|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97387 is a reply to message #97159] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:31   |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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. They didn't localize
the production steps but spread them all over the geographic width
of the coutnry. Robert Fulich(sp?) did a commentary in the 80s which
explained this. It answered the questions I had when I visited
Leningrad. The Russians had to control every little step, even
literally, of all commerce. I don't know if they've managed to
eliminate that mindset yet.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97388 is a reply to message #97018] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:31 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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.
Plus an extra $100/month is important when you're have no other
means of income.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97389 is a reply to message #97014] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:31 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:
>> Why shouldn't unearned income be taxed as income?
>>
>> 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.
>
> there was some articles on how hedge funds lobbied congress to get their
> income reclassified to unearned ...
I hadn't heard about that.
> it is bizarre the difference in
> rates between earned/unearned ... but also opportunities for graft &
> corruption about the things that can get reclassified as unearned (as
> periodically noted the whole issue of graft&corruption around the tax code
> is significant factor in congress being considered the most corrupt
> institution on earth).
>
> slightly related is the article from the early 80s calling for 100%
> unearned profit tax on the US auto industries ... supposedly the import
> quotas was to reduce competition allowing us industry to significant
> raise prices and to use the big jump in profits to remake the
> industries. however they just pocketed the money and continued business
> as usual.
>
> 1990, nearly a decade later, the industry had the C4 task force
> ... looking at total remake ... they were planning on heavily leveraging
> technology for the remake so invited representatives from technology
> companies to participate. they could accurately describe the compeititon
> and what they needed to do ... but again they just continued business as
> normal.
>
> two decades later ... they are still business as usual and require
> additional gov. bailouts ... and claims are that even after the bailouts
> ... they continue business as usual. the auto industry has effectively
> been on the gov. dole for over three decades. most recently they also
> managed to skim off much of the industry retirement funds and dump the
> obligation on the federal gov (something that has been going on in a
> number of other industries)
they will have to be bailed out every 13 years? I don't remember the
cycle for the auto company which kept getting bailed out since the 60s.
The curious thing will be to watch Ford since they refused. The bailouts
would not have change the mindset of the other auto makers so I'm not
surprised that it's business as usual. Allowing companies to go through
bankruptcy is a very healthy thing.
<snip ref-list> suggn: can you give a ref to a ref-list with your
program?
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97390 is a reply to message #97225] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:31 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97391 is a reply to message #97160] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:31 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 17/07/2013 15:20, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>
>> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:
>>> Why shouldn't unearned income be taxed as income?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> there was some articles on how hedge funds lobbied congress to get their
>> income reclassified to unearned ... it is bizarre the difference in
>> rates between earned/unearned ... but also opportunities for graft &
>> corruption about the things that can get reclassified as unearned (as
>> periodically noted the whole issue of graft&corruption around the tax code
>> is significant factor in congress being considered the most corrupt
>> institution on earth).
>>
>> slightly related is the article from the early 80s calling for 100%
>> unearned profit tax on the US auto industries ... supposedly the import
>> quotas was to reduce competition allowing us industry to significant
>> raise prices and to use the big jump in profits to remake the
>> industries. however they just pocketed the money and continued business
>> as usual.
>>
>> 1990, nearly a decade later, the industry had the C4 task force
>> ... looking at total remake ... they were planning on heavily leveraging
>> technology for the remake so invited representatives from technology
>> companies to participate. they could accurately describe the compeititon
>> and what they needed to do ... but again they just continued business as
>> normal.
>>
>> two decades later ... they are still business as usual and require
>> additional gov. bailouts ... and claims are that even after the bailouts
>> ... they continue business as usual. the auto industry has effectively
>> been on the gov. dole for over three decades. most recently they also
>> managed to skim off much of the industry retirement funds and dump the
>> obligation on the federal gov (something that has been going on in a
>> number of other industries)
>>
>
> Watch them drop electric cars as soon as the government handouts finish.
The battery plant which was built here are paying the workers to play
cards. There is no production.
That's your tax dollars at work.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97392 is a reply to message #97086] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:31 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 17-Jul-13 08:16, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> On 16-Jul-13 07:22, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> > On 15-Jul-13 07:55, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> >> that's the prolbem. The people in charge of governments
>>>> >> spend three times what they take in, no matter how much money
>>>> >> is received.
>>>> >
>>>> > The FY2013 federal budget has $3.8T of spending for $2.9T in
>>>> > revenues, which is not even close to three to one.
>>>>
>>>> Now count Social Security,
>>>
>>> That's included in both above numbers.
>>
>> OK. SS usually isn't.
>>
>>>
>>>> the now-delayed medical insurance sosts,
>>>
>>> You mean Obamacare, which by House Republicans' own admission will
>>> actually _save_ the govt money?
>>
>> You don't get it. If money is "saved", Congress will spend 3x the
>> "saved" money. That's how they write their bills. They add riders
>> which will "take care" of the savings. When two or more of these
>> riders are added to a bill and then it becomes law, there is no
>> savings but a triple increase in expenditures.
>
> The Affordable Care Act as passed and signed into law _reduced_ the
> federal deficit.
That was the day it was passed. There are extra laws being passed
after that which takes care of the pieces which would have caused
the ACA to cause a huge deficit. IIR the first one passed was
paying the doctors.
> Even its staunchest opponents--the very ones whose
> propaganda you're parroting below--have admitted that.
>
> However, now you're backpedaling on your claim the govt spends $3 for
> every $1 it collects, which is patently untrue and easily disproven.
Then you didn't read what I meant. When Congress sees that $1 is getting
"saved", they start to think that they can spend it elsewhere. By the
time they're done, that $1 ends up being spent 3 times, thus, tripling
the amount saved. The Mass. legislature did this one all the time.
> Now you're claiming that they increase spending $3 for every $1 in
> savings, which is also patently untrue and easily disproven.
>
> Congress is a bunch of incompetent buffoons, to be sure, but they're not
> quite as bad as you're painting them.
Then why is the US on the brink of bankruptcy? Take a look at how
the money which the US took in from the auto bailout. They spent it
three times over and the original money was borrowed; it didn't come
from revenues.
>
>>>> bailouts,
>>>
>>> AFAIK, there are none in the FY2013 budget--or proposed
>>> off-budget.
>>
>> Where is funding for Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac coming from? They
>> are still in deep shit.
>
> They've been in deep shit for a long time.
And the policies which got them there are still active. Those
toxic CDOs have not gone away.
>
>> Consider the losses created with the S&L
>> crisis in the 80s. Have those debts been paid off?
>
> I thought that the FDIC and Federal Reserve, which are _not_ part of the
> federal government, were the ones that bailed out the FSLIC?
Not the FDIC. but even so where did those entites get their money? The
US taxpayer.
>
> Either way, no federal debt from the 1980s has been paid off because
> Congress hasn't had a balanced budget since long before then.
>
> I'll give the buffoons credit for almost doing it under Clinton--close
> enough that both sides lied about achieving it and most of the public
> bought it. However, Dubya started two unfunded wars while Congress gave
> out trillions in unfunded corporate welfare and unfunded tax cuts for
> the rich, which returned the deficit to "normal". Buffoons.
Not buffoons; very dangerous people with 100% reality filters.
>
>>>> and whatever else is going to be spent in the long-term.
>>>
>>> Congress could do any variety of things in the future; however, you
>>> have accused them of spending $3 for every $1 in tax revenue, which
>>> AFAIK has _never_ been true. Even our most leftist politicians
>>> have never proposed anything even remotely approaching that.
>>
>> See above. A lot of legislatures are doing that.
>
> Really? Please provide an actual example.
For the US Congress consider the money they got back from the bailout.
Mass legislature used the _future_ money they got from the
anti-tobacco law suit and spent that three times over. If you
borrow money using the same future income as collateral and plan
to use the future income to pay off the debt, you are spending the
money as many times as you borrow against it.
>
> My state legislature recently passed a balanced budget--as required by
> state constitution. I've heard other states have similar requirements,
> but I don't know how many.
There is a difference between a yearly balanced budget and borrowing
against future income thrice over. Only the interest is shown on the
yearly budget.
>
>>>> >> Voters and the rest have come to expect all freebies from
>>>> >> the government.
>>>> >
>>>> > Especially big business, which gets hundreds of billions in
>>>> > corporate welfare and tax loopholes.
>>>>
>>>> What does big business do with monies not handed over to the
>>>> governments? letmesee....oh, they pay out wages to the people
>>>> who work for them.
>>>
>>> Income taxes only apply to profits, which is _after_ wages are
>>> paid--even the ridiculous salaries and bonuses that executives pay
>>> themselves.
>>
>> But your proposals are requiring that profits be "controlled" to a
>> low level or none.
>
> No, I just want mega-corporations to pay (at least) the same taxes that
> small businesses are required to pay--similar to how I want the rich to
> pay (at least) the same taxes as the middle class.
>
> I favor progressive taxes for fairly obvious and logical reasons, so I'd
> like the former to pay more than the latter, but right now we haven't
> even worked our way up to merely regressive.
The annual reports I receive show companies paying income tax and other
taxes. I have yet to see one which has reported paying US$0.00.
Maybe I should be asking about the myth that big corporations pay 0
income tax.
>
>>>> > ... except that the CBO's studies show that the rich _don't_
>>>> > spend their money; they mostly hoard it.
>>>>
>>>> Where? Their mattresses? That's just complete nonsense.
>>>
>>> Take it up with the CBO.
>>
>> Then the corruption has infected the CBO. It's complete
>> nonsense.... or the term "spend" means not investing.
>
> You call it corruption, but they've produced reports on exactly how they
> calculated that effect, which to date no economist in the world has even
> refuted, much less disproven.
Economists don't seem to know how work is done. Very few seem to go
beyond the book learning.
>
>>>> > That same amount of money in the hands of the working classes
>>>> > (or the govt) generates far more economic activity--and
>>>> > therefore real wealth.
>>>>
>>>> Those working classes work for companies you want to punish.
>>>
>>> I don't want to "punish" anyone. However, taxes _are_ necessary to
>>> fund public services, and IMHO the levying of those taxes should be
>>> as fair as possible--rather than giving rich individuals and
>>> certain multi-national corporations loopholes that allow them to
>>> pay nothing, which results in higher taxes on the rest of us.
>>
>> I agree. However, the problems are not because someone doesn't pay
>> taxes. The problems are cuased by Congress spending money as if
>> there was an infinite supply. Once wealth creation stops, the
>> supply will disappear within 50 years.
>
> As long as you're buying the Reagan-era trickle-down propaganda that
> only the rich can create wealth, you're hopeless.
Why do you think I'm doing that? I'm not.
> Actual economists
> agree they create wealth, sure, but they _also_ agree that the working
> classes create _more_ wealth given the same amount of money. That's
> because _spending_ is what creates real wealth, while speculation merely
> creates the _illusion_ of wealth.
You are using the term welath in a very different manner than I am. You
are talking about expenditures and disposable income. I'm not.
If I find a way to describe what I'm talking about, I will post it here.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97394 is a reply to message #97024] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:31 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
greymausg wrote:
> On 2013-07-16, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>> Right. It's not a real work tax break.
>>>
>>> in other cases there are references to shoebox corporations ...
>>> corporations setting up home office ... in a tax location done by
>>> somebody that specializes in the activity ... each corporation little
>>> more than a shoebox on a wall with hundreds (or thousands) of other
>>> shoebox corporations.
>>
>> It's done all over. Instead of whinging those countries' politicians
>> should start doing their jobs.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> Wouldn't happen without the connivence of the US government.
And others. Some of the things I hear about Europe makes me
cringe and be glad I only have to deal with the US' mess.
> One of the Channel Islands was recently reported to have 30
> company directorships per head of adult population.
>
And why do those directorships have to use the Islands as
headquarters? Either hide illegal activities or not
pay taxes. If it's the latter, I'd look at the countries
who are forcing people to go to those extremes.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97395 is a reply to message #97153] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:32 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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?
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97396 is a reply to message #97012] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:31 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Walter Banks wrote:
>
>
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> I'm beginning to think that the reason some people here disagree with
>> me sot blatently is because they've never been poor and have the
>> "middle class" mindset as their hidden assumption.
>
> A lot of the reasons I disagree with many of the things you have said is
> you are an intelligent woman who have not thought through the bigger
> implications of many of the policies that you support. Many times there
> are other ways that will leave you *and* the people around you better
> off that a zero sum solution.
I've thought through most of what I talk about including implications.
I do spend most of my posting time trying to extract the lies a few
others try to put into my mouth. Classic example is the nonsense I
saw from Espen today.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97397 is a reply to message #97015] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:32 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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.
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.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97398 is a reply to message #97025] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:31 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
greymausg wrote:
> On 2013-07-16, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>>
>>> in congress's case there are periodic references to it being Kabuki
>>> theater ... nothing is really what it seems ... fabricated conflict
>>> between the different parties both encourages the flow of money from
>>> various supporters as well as contributes to nothing changing.
>>>
>> Yup. and they still don't have a fucking farm bill.
>
>
> May not need one this year, crops, so far, in the US are massive.
> Some canola (Thats USish for rapeseed, right?), double the average for
> last ten years. Funny, if crops fail, the mainstream media are full
> of "Food prices to raise", or likewise, not a peep this year about
> collapsing prices.
>
If they don't pass one, the Farm Bill of 1948? (I think the year is wrong
but it's a long tiem ago) goes into effect.
That one included subsidies to the tabacco industry among other things.
Perhpas that's the goal for not getting one passed.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97399 is a reply to message #97026] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:32 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
greymausg wrote:
> On 2013-07-16, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> On 15-Jul-13 07:06, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> On 7/14/2013 4:30 PM, jklam wrote:
>>> than his secretary does.
>>
>> Warren Buffet was comparing earned income to unearned income. His
>> secretary has a salary which is in the highest tax bracket. Buffet is
>> nuts.
>
> Possibly, are we all not nuts in a small degree?.
> Buffet bothers to seem socially responsible, whether he is in
> fact is another question.
It would seem so since his wealth isn't going to go to his kids.
> Actually, a very interesting guy, seems
> to understand the insurance industry better than anyone else.
> Some of his moves are very obscure.
Of course he's interesting but that single comment was foolish. He
knows better. If he didn't know better, he wouldn't be a billionaire.
The problem is every law passed to "get the rich" will only affect the
middle class and they will become poorer.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97401 is a reply to message #97011] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:31 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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.
>
> 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.).
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?
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97402 is a reply to message #97178] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:31 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <ks76id$c5e$1@dont-email.me>,
> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 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
>
> Being #1 can mean urine big trouble.
>
no shit.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97404 is a reply to message #97096] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:32 |
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
>>>> 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? He can take
interest expense but not much else.
>
>> 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. If the tax rate went to 40%, that would
quadrulple some people's taxess.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97405 is a reply to message #97103] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:32 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:PM0004E1B467AF4887@ac812019.ipt.aol.com...
>> Walter Banks wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Levine wrote:
>>>> >>The majority of the person under 50 I know don't believe SS will be
>>>> >>there for them. Perhaps they will make SS means tested first and then
>>>> >>with many people figuring they won't get it, gradually drop the
>>>> >>benefits. Some of the brightest minds are working on the problem of
>>>> >>SS.
>>>> >
>>>> > That's really sad, and tells us how successful the right wing
>>>> > disinformation machine is.
>>>>
>>>> Are you kidding? When I was 25, I didn't expect to collect SS. It was
>>>> having trouble that far back.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > The reality is that the gap between SS expenditure and SS revenue is
>>>> > not large. If we took the income cap off the SS tax to make it less
>>>> > regressive, that would be enough to fund SS forever. Even with no
>>>> > changes, it will be decades before there's any shortfall at all.
>>>>
>>>> And people won't be able to collect until they're 85.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Medicare is a financial black hole, but it's the same black hole as
>>>> > the whole US medical non-system, and Medicare has much lower overhead
>>>> > than any private insurance company.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Wait until after next year. The black hole will implode.
>>>
>>> I would be willing to take a small wager that it will not as soon
>>> as the accounting is in for costs related to the currently
>>> un-insured being covered.
>>
>> There will be more uninsured when employers drop the benefit (it's
>> still a benefit, not a right).
>
> Even sillier. Its just another bare faced Limbaugh lie mindlessly respewed.
>
You think health insurance is a right?!!!!
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97406 is a reply to message #97013] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:32 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Walter Banks wrote:
>
>
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> Walter Banks wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Levine wrote:
>>>> >>The majority of the person under 50 I know don't believe SS will be
>>>> >>there for them. Perhaps they will make SS means tested first and then
>>>> >>with many people figuring they won't get it, gradually drop the
>>>> >>benefits. Some of the brightest minds are working on the problem of
SS.
>>>> >
>>>> > That's really sad, and tells us how successful the right wing
>>>> > disinformation machine is.
>>>>
>>>> Are you kidding? When I was 25, I didn't expect to collect SS. It was
>>>> having trouble that far back.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > The reality is that the gap between SS expenditure and SS revenue is
>>>> > not large. If we took the income cap off the SS tax to make it less
>>>> > regressive, that would be enough to fund SS forever. Even with no
>>>> > changes, it will be decades before there's any shortfall at all.
>>>>
>>>> And people won't be able to collect until they're 85.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Medicare is a financial black hole, but it's the same black hole as
>>>> > the whole US medical non-system, and Medicare has much lower overhead
>>>> > than any private insurance company.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Wait until after next year. The black hole will implode.
>>>
>>> I would be willing to take a small wager that it will not as soon
>>> as the accounting is in for costs related to the currently
>>> un-insured being covered.
>>
>> There will be more uninsured when employers drop the benefit (it's
>> still a benefit, not a right).
>
> We will see.
Why do you think the edict has been postponed until after the next
election?
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97407 is a reply to message #97102] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:32 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rod Speed wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote
>> Walter Banks wrote
>>> Walter Bushell wrote
>
>>>> It's not a Ponzi scheme it's a tontine. But is really a welfare
>>>> program. The real problem is that if people did save for retirement,
>>>> it would crash the economy and lead to a concentration of wealth in
>>>> the elderly, if the economy could survive the saving.
>
>>> Is there some reason that SS was not fully funded from contributions?
>
>> Yes. Over the years, the program has morphed
>> from a retirement program to a welfare program.
>
> It always was a welfare program. It was never
> intended to be the only income in retirement,
> it was only ever meant to be a social safetynet.
It did not start out as payments for kids. Tehre are lots of ways
for working people to collect social security.
>
>> There are many ways for working people to receive SS moneies.
>
> Nothing else is even possible, and they paid money into the scheme anyway.
Why should a working adult be able to collect SS for his/her children?
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97408 is a reply to message #97010] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:32 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> John Levine wrote:
>>>> >>The majority of the person under 50 I know don't believe SS will be
>>>> >>there for them. Perhaps they will make SS means tested first and then
>>>> >>with many people figuring they won't get it, gradually drop the
>>>> >>benefits. Some of the brightest minds are working on the problem of SS.
>>>> >
>>>> > That's really sad, and tells us how successful the right wing
>>>> > disinformation machine is.
>>>>
>>>> Are you kidding? When I was 25, I didn't expect to collect SS. It was
>>>> having trouble that far back.
>>>
>>> Wow!
>>>
>>> Managed to try to make a point and point out that you've been wrong all
>>> along.
>>>
>>> Doesn't break your normal idiocy record but it's a high point for sure.
>>>
>>> Keep trying.
>>
>> Then you don't remember how it was back then.
>
> Reading comprehension score: 0
>
> I'll explain it:
>
> When you were 25, you didn't expect to claim SS.
> Now you are collecting SS.
I'm collecting disability.
> So, since you were 25 until today, you were wrong, wrong, wrong.
Back then the same things were being said about how SS was in trouble.
Some NY senator "solved" the problem by writing a bill to solve all the
SS problems. Well, the same ones are now being talked about and the
young things are hearing same thing I heard back then. Their conclusion
is that they're not going to be collecting either when they retire.
>
> Now you believe there is still a problem and people won't collect.
> Pure, unadulterated idiocy.
Where are you getting this nonsense? It's the kids who don't expect
to collect.
>
> But, you're not done. Nope, not by a long shot.
> When I pointed out the fallacy that you presented, your reply was
> "you don't remember how it was back then".
And you don't.
>
> Well, sure I remember how the various SS funding issues have been
> discussed and funding has been changed. But what does that have
> to do with the subject at hand? Nothing.
IT has everything to do with it. The more things change, they
more they stay the same.
>
> Well, I've exceeded my bash BAH quota for the day, so go ahead,
> keep posting. Unless you set a new record, I'll let you slide.
>
My sister can't "retire" until a lot later than what she had planned
on. And that's because the retirement age has slid up. That delay
will be increased when the next "fix the SS problems forever" bill
gets passed.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97409 is a reply to message #97288] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:32 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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?
>
>> Only pay US tax on it when you actually need to spend the money for
>> personal purposes.
>
> Then you either take it as wages or as dividends from the
> other company. Or you pay invoices from a US company.
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.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97410 is a reply to message #97101] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:32 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:PM0004E1B4B89DBF13@ac812019.ipt.aol.com...
>> 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?
>>
>> <grin> [clapping emoticon here] They're not going to get it.
>
> There is nothing to get. Its just more mindlessly silly rhetoric.
>
I was right.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97411 is a reply to message #97094] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 10:32 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Robert Wessel wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2013 12:55:00 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Robert Wessel wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 09:04:25 -0400, Peter Flass
>>> <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/13/2013 1:07 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> > On 12-Jul-13 06:39, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >> On 7/11/2013 12:40 PM, Alan Bowler wrote:
>>>> >>> That 47% figure gets batted about a lot, but is not a very
>>>> >>> accurate description of the situation. At the end of the working
>>>> >>> day, a payroll tax is no different than income tax to most of that
>>>> >>> 47%.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> People keep saying "no different." I finally got curious enough to
>>>> >> google it - after all, they both sound similar, right? I found this
>>>> >> "a payroll tax is a tax paid by the employer," that means the
>>>> >> employee is paying only indirectly by virtue of probably getting paid
>>>> >> less to make up the cost.
>>>> >
>>>> > That is one definition, but in the context of US economics and politics,
>>>> > "payroll tax" refers to FICA, which is a 15.3% tax levied on wages (and
>>>> > other earned income), half paid by the employee and half paid by the
>>>> > employer--which merely results in lower wages, making it effectively
>>>> > paid by the employee as well.
>>>> >
>>>> >> Yes, these people pay nothing.
>>>> >
>>>> > Of those who don't pay income taxes due to having an income below
>>>> > $20k/yr, 61% _do_ pay payroll taxes (the "working poor") and 22% are the
>>>> > elderly (living on Social Security benefits paid for via earlier payroll
>>>> > taxes). The remaining 17% (6.9% of the population) comprise full-time
>>>> > students, the disabled and the unemployed.
>>>> >
>>>> >> I'd like to see everyone pay income tax, even a small amount for
>>>> >> people with low incomes.
>>>> >
>>>> > So you want to do away with the standard deductions and exemptions, the
>>>> > Earned Income Credit, the Child Care Credit, etc.? And in doing so make
>>>> > it even harder for people to escape the welfare trap, which will
>>>> > inevitably discourage them from even trying to do so?
>>>>
>>>> That's what the "flat tax" does. There are "good" deductions and
>>>> exemptions and "bad" ones. Which is which often depends on where you
>>>> sit. Some are both: The home mortgage interest deduction is credited
>>>> with increasing the percentage of home-ownership, but conversely is
>>>> "credited" with increasing suburban sprawl and causing the recent
>>>> housing bubble. "Earned Income Credit" sounds good - I always earned
>>>> all my income too, but wait, it was really a disguised subsidy for
>>>> low-income people, while the high-income people got tax breaks on hedge
>>>> fund investments and the middle class got screwed (as usual). As for
>>>> the child care deduction, are we or are we not trying to reduce the rate
>>>> of increase in the population? We're somewhat schizophrenic. Maybe
>>>> people with more children should pay more? ;-)
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > More importantly, this would have no meaningful effect on revenues; the
>>>> > reason these people are paying no income tax is that they have almost no
>>>> > income to _be_ taxed. That is the real problem that needs solving.
>>>>
>>>> See my next sentence.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >> That way everyone would participate in paying for the benefits
>>>> >> they receive from citizenship.
>>>> >
>>>> > How about we first make the rich pay at least the same effective tax
>>>> > rate as the middle class?
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I'd like a flat tax with *NO* deductions or exemptions allowed. All
>>>> income from whatever source is taxed the same. Have maybe three or four
>>>> tax brackets so it's "progresive." Studies have shown you could reduce
>>>> the tax rates across the board and still bring in more money, and it
>>>> wouldn't cause the economic distortions the current system does.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, with multiple brackets it ceases to be a flat tax, but...
>>>
>>> I think a scheme like that could find a lot of support. A decent
>>> sized personal exemption, a handful of brackets for some
>>> progressivity, and few, if any deductions, and all type of income
>>> treated the same.
>>>
>>> Just to throw a few vague numbers out there, a $10K personal
>>> exemption, and 10/20/30% of the rest in brackets.
>>>
>>> You would, of course, still need some additional assistance for people
>>> at the very bottom of the heap.
>>
>> That's why our massive tax mess exists today....those who need "assistance".
>>
>>>
>>> The problem, however, with the "flat taxes" proposed repeatedly by the
>>> right, is that they fail to incorporate things like capital gains into
>>> the "flat" scheme (the predominant source of income for the wealthy,
>>
>> 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. You people are suggesting that they pay very
>> high taxes on the savings and investments they made over their
>> working life. All of those pension funds people got from the companies
>> they worked for are unearned income. TAxing this income is damaging
>> the very people you claim you want to help.
>>
>> Sheesh!
>
>
> Tax deferred* 401k and IRA distributions, as well as SS income (above
> a certain total income limit)
which is very low.
> 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?
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.
>
> Any non-tax advantaged capital gains is taxes as such, of course.
>
>
> *Roths are not taxed at distribution at all.
yet...they've already been taxed as income. The unearned income
I've been talking about is interest from bonds and bank accounts
and dividends, including splits, from stocks.
That's my experience. I haven't worked with those other things.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97452 is a reply to message #97002] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 11:24 |
Lawrence Statton
Messages: 326
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes Medical Economics Bizarre? [message #97453 is a reply to message #97091] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 11:40 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 17-Jul-13 12:58, John Levine wrote:
>> You can't say competition isn't working based on one example where
>> there is little to no competition in practice.
>
> No, but you can say it based on economic analyses going back to the
> 1960s. Here's the definitive paper from 1963 that everyone still
> cites:
>
> http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/top20/53.5.941-973.pdf
>
> There are certainly some areas where competition can work, such as a
> single payer taking competitive bids for a specified set of goods or
> services (pretty much what they do in Canada), but the idea that
> people can shop competitively for individual services or for private
> insurance is famously bogus.
.... except that paper says absolutely nothing of the sort. It talks
primarily about the economics of medical care without the presence of
insurance. When it does talk about insurance, it merely says that the
economics of multiple payers deserves further study. It does argue for
compulsory coverage, but not for any particular form or market for that
coverage.
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.
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 #97454 is a reply to message #97382] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 11:53 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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.
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 #97455 is a reply to message #97385] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 11:55 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 18-Jul-13 08:43, 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.
Not just the rhetoric but the actual class war itself too.
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 #97456 is a reply to message #97397] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 12:04 |
Lawrence Statton
Messages: 326
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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.
Those who *can* do it, already have jobs and aren't looking, but there
are more jobs than people who can fill them.
Yes, everytime we post an ad looking for developers, I drown in a sea
of résumés, but the staggering majority of them are either
exaggerations, half-truths, or bald-faced-lies. I've stopped even
BOTHERING to check academic references, because I've found near-zero
correlation between education and ability.
Disturbingly - since I started trying to quantify these data, I've
found the very slight correlation to be negative. Masters in Computer
Science from Stanford; can't write ten lines of code in a week. Music
Major from Weaselpiss State College, but who learned BASIC on his MSX
system in 1984; HIRE THIS GUY NOW!
The way I see it is thusly: There was a time, during the darkest days
of the "first internet bubble" where anyone who could successfully
lift and open "HTML For Dummies" got a job as a "Web Developer", and
these people were often able to jump from job to job earning good
money doing very little or nothing, but building an impressive list of
sites they worked at. Fast forward a decade, and now clients realize
that the ability to rattle off a fistful of buzzwords at an interview
is no substitute for actual ability.
If this is the sea of "qualified applicants who can't find work", I
feel no pity for them. The advice I have for them is: Actually
*learn* your craft, and in the mean-time, learn to ask "would you like
fries with that?"
There was a recent article on Slashdot [A light-weight news/
information site for the geek set] about the poor quality of
candidates. They link to the following six-year-old blog piece:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/02/why-cant-programmer s-program.html
http://tinyurl.com/cant-program
One of the quotes:
Like me, the author is having trouble with the fact that 199 out of
200 applicants for every programming job can't write code at all. I
repeat: they can't write any code whatsoever.
Read the article - it goes on to posit a trivial programming exercise
that (according to author) the MAJORITY of candidates (that is in
excess of 50%),who were already prescreened to have at least a degree
in Computer Science, CANNOT COMPLETE.
FWIW: It took me about 45 seconds to write a solution, that worked
with zero defects on the first attempt.
--
NK1G - Lawrence
echo 'lawrenabae@abaluon.abaom' | sed s/aba/c/g
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes revisionist 19th century history Bizarre? [message #97457 is a reply to message #50165] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 12:22 |
Alan Bowler
Messages: 185
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 4/22/2013 4:09 PM, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>> Impressment was an issue, but could clearly have been settled short of
>>> war.
And was clearly just an excuse. The avowed goal of the US was
to conquer and annex Canada at a time when the US thought
Britain was fully occupied by the war with France
>>> And in any event, what did impressment have to do with burning
>>> down Toronto?
>
> ...or the Whitehouse, the residence of the US President, in Washington, D.C.???
The attack on Washington was in retaliation for the burning of
York (Toronto). (You burn our capital we'll do the same).
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #97458 is a reply to message #97392] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 12:33 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 18-Jul-13 09:31, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 17-Jul-13 08:16, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> On 16-Jul-13 07:22, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> > the now-delayed medical insurance sosts,
>>>>
>>>> You mean Obamacare, which by House Republicans' own admission
>>>> will actually _save_ the govt money?
>>>
>>> You don't get it. If money is "saved", Congress will spend 3x
>>> the "saved" money. That's how they write their bills. They add
>>> riders which will "take care" of the savings. When two or more
>>> of these riders are added to a bill and then it becomes law,
>>> there is no savings but a triple increase in expenditures.
>>
>> The Affordable Care Act as passed and signed into law _reduced_
>> the federal deficit.
>
> That was the day it was passed. There are extra laws being passed
> after that which takes care of the pieces which would have caused the
> ACA to cause a huge deficit. IIR the first one passed was paying the
> doctors.
Um, what? Under Obamacare, the federal govt doesn't pay doctors, except
for those under the existing Medicare program who were already getting paid.
>> Now you're claiming that they increase spending $3 for every $1 in
>> savings, which is also patently untrue and easily disproven.
>>
>> Congress is a bunch of incompetent buffoons, to be sure, but
>> they're not quite as bad as you're painting them.
>
> Then why is the US on the brink of bankruptcy?
Because Congress is a bunch of incompetent buffoons, as stated above.
Bankruptcy does not require spending 3:1; 1.3:1, which is where the
federal budget is actually at right now, does that too.
> Take a look at how the money which the US took in from the auto
> bailout. They spent it three times over and the original money
> was borrowed; it didn't come from revenues.
All of the bailout money was borrowed. But that doesn't prove, as you
have claimed, that Congress spent $3 for every $1 it receives.
>>> Where is funding for Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac coming from?
>>> They are still in deep shit.
>>
>> They've been in deep shit for a long time.
>
> And the policies which got them there are still active. Those toxic
> CDOs have not gone away.
Nor has Glass-Steagal been put back in place. Congress has done pretty
much _nothing_ to stop the recent implosion from happening again, and
there are already signs that another housing bubble is starting up.
>>> Consider the losses created with the S&L crisis in the 80s. Have
>>> those debts been paid off?
>>
>> I thought that the FDIC and Federal Reserve, which are _not_ part
>> of the federal government, were the ones that bailed out the
>> FSLIC?
>
> Not the FDIC. but even so where did those entites get their money?
> The US taxpayer.
Wrong. They get it via inflation, which steals wealth from everyone who
holds dollars. That is a disjoint set from "US taxpayers".
>> My state legislature recently passed a balanced budget--as required
>> by state constitution. I've heard other states have similar
>> requirements, but I don't know how many.
>
> There is a difference between a yearly balanced budget and borrowing
> against future income thrice over. Only the interest is shown on
> the yearly budget.
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.
>>> But your proposals are requiring that profits be "controlled" to
>>> a low level or none.
>>
>> No, I just want mega-corporations to pay (at least) the same taxes
>> that small businesses are required to pay--similar to how I want
>> the rich to pay (at least) the same taxes as the middle class.
>>
>> I favor progressive taxes for fairly obvious and logical reasons,
>> so I'd like the former to pay more than the latter, but right now
>> we haven't even worked our way up to merely regressive.
>
> The annual reports I receive show companies paying income tax and
> other taxes. I have yet to see one which has reported paying
> US$0.00. Maybe I should be asking about the myth that big
> corporations pay 0 income tax.
The usual example cited is GE, but there have been dozens of others
reported widely in the press. Congress even held hearings on the
matter, but as usual they did nothing to address it.
>>> Then the corruption has infected the CBO. It's complete
>>> nonsense.... or the term "spend" means not investing.
>>
>> You call it corruption, but they've produced reports on exactly how
>> they calculated that effect, which to date no economist in the
>> world has even refuted, much less disproven.
>
> Economists don't seem to know how work is done. Very few seem to go
> beyond the book learning.
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.
>>> I agree. However, the problems are not because someone doesn't
>>> pay taxes. The problems are cuased by Congress spending money as
>>> if there was an infinite supply. Once wealth creation stops,
>>> the supply will disappear within 50 years.
>>
>> As long as you're buying the Reagan-era trickle-down propaganda
>> that only the rich can create wealth, you're hopeless.
>
> Why do you think I'm doing that? I'm not.
You're the one saying that cutting taxes on the rich is the only way (or
at least the best way) to generate wealth.
>> Actual economists agree they create wealth, sure, but they _also_
>> agree that the working classes create _more_ wealth given the same
>> amount of money. That's because _spending_ is what creates real
>> wealth, while speculation merely creates the _illusion_ of wealth.
>
> You are using the term welath in a very different manner than I am.
> You are talking about expenditures and disposable income. I'm not.
> If I find a way to describe what I'm talking about, I will post it
> here.
Wealth is the accumulated fruits of labor.
Labor is the production of goods and services. Obviously, the demand
for labor depends on the _consumption_ of goods and services.
Ergo, it is spending that creates wealth.
Capital, which you seem to be calling wealth, is the _subset_ of wealth
which is devoted to producing more wealth.
Capital extracts economic rent from labor, transferring wealth from the
worker to the capitalist. That is fair if the capital makes labor more
productive (e.g. by investing in machines) by a large enough margin to
offset the rent, but such is not guaranteed.
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 #97459 is a reply to message #96579] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 12:40 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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.
>>> 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".
>>> 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.
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 #97460 is a reply to message #97454] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 13:33 |
pechter
Messages: 452
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <ks92mh$88e$1@dont-email.me>,
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 18-Jul-13 08:54, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>> In <ks6927$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.
Not in NJ... Unless you can prove some kind of discrimination (age,
gender, race... etc.).
You can be fired because of anything including haircut. However, if
you're 65 or 75 you can make an age descrimination case if they
later hire a 30-something and you have a good history of performance
reviews.
>
> 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.
Just redefine the job -- could be location (work from Northern rather
than Central NJ -- with the same job and it's a new job).
Redefine it with a new title and it's a new job.
Unix Administrator -> Midrange Open Systems Systems Administrator
Unix Administrator -> Linux Systems Administrator
What's the difference in the above -- mostly a title.
>
> 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
Bill
--
--
Digital had it then. Don't you wish you could buy it now!
pechter-at-pechter.dyndns.org http://xkcd.com/705/
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #97463 is a reply to message #97388] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 13:44 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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.
> 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.
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".
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.)
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 #97464 is a reply to message #97395] |
Thu, 18 July 2013 13:46 |
Patrick Scheible
Messages: 768
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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.
-- Patrick
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
