are income taxes taxes on income to
participate in society.
Put slightly different why should the taxes a farmer
pays on income selling their crop be any different
than the taxes paid by a banker on the profit from
the loans to the farmer to buy seed for the crop and
paid for out of revenue from the crop.
>>
>> Earned income is limited to what can be earned in 2000
>> hours of labour a year, unearned income is when income
>> goes exponential. (Losses in unearned income are linear
>> and earnings are a power function) there is a lot of incentive
>> to make a living that way.
>
> I don't understand what you mean. Unearned income, IME,
> is dividends from owning stock shares and interest from
> bank accounts and owning bonds (including t-bills, etc.).
Wage earners are limited by the number of hours they can
work typically 2000 hours a year (40 hours by 50 weeks)
Unearned income doesn't have the hours restriction only
a resource limit. Unearned income when the returns
compound the result (power function) and when the results
are negative losses are a linear decline.
The asymmetrical results are a powerful incentive to have
unearned income.
> If you want to start a philosophical discussion about
> why unearned income tax rates should be less than earned
> income tax rates, I'd be happy to participate.
>
> The current tax rates are trying to herd people to save
> more money via stocks, bonds, and government paper.
> Do you really want to stop that?
Why not stop it and treat all income as income?
It is one thing to encourage savings with re-investments
in society and the local economic base that affects your life.
But much of that has not worked in that last twenty years
or so. The tax advantages are there but the reason that
they are there in the first place is either no longer valid
or has been manipulated so non risk investments are also
covered. Romney deferred income for example. As I
understand it his value added salary was switched into
a unearned income investment even on up front returns
in an investment company (no-risk).
If all income were treated like income it would reduce the
taxes paid by salaried folks and make labor in North America
a lot more competitive. Surprisingly, disposable income
of revenue from unearned income would probably rise
even though it would be taxed at a higher rate.
It is entirely appropriate for revenue derived from
un-earned income to be treated like current small
business with accounting for costs and gains.
A respectful discussion on unearned income tax rates
has a lot of merit.
w..
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97534 is a reply to message #97458] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 15:14 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/18/2013 12:33 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> My state's constitution also prohibits the govt from issuing debt,
> though we've still got some lingering from before that was enacted;
> there is no requirement that it be paid off, just the interest, and the
> buffoons in office never pay a bill they don't have to.
New York does too, but they just spin off another "authority" which can
issue bonds.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97535 is a reply to message #96181] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 15:10 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 15-Jul-13 07:55, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> The distribution of wealth in the US was a lot more even before
>> Reagan shifted the tax burden from the rich to the middle class;
>> since then, the inequality has gotten out of control, which has
>> caused all sorts of social and economic problems.
>
> Wealth is not a static number.
Duh? I never said it was.
> What you are calling wealth is disposable income.
Wrong. And the distribution of wealth is even more unequal than the
distribution of income.
> It wasn't Reagans' tax policies which made it go away.
That's when the charts start to go crazy, and it's logical to connect
that with shifting the tax burden from the rich to the middle class,
which enabled the rich to accumulate more wealth while the middle class
was left with almost no gain after taxes and living expenses.
> It was unions,
Income and wealth inequality have grown as union power has shrunk, so
I'm not sure where you get that crazy idea.
> unreasonable minimum wage editcs,
A minimum wage limits the economic rent that can be charged, which in
some--but certainly not all--cases reduces the return on capital to
unsustainable levels.
More problematic for low-end wages is the welfare trap, which means that
many people aren't willing to take minimum-wage jobs even when they're
available because it would _reduce_ their income. A lower minimum wage
just makes that problem worse.
> and too much government handouts which started manufacturing to
> move out of the country.
Manufacturing (and now other sectors) are moving out of the US for a
variety of reasons, but that's not one of them. Heck, it's those very
manufacturers who are _getting_ govt handouts, often as a reward for
offshoring jobs!
>>> Every single one of those companies you want government control
>>> over once started out as a small business.
>>
>> Who said anything about "government control" over those companies?
>
> You are proposing to limit the amount of business the company can do
> by contolling revenue.
I never proposed anything that even resembles controlling revenue. I
merely proposed that mega-corporations pay reasonable taxes on their
income--as small businesses already have to do.
>> We're just talking about slightly different tax strategies.
>
> No, you are talking about destorying trade by using the tax system to
> punish success.
Punishing success? Now you're just spouting neocon propaganda.
>>> If you punish success, there will not be small business because
>>> there isn't any point in starting one.
>>
>> Any govt needs revenue to provide public services, and there are
>> only three things that can _be_ taxed to provide that revenue:
>> production, consumption and wealth. And taxing any one of those
>> directly results in an indirect tax on the other two.
>>
>> That is not the same thing as "punishing success".
>
> You want the few who are successful to fund those who are not.
No, I want a system that rewards those who work for their success,
rather than punishing work and rewarding speculation and idleness.
> That's slavery.
If you really think so, you're beyond rational debate.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97539 is a reply to message #97175] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 15:32 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 17/07/2013 23:47, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 17-Jul-13 16:23, Peter Flass wrote:
>> On 7/17/2013 11:24 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> There's one serious problem with your theory: 1.5 million women per
>>> year choose abortion. That shows they _don't_ want to have a kid,
>>> despite the supposedly wonderful life of a welfare queen. So why
>>> did they get pregnant in the first place? Because birth control is
>>> simply too expensive for someone without health insurance.
>>
>> Abstinence is free.
>
> And, in practice, it doesn't actually work.
>
> Sadly, my state mandated the oxymoronic "abstinence-only sex education",
> and within a few years our teen pregnancy rate went from the middle of
> the pack to the highest in the country. Gov. Perry declared the program
> a "success", which makes me wonder what his goal really was--or if he's
> so stupid that he doesn't realize being #1 is a bad thing in this case.
>
> S
>
The ban on abortion and contraception do feel like the slave breeding
programs that the southern states introduced when the slave trade was
banned. Similar rules.
Andrew Swallow
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97540 is a reply to message #97531] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 15:36 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> Walter Banks wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anytime somebody starts to demand that unearned income be taxed at the
>>>> same level as the high income bracket, or higher as some suggestions
>>>> here implied, I get very, very worried becuase these people are
>>>> intelligent and have spent a lifetime doing analytical thinking.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why shouldn't unearned income be taxed as income?
>>
>> Among other things, it's already been taxed at least twice
>> at the higher rates of earned income.
>
> Almost all money gets taxed multiple times. Money spent
> buying consumer goods goes through multiple hands
> before it gets to raw materials used in its production.
IMO, the "already been taxed" argument is one of the most ridiculous ones
the RW has come up with. We have taxes in multiple places in the
economy.
It's not almost all money, it's all money.
Money doesn't disappear after it gets spent.
Many of the transactions money goes through are taxable.
That should do nothing to reduce tax liability along the way.
I have no way to track where the dollar in my wallet has been
before, but I'd bet that every dollar in my pocket has been taxed
at least hundreds of times before I earned it.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97543 is a reply to message #97533] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 15:43 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> You think health insurance is a right?!!!!
>
> I think health care is a right in a civilized society.
> A healthy population makes a country far more
> competitive on the world stage.
It's more a necessity than a right.
In the USA, no one can afford to get sick and pay out of pocket.
Without insurance a serious illness will bankrupt you and then
if you do get treatment, someone else pays.
Emergency medical treatment became a right in 1986 under Reagan.
(EMTALA).
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97544 is a reply to message #97225] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 15:44 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 17-Jul-13 21:18, 127 wrote:
> "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message
> news:ks7bdm$935$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 17-Jul-13 15:02, 127 wrote:
>>> I never said anything about any wonderful life. They just decide
>>> that being a single mother on welfare is better than the worst of
>>> the unskilled work.
>
>> ... or they've been brainwashed with moral objections to abortion,
>> or they simply can't afford one,
>
> Doesn’t cost much to get an abortion using RU86 etc.
It still costs a lot, on top of the costs of traveling hundreds of miles
to one of the few abortion clinics that the neocons haven't managed to
shut down yet, lost wages during recovery, etc.
>>>> So why did they get pregnant in the first place?
>>>
>>> Because they like to fuck.
>>
>> So do most humans, but only the low-income ones tend to have
>> unwanted pregnancies. There's a reason for that:
>
> Yes, few kids that age bother with birth control until they end up
> pregnant.
Few "kids" have _access_ to effective birth control. Even young adults
often don't know about it (due to idiotic laws banning teaching them),
don't use it correctly (due to idiotic laws banning teaching them) or
simply can't afford it.
That doesn't stop them from having sex, though, so the results are
predictable.
>>>> Because birth control is simply too expensive for someone
>>>> without health insurance.
>>>
>>> Condoms don’t cost much.
>
>> But they're not very effective in practice, over the long run; you
>> only need to mess up once, and most users mess up frequently.
>
> They aren't the only cheap contraceptive.
I'm not aware of anything cheaper that is at least as effective, and
they're not all that effective--or all that cheap--to begin with.
>>> Even birth control costs a lot less than cigarettes or coffee.
>
>> Look up the full cost, i.e. including exams every six months
>
> You don’t need an exam every 6 months.
That statement shows how ignorant you are of women's health care.
>> Ironically, _after_ they have a kid, the govt is willing to give
>> them free birth control. But not before, when it would save the
>> government literally trillions of dollars.
>
> I doubt many of those who do end up pregnant would bother to use it
> even if it was free.
The vast majority would because they don't _want_ to get pregnant. At a
minimum, the 1.5 million per year who get abortions would almost
certainly have used birth control if it had been an option.
> The evidence that most won't is the huge numbers that have more than
> just the one child when birth control is free after the first one
> shows up.
Most don't, actually. For those who do, it's better to have your kids
close together rather than have large gaps between them. Two years is
currently accepted as the ideal spacing.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97545 is a reply to message #97409] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 16:00 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 18/07/2013 15:32, jmfbahciv wrote:
{snip}
> I worked with a guy whose mother moved to Mexico. It was cheap
> living until Mexico forced a $US to peso exchange. I'm not
> so sure how people would choose a host country at retirement.
You do not keep your money in the country you live in.
Andrew Swallow
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97548 is a reply to message #97454] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 15:47 |
Patrick Scheible
Messages: 768
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
> On 18-Jul-13 08:54, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>> In <ks6927$ll8$1@dont-email.me>, on 07/17/2013
>> at 09:23 AM, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> said:
>>> "Fired" means terminated for cause.
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> What you're referring to are layoffs,
>>
>> No. What he described was an at will firing.
>>
>>> which is when jobs are eliminated.
>>
>> If you hire someone else to do the job then you haven't eliminated it.
>
> "At will" employment is a nice theory, but in practice if you don't have
> a cause for firing someone, you'll end up paying more in legal costs for
> a wrongful termination suit than it would have cost to just keep them on
> the payroll.
>
> Employers often work around this by "eliminating" the job, which turns
> it into a layoff that doesn't require a cause. However, that means they
> can't hire a replacement for the _same_ job.
But they can change the job description slightly so it's different
enough to make a wrongful termination lawsuit difficult to prove, but
still have most of the duties be the same.
-- Patrick
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes Medical Economics Bizarre? [message #97550 is a reply to message #97453] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 16:16 |
John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> Also, there is at least one country that _does_ have a competitive
> individual market for health insurance with compulsory coverage; if you
> don't buy your own, the govt will buy it for you and bill the cost to
> you via deductions from welfare payments or tax refunds. It does work
> in practice, and there is no reason it couldn't work here as well.
I presume you mean Switzerland?
If you dig deeper, I believe you'll find that the insurance companies
are highly regulated, same coverage, same price for everyone
regardless of age or history, and not for profit for the basic
insurance, with options only for addons like dental and private room
supplements.
Sure, that can work, although as Uwe Reinhart noted, it's the effect
of single payer with the overhead of private insurance. Good luck
getting the insurance vampires here to go for it, though.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97552 is a reply to message #97548] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 16:21 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 18-Jul-13 14:47, Patrick Scheible wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
>> On 18-Jul-13 08:54, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>>> If you hire someone else to do the job then you haven't
>>> eliminated it.
>>
>> "At will" employment is a nice theory, but in practice if you don't
>> have a cause for firing someone, you'll end up paying more in legal
>> costs for a wrongful termination suit than it would have cost to
>> just keep them on the payroll.
>>
>> Employers often work around this by "eliminating" the job, which
>> turns it into a layoff that doesn't require a cause. However, that
>> means they can't hire a replacement for the _same_ job.
>
> But they can change the job description slightly so it's different
> enough to make a wrongful termination lawsuit difficult to prove,
> but still have most of the duties be the same.
I've seen that done once, but it really only works for specialized jobs.
If you have a hundred workers in a factory, for instance, you can't
just change the job description to get rid of one of them. You might
get away with it once, but several times would establish a clear pattern
that would likely swing a jury to the other side.
Also, even _successfully_ defending against a lawsuit can cost an
enormous amount of money in the US legal system. If we had a loser-pays
system like the rest of the civilized world, it'd be a totally different
story.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97553 is a reply to message #96816] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 16:24 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Peter Flass" <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ks4oh0$r0m$5@dont-email.me...
> On 7/16/2013 11:38 AM, Walter Banks wrote:
>>
>>
>> Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/15/2013 7:57 AM, Walter Banks wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Tax and government polies could easily change wealth distribution
>>>> significantly with changes in those area's.
>>>>
>>>> The latter may very well make Obamacare ineffective and
>>>> certainly inefficient compared to many other countries but
>>>> it will make many companies very rich.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I just read an interesting analogy. Most people have two good kidneys
>>> and really only need one. while some people have kidney problems that
>>> harm their quality of life and significantly shorten their lifespans.
>>> Maybe the government needs a policy to redistribute kidneys from the
>>> healthy people to the sick?
>>
>> I am not sure that I understand your point.
>
> The government has as much business redistributing body parts as it has
> redistributing income. It's none of their business.
>
The government "decides who gets what of value"... that's the reality of
it.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97554 is a reply to message #97458] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 16:25 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 18/07/2013 17:33, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
{snip}
> They measured what actual people _do_ with additional income. The poor
> spend it all to improve their standard of living. The rich, who don't
> need to improve their standard of living, spend some on conspicuous
> consumption but speculate with most of it, which means _less_ economic
> activity per dollar of additional income.
>
> Ergo, if the goal is to increase economic activity (and therefore
> wealth), cutting taxes on the poor is better public policy than cutting
> taxes on the rich.
>
{snip}
You are fighting the previous war (The Great Depression).
The modern poor spend their money on goods from China. The modern
problem is reducing the goods we import from Asia and increasing our
exports to them.
Andrew Swallow
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97557 is a reply to message #97378] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 16:39 |
127
Messages: 41
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
"Peter Flass" <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ks8j8o$442$2@dont-email.me...
> On 7/17/2013 6:31 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 17-Jul-13 16:16, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> On 7/17/2013 10:23 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> On 16-Jul-13 14:01, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> > was as a result of a native worker being fired, and not fired
>>>> > for cause.
>>>>
>>>> "Fired" means terminated for cause. What you're referring to are
>>>> layoffs, which is when jobs are eliminated.
>>>
>>> A layoff is supposedly a temporary situation, and the workers are
>>> expected to be recalled when business picks up.
>>
>> While technically a layoff, that's usually referred to as a "shutdown".
>> Calling it a "layoff" (or various euphemisms, e.g. downsizing) implies
>> that the job won't return; if it does, they're required to recall the
>> workers, but that can be easily evaded by pretending the new job is
>> different from the old job, e.g. by using a different title.
>>
>
> We had that in one local government recently. They wanted to get rid of
> someone, so they abolished her job and then later created a new hob with a
> new title but similar duties.
I had that happen with someone I used to work for at the federal government
level.
Not only with his job, the entire operation that he headed.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97558 is a reply to message #97540] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 16:46 |
Walter Banks
Messages: 1000
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen wrote:
>
> Money doesn't disappear after it gets spent.
>
There is one exception and that is when there is
an imbalance in the balance of payments in
imported goods money is spent and then goes
into circulation in a foreign country.
The money doesn't disappear but it no longer
is in this economy.
China turned that into an art form a few years
ago because they sold goods at cost and then
profited by the additional cash flow in their
economy.
w..
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97560 is a reply to message #97171] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 16:49 |
D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:31:12 -0400, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com>
wrote:
> In article <51e53d8c$9$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>,
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In <proto-FFD2D5.19573115072013@70-1-84-166.pools.spcsdns.net>, on
>> 07/15/2013
>> at 07:57 PM, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <dbe8u8dnngdlj6v70mi3ugm1r4nlhprqku@4ax.com>, Ibmekon
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Thanks, that gave me a much needed laugh.
>>>>
>>>> There was no disclaimer that "no lawyers were harmed or killed during
>>>> the making of this film" - we can only hope so.
>>
>>> Why? I have a little list.
>>
>> Apparently, so did the audience at Jurassic Park. Or is that just an
>> UL?
>
> "UL"?
I believe it means 'urban legend'.
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://dice.drivein-jim.net/ my dice collection
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ Aug 26, 2009
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97561 is a reply to message #97387] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 16:50 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004E1C9867767A0@ac81348a.ipt.aol.com...
> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> On 17/07/2013 14:17, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>> I'm trying to think about the consequences when governments destroy
>>> this training infrastructure. The USSR would have lost that knowledge
>>> with the imposition of Communism. It seems like the royalty in Europe
>>> are being taxed out of business but I'm not sure about that. The
>>> training can't be started at college level; it has to be a mindset
>>> which is learned when very young.
>>
>> The USSR never had that mind set. It imported its business class from
>> Britain and Germany.
>
> It was [can't think of his name] tzar..Peter? who got those business
> people to create and work in Russia. He did a tour of Europe early
> on and planned to move the latest industries to Russia. That's the
> mindset I'm talking about. he didn't do the detailed work but he
> did do the work which made it possible to attract that business and trade.
>
>
>> Its mind set was that of a peasant who worked on
>> the aristocrat's land and paid rent. The Communists tried running
>> factories as aristocratic estates. This shows why successful medieval
>> towns were run by the guilds rather than aristocrats.
> One of the biggest reason USSR failed is because all goods
> had to travel through Moscow at each step of production.
Bullshit they did.
The real reason the USSR failed is because what you got
from the state had absolutely nothing to do with how
much effort you put into what work you were given to do.
So most didn’t try very hard at the work they were given to do.
> They didn't localize the production steps but spread
> them all over the geographic width of the coutnry.
That utterly mangles the real story.
> Robert Fulich(sp?) did a commentary in the 80s which explained this.
CLAIMED that. Not the same thing at all.
It didn’t happen like that with the aerospace industry for example.
> It answered the questions I had when I visited Leningrad.
> The Russians had to control every little step, even literally,
> of all commerce.
That’s what a command economy does.
> I don't know if they've managed to eliminate that mindset yet.
Corse they have.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97562 is a reply to message #97388] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 16:52 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004E1C92A270807@ac81348a.ipt.aol.com...
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 16-Jul-13 19:25, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> On 7/16/2013 9:50 AM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>> On 16/07/2013 13:49, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> > I'm not sure how much this helps. I used to listen to the women
>>>> > at work talk about how much child-care cost. For a middle-income
>>>> > woman it was marginally worthwhile to work. For someone with
>>>> > lower income, they'd basically be working for nothing until the
>>>> > kids go in school, and then they'd still have to do something
>>>> > about after school.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. The cost of a woman is frequently equal to the cost of a
>>>> woman. For a woman with young children to work per pay has to be
>>>> more than (the nannies wages + tax + expenses such as a bed room).
>>>>
>>>> This only changes when the nanny is replaced by a teacher with
>>>> 20-30 children in her class.
>>>
>>> In many cases the women with small children work either:
>>> A. Because the want to (get out of the house, socialization, get
>>> to use their talents, etc) or
>>> B. If they don't stay in the labor force and stay up-to-date with
>>> current technology they won't be able to get a job later when the
>>> kids are older.
>>>
>>> Add the hassle of who stays home with the kids when they're sick to
>>> the cost of child-care and it's a wash. Often professional women who
>>> enjoy their work keep working while women with non-professional jobs
>>> want to stay home.
>>
>> OTOH, consider the difference in typical earnings between those two
>> groups, which could just as easily explain why one keeps working while
>> the other stays home regardless of career considerations or personal
>> preferences.
> those women go to work to get medical insurance coverage.
Bullshit with most professional women.
> Plus an extra $100/month is important when
> you're have no other means of income.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97563 is a reply to message #97023] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:48 |
Shmuel (Seymour J.) M
Messages: 3286
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In <ks6ei9$lnm$1@dont-email.me>, on 07/17/2013
at 10:57 AM, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> said:
> The question I have for you, though, is why those laid-off workers
> don't take one of the millions of open jobs? Because they don't
> have the _right_ skills.
Perhaps some don't, but in a lot of cases the jobs have gone to less
skilled workers at substantially lower salaries.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97564 is a reply to message #97563] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 17:04 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 18-Jul-13 09:48, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <ks6ei9$lnm$1@dont-email.me>, on 07/17/2013
> at 10:57 AM, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> said:
>> The question I have for you, though, is why those laid-off workers
>> don't take one of the millions of open jobs? Because they don't
>> have the _right_ skills.
>
> Perhaps some don't, but in a lot of cases the jobs have gone to less
> skilled workers at substantially lower salaries.
That doesn't explain the millions of _open_ jobs.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97565 is a reply to message #97529] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 17:12 |
Lawrence Statton
Messages: 326
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
> Now there are so many skills involved, and they change so fast, I
> can't keep up with them. There's a limit to how much one person can
> be proficient in, but if you're a Python expert and the job requires
> Ruby on Rails [substitute your own here] you won't be considered.
When I was a younger man, an engineer (hardware design) told me "90%
of what I know today will be useless in ten years, and 90% of what I
will be doing in ten years does not yet exist today."
My super-wizard level of skill at Z80 assembly programming, the great
tracts of brain real-estate given over to 4000 and 7400 series part
numbers, the wiring of a small town TV station thirty years ago -- all
of these things that were, at the time, very valuable but are of
absolutely zero commercial value in 2013.
The tide is going to do its thing, and King Canute can do nothing to
stop it.
--
NK1G - Lawrence
echo 'lawrenabae@abaluon.abaom' | sed s/aba/c/g
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97566 is a reply to message #97533] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 17:14 |
Lawrence Statton
Messages: 326
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> You think health insurance is a right?!!!!
>
> I think health care is a right in a civilized society.
> A healthy population makes a country far more
> competitive on the world stage.
>
I don't think I'm willing to call it a "right" myself, but I do
consider it a moral obligation that we all share to see that no-one
goes without care.
--
NK1G - Lawrence
echo 'lawrenabae@abaluon.abaom' | sed s/aba/c/g
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97567 is a reply to message #97390] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 17:16 |
127
Messages: 41
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004E1C8F0CF6F60@ac81348a.ipt.aol.com...
> 127 wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message
>> news:ks7bdm$935$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 17-Jul-13 15:02, 127 wrote:
>>>> "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:ks6ckt$aqf$1@dont-email.me...
>>>
> <snip>
>
>
>>>> >>> If neo-cons really want to stop abortions, they need to change
>>>> >>> the depressing economics of being a single mother--or agree to
>>>> >>> provide young, low-income women with free birth control, which
>>>> >>> is far cheaper for the govt than the alternative anyway.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The problem is that many of the single mothers choose to have
>>>> >> the kids and are essentially volunteering for welfare, so free
>>>> >> birth control would make no difference with them.
>>>> >
>>>> > There's one serious problem with your theory: 1.5 million women per
>>>> > year choose abortion. That shows they _don't_ want to have a kid,
>>>> > despite the supposedly wonderful life of a welfare queen.
>>>>
>>>> I never said anything about any wonderful life. They just decide that
>>>> being a single mother on welfare is better than the worst of the
>>>> unskilled work.
>>
>>> ... or they've been brainwashed with moral objections
>>> to abortion, or they simply can't afford one,
>>
>> Doesn’t cost much to get an abortion using RU486 etc.
> And where do people get that?
Off the net.
> How much does it cost?
Much less than their cigarettes cost.
>> or they don't have a realistic idea of how
>>> difficult it is to be a single mom, etc.
>>
>> Sure, but that’s just as true of those that aren't single mothers too.
>>
>>> I've known many over the years, and most of them _tried_ to work after
>>> having a kid but quickly discovered the Welfare Trap.
>>>
>>>> > So why did they get pregnant in the first place?
>>>>
>>>> Because they like to fuck.
>>>
>>> So do most humans, but only the low-income ones tend to have unwanted
>>> pregnancies. There's a reason for that:
>>
>> Yes, few kids that age bother with birth control until they end up
>> pregnant.
> What birth control methods are available to kids?
All of them.
> That assumes their parents told them about such things...
No, kids get most of that information from other kids
and from the education system.
> which usually isn't the case.
That is just plain wrong with many of them.
>>>> > Because birth control is simply too expensive for someone without
>>>> > health insurance.
>>>>
>>>> Condoms don’t cost much.
>>
>>> But they're not very effective in practice, over the long run; you only
>>> need to mess up once, and most users mess up frequently.
>>
>> They aren't the only cheap contraceptive.
> They're expensive.
No.
> What other methods are cheap?
All of them.
> I don't know of any.
They are all cheaper than cigarettes let alone the illegal drugs they use.
>>>> Even birth control costs a lot less than cigarettes or coffee.
>>
>>> Look up the full cost, i.e. including exams every six months
>>
>> You don’t need an exam every 6 months.
> Yes, you do.
No.
> To get a prescription rewnewal, you have to see the doctor.
No.
> The only way to get any prescription renewed is to see the doctor.
You don’t need a prescription.
>> and not
>>> just the copays after your health insurance picks up most of the tab,
>>> then try to figure out how you're going to cover that on top of food,
>>> housing, clothing, transportation, utilities, etc. when you're only
>>> making minimum wage. Ain't gonna happen--
>>
>> It does for plenty of them.
> You are so far out of reality...
You are yourself.
>>> and so they get pregnant.
>>
>> They get pregnant for other reasons entirely, mostly
>> because they are essentially volunteering for welfare or
>> are too stupid to do anything to avoid getting pregnant.
> Very few women get pregnanat on purpose unless being on Welfare is
> a wayof life.
It is for many of them. Most of their parents were themselves.
> Noone in high school tries to get pregnant;
Some of them do just that.
> Kids are just learning how to do the action and
> havne't learned how to prevent the consequences.
Doesn’t explain why so few have just one kid when its
obvious to everyone how they ended up with the first kid.
>>> Ironically, _after_ they have a kid, the govt is willing to give them
>>> free birth control. But not before, when it would save the government
>>> literally trillions of dollars.
>>
>> I doubt many of those who do end up pregnant
>> would bother to use it even if it was free.
>
> The males sure don't. There's myths out there which
> say that using condoms doesn't give full satisfaction.
It's just one way to do contraception.
> so birth control is usually left up to the female.
Another myth. Have a look at condom sales sometime.
> Since adults have reality problems, kids don't have
> access nor learn about how to prevent pregnancies.
That hasn’t been true for more than half a century now.
> Take a good look at Texas.
Where the net is available, just like everywhere else.
> It's going to be the 60s all over again.
No. And just like in the 60s, the kids communicate
amongst themselves just like they did then, and its
much easier to do with Facebook than it ever was then.
>> The evidence that most won't is the huge numbers
>> that have more than just the one child when birth
>> control is free after the first one shows up.
> There is "free" and then there is using it.
Yes, but Stephen was saying that teenage pregnancy
would be significantly reduced if the government
did provide free birth control. The evidence that
so few have just one child disproves that because
the birth control is free after the first one.
> For the pill you have to remember to
> take it every day at the same time;
That's not the reason for those teenage pregnancies
and isn't the only form of birth control either.
> it's effectiveness (used to be) 95% or so.
There are plenty of alternatives now like the morning after pill.
> That's all based on the little fact that there are no
> irregular menstration prolbems. You have to pay
> tons of money to get and use the pill.
No, and you certainly don’t with the morning after pill.
> Condoms require cooperation from the male, which is not
> common, although the AIDS thing may have helped there.
And the morning after pill requires no cooperation at all,
and doesn’t even require any anticipation that you might
be fucking either.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
