| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97887 is a reply to message #97459] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 11:27   |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 16-Jul-13 07:21, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> On 15-Jul-13 07:06, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> On 7/14/2013 4:30 PM, jklam wrote:
>>>> >> In all of the above cases, he'd still be a billionaire
>>>> >> today, which is far more than he ever expected.
>>>> >
>>>> > Yes, he would still be stinking rich even if that capital gain
>>>> > was taxed at 95% and he would still try to do that.
>>>>
>>>> This is a "feel good" argument. That guy was just lucky and a
>>>> lot sess deserving than the lady who cleans the toilets in his
>>>> house, so let's take it from him and give it to her.
>>>
>>> I'd be satisfied if he paid (at least) the same effective tax rate
>>> that she did on her (much smaller) earnings.
>>>
>>> Even Warren Buffet says it's ridiculous that he pays a lower tax
>>> rate than his secretary does.
>>
>> Warren Buffet was comparing earned income to unearned income.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> His secretary has a salary which is in the highest tax bracket.
>
> I'm not sure she's in the highest bracket, but I'll agree for the sake
> of argument.
>
>> Buffet is nuts.
>
> This is where we fundamentally disagree. He is quite possibly the
> savviest investor of our era, which requires an understanding of
> economics and finance that is undoubtedly better than ours. So, when he
> publicly takes a position on something (which is rare) that is against
> his own self-interest (even rarer), that is worth paying attention to.
I did pay attention; he's nuts.
>
>>>> The fair way is to let everyone keep the money they earn (or
>>>> "earn") except for the _minimum_ required to run the government.
>>>
>>> Who decides what the "minimum" is?
>>>
>>> Since you (unlike BAH)
>>
>> You are wrong; taxes are necessary; I haven't said otherwise. My
>> objections have to do with stultifying business and trade.
>
> You're the one that says the goal of taxes is to "punish success" and
> "control profits".
No. then I wrote badly. The suggestions in this newsgroup on how
to solve the problems all punish success. This punishment is what
I'm arguing against; I'm not arguing against having taxes.
>
>>>> Sure I think a lot of athletes, actors, and dot-com millionaires
>>>> are way overpaid, but why is my opinion worth more than the
>>>> votes of millions of people expressed in the free market?
>>>
>>> If someone is willing to pay them that for their labor or ideas,
>>> then more power to 'em. My problem is solely with said
>>> millionaires (or billionaires) paying a _lower_ tax rate than
>>> middle-class (and often even "working poor") workers.
>>
>> You are again lumpiing unearned income with earned income.
>
> Whether income is "earned" or "unearned" is often a matter of how you do
> the accounting--and the current tax code provides enormous incentive to
> classify as much as possible as "unearned" to get a lower tax rate.
>
> I fundamentally disagree with the notion that unearned income should be
> taxed at a lower rate than earned income. If anything, it should be
> taxed at a _higher_ rate, but for now I'd settle for the same rate.
It is going to be the same rate as of this year. I strongly disagree
with you on this point. My taxes are going to double beause the
rates for unearned income have doubled.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97888 is a reply to message #97566] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 11:27 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lawrence Statton wrote:
> 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.
>
Yes, and it makes good business and political sense. However,
the rabble have been trained to expect all "right" for free,
including not working. Maybe I should change the word "including"
for "expecially".
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97889 is a reply to message #97523] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 11:27 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass wrote:
> 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.
>
there is a difference between wash sales and short term capital gains.
I thought the hedge funds played with those. I haven't been talking
about those at all.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97894 is a reply to message #97525] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 11:27 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Patrick Scheible wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
<snip>
>> 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.
I'll bet the cost is equivalent to taking the pill. Those came after
I stopped needing birth control so I don't anything about their use
and effectiveness.
> There's IUDs that cost a fair
> amount to put in, but last for 5-7 years without requiring any new
> doctor's visits.
Unless they fall out.
> 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.
Yea, try to get the male who refuses to put one on.
>
> Followups set to a.f.c.
OK. c.a. deleted. and I've forgotten why I have to do this by hand.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97895 is a reply to message #97521] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 11:27 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass wrote:
> 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.
Which is why SS and other government freebies are putting the US
into bankruptcy. people have transferred responsibility of their
lives to the government. That's what communism is.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97896 is a reply to message #97567] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 11:28 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
127 wrote:
>
>
> "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.
Not here. it's still not settled if women are going to have access.
>
>> How much does it cost?
>
> Much less than their cigarettes cost.
You don't know how much a pill costs.
>
>>> 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.
No, they aren't. Not in the US anyway.
>
>> That assumes their parents told them about such things...
>
> No, kids get most of that information from other kids
> and from the education system.
And it's wrong information.
>
>> 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.
Yes.
>
>> 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.
Which shows how much you know about these things. IOW, zip.
>
>>>> > 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.
Yes.
>
>> The only way to get any prescription renewed is to see the doctor.
>
> You don’t need a prescription.
[stunned emoticon here] How old are you? 16?
<snip>
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97897 is a reply to message #97805] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 11:28 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass wrote:
> On 7/18/2013 5:12 PM, Lawrence Statton wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Probably engineers had problems similar to programmers today. If you
> were an EE working with discrete logic you were competing with kids just
> out of college who had worked with ICs. Of course back in those days
> there was still enough of an employer-employee bond that your employer
> would retrain you (AFAIK). Today they just fire you and hire the kids.
And then contract out for you to fix the things the kids broke. My
brother experienced that.
I was told that if you got a mechanical engineering degree, you could
always walk in and find a job.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97898 is a reply to message #97452] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 11:28 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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.
>
I thought I wrote what Mass. did.
Congress appears to be doing similar things. I heard two differnt
expenditures for the money which came back out of the auto makers.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97899 is a reply to message #97465] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 11:28 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Patrick Scheible wrote:
> 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.
But your use of the term hellhole says it all. Why move to a hellhoe
if there environs of the original are good? There are lots of additional
costs and that doesn't include transporting the capitalized assets
offshore.
>
> Followups set to a.f.c.
Done.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97900 is a reply to message #97385] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 11:28 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <PM0004E1B4FE1EF89B@ac812019.ipt.aol.com>, on 07/17/2013
> at 01:17 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:
>
>> It gets completely forgotten when this ridiculous class warfare
>> rhetoric starts.
>
> It was the republicans that started the class warfare rhetoric.
>
OH, bullshit. You can't trace "s/he said" arguments just like
you can't trace fueds. I'm talking about the current class
warfare shit being used as the reason to destroy this country.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97901 is a reply to message #97802] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 11:27 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass wrote:
> On 7/18/2013 3:32 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> The origin of Planned Parenthood was the Eugenics movement. The idea
> was to stop the undesirables from breeding.
>
>
Then it must have changed into stop breeding undesirables.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97902 is a reply to message #97535] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 11:28 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> 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.
YOu also have to include the high interest rates, the S&L debacle,
the beginnings of what is now toxic CDOs, China and Indonesia starting
to become important trade exporters...what made things go topsy turvy...
Oh, EEO, of course. A determined dumbing down of elhi training.
all the hangovers from the 70s' production, trade and economic
problems such as the oil cartels, normal interest rates bein at the
usury levels,
>
>> 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.
Unions made it too expensive to do business; the business moved.
People making upper middle class wages (at that time) lost their jobs.
So they had to start all over at entry level wages when they did find
a new job.
>
>> 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.
I understand. i've talked with a woman who quit her job and went on
Welfare because she saw her sister making double with lots of freebies.
This tells me that there is something wrong with the Welfare administration,
not the job market.
>
>> 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!
The unions priced themselves out of a job. Their last strikes were
unreasonable demands and you can pick any strike.
>
>>>> 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.
Somebody did in this thread.
>
>>> 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.
No, if an arbitrary limit is put on how much profit any company can
have, then that is punishing and destroying success. All
productive work will move out of that country.
>
>>>> 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 how it should be. Socialsim nor communism nor facism does
this.
>
>> That's slavery.
>
> If you really think so, you're beyond rational debate.
Once again, I was talking about governments dictating how much
profit any business can have.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97904 is a reply to message #97463] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 11:28 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 18-Jul-13 09:31, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> On 16-Jul-13 19:25, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
> ... assuming they have the skills and experience to _get_ a job that
> provides benefits. If so, they probably have the ability to earn enough
> income for working to make sense anyway.
Around here there's a lot of manufacturing. The insurance is part of
the decision. Even if there is a father around, the insurance is part
of the decision and used as a backup in case the other one gets laid
off or injured.
>
>> Plus an extra $100/month is important when you're have no other
>> means of income.
>
> If a single mother has no/little income, health coverage is free via
> Medicaid and/or CHIP, so that's not a reason to work.
It's not 100% coverage.
>
> In fact, working full-time (or more than full-time) at even a minimum
> wage job will give you just enough income to lose all your welfare
> benefits, yet not enough income to _replace_ those benefits, so many
> people are better off _not_ working, or at least only part-time. This
> is the well-known "welfare trap".
Yes. However, there are still a lot of people who don't like to take
handouts and want to be independent and not a slave of the government.
>
> If we had a decent vocational training system, single mothers could at
> least use that downtime to gain skills they could put to use as soon as
> their kids are in school, or possibly even escape the trap earlier, but
> we don't because that's "socialism". (Why public K-12 schools aren't
> also "socialism" escapes me, but those don't teach marketable skills.)
Haven't you looked lately? The el-hi is socialistic; that's why
dumbing down the kids is being done.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97905 is a reply to message #97577] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 11:27 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rod Speed wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote
>>>> >> Stephen Sprunk wrote
>>>> >>> Peter Flass wrote
>>>> >>>> jklam wrote
>
>>>> >>>>>> In all of the above cases, he'd still be a billionaire
>>>> >>>>>> today, which is far more than he ever expected.
>
>>>> >>>>> Yes, he would still be stinking rich even if that capital
>>>> >>>>> gain was taxed at 95% and he would still try to do that.
>
>>>> >>>> This is a "feel good" argument. That guy was just lucky and
>>>> >>>> a lot sess deserving than the lady who cleans the toilets in
>>>> >>>> his house, so let's take it from him and give it to her.
>
>>>> >>> I'd be satisfied if he paid (at least) the same effective
>>>> >>> tax rate that she did on her (much smaller) earnings.
>
>>>> >>> Even Warren Buffet says it's ridiculous that he
>>>> >>> pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does.
>
>>>> >> Warren Buffet was comparing earned income to unearned income.
>
>>>> > Nope, he is talking about tax rates.
>
>>>> >> His secretary has a salary which is in the highest tax bracket.
>
>>>> > He pays a lower tax rate than she does anyway.
>
>>>> He pays a lower rate because his income is unearned.
>
>>> That is just one of the reasons. The other is because he
>>> has a lot more deductions available to him as well.
>
>> What kind of deductions do you think he has?
>
> The cost of doing business. Costs that she does
> not have because she is just a wage slave.
>
>> He can take interest expense
>
> Yes.
>
>> but not much else.
>
> Bullshit. Her wages for starters.
She doesn't work for Buffet. she works for the corpooration.
he doesn't deduct her wages from his personal income. her wages
which are very, very, very good for a scretary, are an expense
of the company. I havent' been keeping track of the stock price
of those shares.
>
>>>> There is a difference.
>
>>> You seriously 'think' that that is any news to anyone ?
>
>> It is here. People keep producing one of the stupidest
>> quotes of the last 3 deecades and use it to "prove" that
>> the middle class and retireees should have their tax rates
>> doubled or tripled.
>
> You're lying now. No one has EVER said anything about
> doubling or tripping the tax rates on the middle class
> and retirees in here and I read every single post in here.
If unearned income is taxed, those people's taxes will go up.
Every suggestion posted would double my income tax each year.
>
>> If the tax rate went to 40%,
>
> No one has even proposed that in here.
Are you kidding?
>
>> that would quadrulple some people's taxess.
>
> That’s not the tax rate, that’s the tax TAKE.
>
> Yes, some have proposed eliminating some of the
> deductions and rebates that allow the bottom HALF
> of the US to pay no net federal income tax,
This term you use is so wishy washy and specious.
> but that
> would no double or triple the tax RATE for those,
> and would in fact see an INFINITE increase in the
> tax TAKE for them.
when did you switch the word rate for total amount paid
each year?
/BAH
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97908 is a reply to message #97895] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 11:51 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 19-Jul-13 10:27, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> On 7/18/2013 10:32 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Which is why SS and other government freebies are putting the US into
> bankruptcy. people have transferred responsibility of their lives to
> the government. That's what communism is.
SS is not a "freebie"; you have to pay in to get benefits.
That the buffoons in Congress have consistently failed to collect
_enough_ payments to cover the cost of benefits is a different matter.
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 Unemployment Myth Bizarre? [message #97909 is a reply to message #97874] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 11:53 |
Lawrence Statton
Messages: 326
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
> This means we have to change the way we evaluate candidates: seek not
> someone who has _already done_ exactly what we need but rather someone
> who can _learn to do_ exactly what we need.
It used to be, referrals got you good candidates -- but now, when I
ask my team "Do you know anyone who is looking for work?" I get the
answer "Hell no - everyone I know is tired of being asked to change
jobs."
This thread has given me some food for thought ... A couple of years
ago, I proposed hiring a fresh grad and just teaching him the
toolchain we use from zero, and he (my boss) is just gonna have to pay
for it, because the situation then was bleak.
It may be time to re-pitch that idea ...
The big fly in that ointment is: It's not practical to do that level
of intensive communication without being in the same room for at least
a couple of hours a day, and finding the right mix of talents
(native-level English speaker being the clincher) that is in my travel
locus really *is* looking for a purple squirrel. I met one a couple
of years ago in a hostel in Mexico City -- an interesting story.
His parents immigrated to Texas without benefit of permission when he
was 8 months old. He grew up there, went to university, got a good
job. During a routine traffic stop, he was caught with a fake
drivers' license, and was (after some time) deported to his
"homeland", Mexico.
Where he knew nobody.
And didn't have any ID.
And none of the normal documentation that "everyone" has[1].
And didn't speak the language.
In the only city that *I'M* afraid to visit (Cd. Juarez, Chih).
To his credit, he did hit the ground running, with the help of his
parents who were able to send him a steady flow of money, and found a
programming gig paying about US$2500 a month (net), which is not that
bad for here. I wanted to hire him on the spot, just for having a
never-say-die attitude. He made the same lifestyle change -- under
duress -- that I made voluntarily ten years earlier. Unfortunately,
the only way I could guarantee he'd meet deliverables was by being
there to hand-hold. Plus, he was happy enough where he was.
1: For example, no adult does not have a certified copy of his
primary-school diploma, and his middle-school diploma (each replete
with embossed seals, stamps, and a photo of a cute cherub).
Just *TRY* to get a job without being able to prove those things.
University diploma from the US -- no problem -- take it to the embassy
and get an apostille. But the Embassy won't certify documents for
non-citizens. He was an "un-person" in a very real way.
--
NK1G - Lawrence
echo 'lawrenabae@abaluon.abaom' | sed s/aba/c/g
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97911 is a reply to message #97880] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 12:04 |
Lawrence Statton
Messages: 326
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
[sparing comp.arch from this continuing hell ... ]
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> this is unbelievable. Every school which had a PDP-10 had lots
> of kiddies who could code. Everyone wanted to play with the "toy".
And that's how it was for my generation, but I fear that I'm the last.
For the next, the "toy" was the Nintendo (or Sega, or XBox, or
whatever it is this week) and you don't have to learn to program that
- just just plug it in and turn it on and get some engaging
entertainment.
When I was working in the video game "biz", I was asked at a panel
discussion, "What is your favorite game?" And I answered deadpan
"cc". (The C compiler).
> GUI and PC have a lot to answer for. people who buy a system todya
> have no idea and receive no hints about what's underneath. Even
> the Unixes of this world hide basic computing skills.
That's a red herring -- people buy tools because they want to use
those tools to do their job, or make thier lives easier. Those whose
constitution requires them to know how it works will find out, but the
vast majority of users of <anything> don't really care how to build
it, or how it works, they just want to write their book, or balance
their accounts, or see pictures of kittens, or chat with their
grandchildren, or ....
> I said it once and I'll state it again with stronger lanugage.
> Every kid should have a copy of DEC's _Introduction to
> Programming_.
I'm torn in two on this issue -- I genuinely believe that learning to
program to some level of compentency will force a person to think
logically about solving a problem, and that can't possibly be a bad
thing. On the other hand, I've met enough people who just CAN'T seem
to break a problem down logically - they can only seem to absorb
information holistically - that it would be like forcing me to learn
oilpainting. I doubt I'd ever get good at it, and I'd hate being
forced to learn it, and hate them for trying.
The first Real Important Lesson of Adulthood: Everyone is created
unequal. I am unique. There are others like me, but many, many
others totally unlike me.
My first exposure to that was in differential calculus -- this shit is
so EASY! What kind of brain-damaged MORON are you that this isn't
immediately obvious??! My second exposure was integral calclus. This
shit is so HARD! What kind of brain-damaged MORON am I that this
isn't immediately obvious??!
--
NK1G - Lawrence
echo 'lawrenabae@abaluon.abaom' | sed s/aba/c/g
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97912 is a reply to message #97886] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 12:10 |
Lawrence Statton
Messages: 326
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
[so long, Frank Comp Arch .... ]
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Lawrence Statton wrote:
>> 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."
>
> And I was told every 5 years. This was in 1985 or so.
He could have said three or five or seven ... I just pulled ten out of
thin air. Three might be a bit soon - ten is probably a bit long.
I haven't done "serious hardware design" for many years. Picking it
up for my hobby needs is an interesting lesson in why it's important
to keep up. There's so much ground I need to cover, just to ask
intelligent questions. The Web is a great resource for "Tell me about
a 74ACV74" and I can get the specs (a garden-variety chip). But "Is
there anything today that fills the space between SSI glue and ASICs
like GALs did in 1993?" I don't have anyone to ask that of.
--
NK1G - Lawrence
echo 'lawrenabae@abaluon.abaom' | sed s/aba/c/g
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97913 is a reply to message #97888] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 12:14 |
Lawrence Statton
Messages: 326
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
[Roll out the barrels, roll out comp.arch ... ]
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Yes, and it makes good business and political sense. However,
> the rabble have been trained to expect all "right" for free,
> including not working. Maybe I should change the word "including"
> for "expecially".
>
The times, they is a changin' ... We are at a point in history where
the only reason most people need to "work" is because our system is
broken, and working is the only path to eating. There's another major
change in human development, akin to the invention of Agriculture or
Industry where only those who wish to work will need to.
I can EASILY produce enough "value" (I was about to say "wealth") to
feed, house, clothe, care-for, and provide ample leisure for, a dozen
people.
--
NK1G - Lawrence
echo 'lawrenabae@abaluon.abaom' | sed s/aba/c/g
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97962 is a reply to message #97876] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 12:27 |
Walter Banks
Messages: 1000
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv wrote:
> Walter Banks wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> That's doesn't make it a right where other people have
> to pay for the expenses.
There are so many layers to that comment. At a moral
level it screams every one for themselves. There are so
many common good examples in most societies,
defence, police, border checks, roads, water works
courts, legislation, building codes, hospitals. All of these
are rarely used by the individual so why should they be
paid for by the society we live in.
Privatize them all and pay for them when needed
except the administrative costs will make them prohibitively
expensive. In part it is happening with the US health care
now.
w..
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97963 is a reply to message #97899] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 12:20 |
Patrick Scheible
Messages: 768
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>> 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.
>
> But your use of the term hellhole says it all. Why move to a hellhoe
> if there environs of the original are good? There are lots of additional
> costs and that doesn't include transporting the capitalized assets
> offshore.
Again, multinationals thrive by moving their costs to where labor is
cheapest and taxes are lowest. That tends to create miserable living
conditions for the population, and maybe the multinational has to build
their own compound with their own security, electricity, and water
purification, but it's still cheaper than operating in a country with
decent living conditions and 1st world tax rates. Their only
involvement in the 1st world can be selling to the consumers there, who
still work for the businesses that haven't moved to the 3rd world yet.
-- Patrick
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97965 is a reply to message #97911] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 12:43 |
Lawrence Statton
Messages: 326
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lawrence Statton <lawrence@cluon.com> writes:
>> GUI and PC have a lot to answer for. people who buy a system todya
>> have no idea and receive no hints about what's underneath. Even
>> the Unixes of this world hide basic computing skills.
>
> That's a red herring -- people buy tools because they want to use
> those tools to do their job, or make thier lives easier. Those whose
> constitution requires them to know how it works will find out, but the
> vast majority of users of <anything> don't really care how to build
> it, or how it works, they just want to write their book, or balance
> their accounts, or see pictures of kittens, or chat with their
> grandchildren, or ....
I know it's gauche to followup on oneself, but I want to amplify on
this topic a bit more.
Traditionally, the "tortured car analogy" is brought out, but today
I'm going to stick with technology.
I'm a ham.
I understand radio technology in a way that the man on the street
doesn't.
I can build moderately complex transmitters and receivers from parts
in my home lab.
I can sketch complex systems, and come back and fill in some of the
hard numbers as I make engineering tradeoffs.
I understand how digital audio codecs work, how different codecs react
to errors, and the tradeoffs between them.
I understand the modulations used for getting dozens or hundreds of
multi-kilobit streams into and out of an antenna.
I genuinely believe, given a year, maybe two, I could implement a fully
functioning communcation chain from handset to landline handoff on the
order of complexity of GSM. [1]
These issues fascinate me, and I spend time to learn and understand
them.
My housemate wants to pick up his handset and call me to tell me he's
at the market and should he get eggs or not. He cares nothing about
codecs or Gold codes, multipath, or trilateration, canyon effect or
backhaul. He just wants to know if we have eggs.
This, we call progress. Fifty years ago, you had to be a major radio
geek to have something close to that.
Thirty years ago, you had to be a major computer nerd to have a
complete computer capable of "useful work"[2] in your house. Today
someone who does not want to know anything about radio can use a cell
phone at a cost that is shockingly small. Today someone can use a
computer as an appliance at a cost that is shockingly small.
Geeks will be geeks. Car, computer, radio, whatever. Who knows what
the future will bring -- will my grandchildren be able to build a
griffin out of bald-eagle eggs and lion semen[3]?
1: Actually, there is already an open-source stack for most of it. If
I'm willing to just plug the bits that other people have built, I
could have that up and running in six weeks.
2: For very small values of 'useful'
3: Big Bang Theory Reference.
--
NK1G - Lawrence
echo 'lawrenabae@abaluon.abaom' | sed s/aba/c/g
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97966 is a reply to message #97654] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 12:35 |
Patrick Scheible
Messages: 768
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
> "127" <127@586.com> writes:
>
>> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:ic8v13fyck.fsf@home.home...
>>> 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.
>>
>> That is not correct with the sort of problem that the GP can deal with
>> or one that will fix itself if you do nothing like the common cold.
>
> Hi Rod.
>
> One visit to the lab for a blood test:
>
> Submitted to insurer: 143.52
> Paid by insurer: 19.06
>
> No out of pocket.
>
> Seems to me like a necessity.
Also consider:
The blood tech probably makes $50 an hour including benefits.
Actual time doing the test: 3 minutes
Paperwork time: 10 minutes
So the actual cost of the blood test is probably about what the insurer
pays. The submitted cost by the provider is just a fantasy bill that no
one ever pays, except the poor who are uninsured yet somehow still have
enough assets to pay it.
Followups set to a.f.c.
-- Patrick
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97968 is a reply to message #97912] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 12:49 |
Robert Swindells
Messages: 44
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:10:09 -0500, Lawrence Statton wrote:
> I haven't done "serious hardware design" for many years. Picking it up
> for my hobby needs is an interesting lesson in why it's important to
> keep up. There's so much ground I need to cover, just to ask
> intelligent questions. The Web is a great resource for "Tell me about a
> 74ACV74" and I can get the specs (a garden-variety chip). But "Is there
> anything today that fills the space between SSI glue and ASICs like GALs
> did in 1993?" I don't have anyone to ask that of.
The answer to your question ought to be "FPGAs and CPLDs".
If you want to start playing, just download the free tools from Xilinx or
Altera and teach yourself VHDL or Verilog.
Robert Swindells
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97969 is a reply to message #97875] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 13:16 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 19/07/2013 16:19, Lawrence Statton wrote:
> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> writes:
>> It was not just the engineers but the entire company that had problems
>> with new technology. Few valve firms survived the introduction of
>> transistors.
>
> I realize you're in the UK, so things were a little different there
> (What ever happened to Mullard? EMI's engineering divisions got sold
> off, in part to Thorn ... )
>
> On the left-side of the pond, things were nothing like that.
>
> Thinking of "big" US-based tube manufacturers.
>
> RCA. They made transistors as well, but ended up getting swallowed up
> by GE. The quintessential "middle of the road" power transistor, the
> 2N3055 was developed at RCA in the sixties, and you can still buy them
> new today from basically every manufacturer in the field (although the
> process has changed slightly - there is a brisk secondary market in
> "pre-1974 3055s" on eBay for ...quirky... engineers.)
>
They were the exception. Have a look at the other manufactures of valve
TVs and radios.
> Sylvania. They successfully sold transistors during the decline of
> the vacuum tube. Swallowed by GTE in the sixties, still manufactures
> electric lamps in some parts of the world, that division owned by
> Osram.
>
> General Electric. Still here.
>
So are trains.
>> Integrated circuits killed off the discrete components
>> firms.
>
> Yeah, right [sarcasm]. Name *ONE*. The "big ones" I can think of....
>
DEC
ICL
> Burr-Brown - they got bought by TI just a few years back.
>
> Sprague Electric - got swallowed by Vishay in 1993.
>
Getting swallowed up is how big companies die.
> Ohmite. Still going.
>
> Motorola - broke up into a few parts along business-group lines, the
> semiconductor group going strong as on Semi. Want a new MRF150 - call
> up your local rep and he can sample you one.
>
> All the myriad Japenese names from the 60s are still going strong. I
> can buy a new transistor today made by Toshiba or Mitsubishi.
>
> Hell, one of the biggest names in discrete components, Texas
> Instruments, is arguably credited with *inventing* the integrated
> circuit. Do you think they killed themselves by breaking new ground?
>
>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
> Do you never get tired of being wrong?
>
I will leave that activity to you.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97970 is a reply to message #97808] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 13:56 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <ksbasv$ne3$4@dont-email.me>, Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com
(Peter Flass) writes:
> On 7/18/2013 7:16 PM, 127 wrote:
>
>> "Patrick Scheible" <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote in message
>> news:86ppufdamo.fsf@chai.my.domain...
>>
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> 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 the businesses that don't do this have been eaten by the
>>> ones that do.
>>
>> That has not happened with all of Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft,
>> News, Intel, Seagate, AMD, Western Digital etc, all which do quite a
>> bit of what is useful.
>
> What the hell does Facebook do that's useful? Or Twitter, Instagram,
> ...
Or Microsoft...
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97974 is a reply to message #97894] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 13:33 |
Patrick Scheible
Messages: 768
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> 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.
>
> I'll bet the cost is equivalent to taking the pill. Those came after
> I stopped needing birth control so I don't anything about their use
> and effectiveness.
Yes, the cost is similar to the Pill, but the woman doesn't have to
remember to take it every day. They're as effective as the Pill in
theory, and more in practice because of not having to remember.
>> There's IUDs that cost a fair
>> amount to put in, but last for 5-7 years without requiring any new
>> doctor's visits.
>
> Unless they fall out.
They can't just fall out. The IUD spreads out to be about the same
width as the nonpregnant woman's uterus, which is much bigger than the
cervix.
>> 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.
>
> Yea, try to get the male who refuses to put one on.
The males may not be crazy about them, but they like sleeping alone even
less.
>> Followups set to a.f.c.
>
> OK. c.a. deleted. and I've forgotten why I have to do this by hand.
Are you still using AOL? I have the feeling a complying Usenet
newsreader is not their highest priority...
-- Patrick
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97976 is a reply to message #97969] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 14:03 |
Lawrence Statton
Messages: 326
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> writes:
First you said ..
>>> Few valve firms survived the introduction of transistors.
Then you swithc to
> They were the exception. Have a look at the other manufactures of
> valve TVs and radios.
So - maybe I misunderstood, I interpreted "valve firms" to be
"manufacturers of valves", not "manufacturers of equiment that used
valves".
>
>>> Integrated circuits killed off the discrete components
>>> firms.
>>
>> Yeah, right [sarcasm]. Name *ONE*. The "big ones" I can think of....
>>
>
> DEC
I am near dead-certain DEC never manufactured discrete components.
Those that were shipped under their house part-numbers were made under
contract by The Usual Suspects.
>
> ICL
>
Another computer manufacturer, not component manufacturer. I know
less about their history, so they may have actually built some of the
components that went into their machines, can't speak to that.
> Getting swallowed up is how big companies die.
No. It's how big companies survive. Quincy Buggywhip and Strap, a
company that produced no product worth buying died because nobody
thought they were worth buying.
--
NK1G - Lawrence
echo 'lawrenabae@abaluon.abaom' | sed s/aba/c/g
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97984 is a reply to message #97569] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 14:56 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Lawrence Statton" <lawrence@cluon.com> wrote in message
news:87ppuf5zuv.fsf@cluon.com...
> "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
>>> I dunno. I know a
>>> * guy *
>>> who makes a good living as a MUMPS programmer.
>
>>
>> I'll bet
>> *he/she*
>> even knows what a $HOROLOG is...
>
> I'm as open-minded as the next person, but I think "guy" really
> doesn't need to be qualified as he/she. Although, I did know a
> BRILLIANT programmer many years ago that was M -> F transexual. He
> (later she) took probably more ribbing than was called for, but did
> keep a sense of humor about it.
>
I often use "guys" as a generic word that can mean males, females, or any
combination thereof. Perhaps the OP did *not* mean it that way, though...
But point taken... I could also have used the word "guy", as:
I'll bet the guy even knows what a $HOROLOG is...
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97985 is a reply to message #97642] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 14:58 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote in message
news:ks9rjj$1rts$1@leila.iecc.com...
>> That doesn't explain the millions of _open_ jobs.
>
> Could you tell use where these millions of open jobs are advertised,
> posted, or can otherwise be seen to exist?
>
> I hope we mean skilled jobs that pay a living wage, not part time
> whopper assembly.
>
I think we mean real, fulfilling employment, like being a greeter at
Walmart. This qualifies you to get food stamps.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97987 is a reply to message #97860] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 15:05 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Lawrence Statton" <lawrence@cluon.com> wrote in message
news:87d2qeac4i.fsf@cluon.com...
> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
>> Probably engineers had problems similar to programmers today. If you
>> were an EE working with discrete logic you were competing with kids
>> just out of college who had worked with ICs. Of course back in those
>> days there was still enough of an employer-employee bond that your
>> employer would retrain you (AFAIK). Today they just fire you and hire
>> the kids.
>
> Butter ullshit .... you don't get fired, you adapt to keep up with
> changing technology. There is no rule that says just because you left
> school you get to stop learning new things.
>
I agree. One *should* keep up with the new stuff and learn new things.
Still... the guys out of school work for less money. That often tips the
scales in their favor.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97988 is a reply to message #97879] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 15:12 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004E1DEB4DDC0B8@ac810898.ipt.aol.com...
> Charles Richmond wrote:
>> "Peter Flass" <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ks4oh0$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.
>
> Only in socialism.
>
BAH, through taxation and government subsidies... the government can control
where the money goes in a real sense. The US government.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97991 is a reply to message #97987] |
Fri, 19 July 2013 15:33 |
Lawrence Statton
Messages: 326
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
> I agree. One *should* keep up with the new stuff and learn new
> things. Still... the guys out of school work for less money. That
> often tips the scales in their favor.
No. It doesn't. I don't know where this belief that money is the key
comes from. The difference in salary between the youngest, greenest
grad and the greyest greybeard is chicken-feed in the grand scheme of
what it costs to keep a business going.
I'm not for a second going to shoot myself in the foot by hiring a
neww grad who is clueless to save myself a dollar in salary but cost
me ten dollars in lost sales.
--
NK1G - Lawrence
echo 'lawrenabae@abaluon.abaom' | sed s/aba/c/g
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
