New DSLR lenses from Nikon
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Problem solved:
Next: ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye
From: Peter on 13 Feb 2010 19:58 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4b7730d4$0$1608$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>news:4b7701ae$0$1601$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >> >> >>>>> I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that >>>>> they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a >>>>> typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive. >>>>> If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting >>>>> $1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees >>>>> producing >>>>> products to sell. >> >>How about some examples: You are making accusations of clear violations of >>rhe SEC Regulations. > > What regulations? What violation? It's no violation to lay off > hundreds of people. It's no violation to get $20,000,000/year. > >>>>Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about >>>>business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first. >>> >>> LOL! Is that what they tell you? >> >>They? Suggest you get over your bitter pill and learn something about the >>reality of business before you open your mouth. > > Says the rightard who cannot actually refute what I write. > >>>> In a public >>>>company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of >>>>the >>>>owners. >>> >>> ROFL! The board represent the shareholders?!? And you really believe >>> that? >> >>And just how do you think a director becomes a director. > > By being selected by the board. > >> He/she is elected >>by vot of the shareholders. > > You may be that stupid, or not, but don't assume that I am that > stupid. We both know that the vast majority of such elections > are decided when the board recommends someone for the position. > >>> When was the last time a board member got fired by the shareholders? >>> When was the last time shareholders picked a board member? Or CEO? >>> >>Read this and learn. >>http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/04/082704.asp > > You must be pretty stupid. You didn't even notice that that doesn't > answer either of my questions. > >>>> To maintain and grow a healthy company. A good manager recognizes >>>>that the workers are the lifeblood of the company. >>> >>> If any of your beliefs were true then we wouldn't see corporations >>> spending so much to hire and train workers only to fire them a few >>> years later and then repeat the process again. >> >>My statements are based upon personal observation and experience. > > You statements are based on naive worship of corporations. > >>> Sure, there are some good CEOs, but there aren't many. >> >>More than you would admit. > > Less than you would admit. > >> Wow! You certainly are a fountain of >>misinformation. > > I'm not a part of your cult of stupidity. When the incomes of CEOs > explode and the incomes of workers actually fall then it's clear who > is scamming whom. > You show the shallowness of your position by resorting to personal attacks. It is clear that you have no business experience. Bye -- Peter
From: Peter on 13 Feb 2010 20:00 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:76een5d7ggj1bc5q6rn9pdjt3q035uflbo(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:06:24 -0800, J�rgen Exner > <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said: >> >>[replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a >>long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below] >> >>>> "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax...... >> >>He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have >>about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King >>County and the city of Bellevue). >> >>>>He wouldn't spend any >>>> more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of >>>> dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a >>>> regressive tax system..... >> >>??? >>What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax >>and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again? >> > He's referring to the "FairTax" movement. It replaces the income tax > with a consumption tax on retail sales (essentially, a "sales tax") > with a rebate to taxpayers with incomes below a certain level. There > are some advantages to the proposal, but it stands little chance of > advancing. > > There's more to it than I've outlined above. > Yup! Lots more. there are a lot of advantages, but it cannot sell politically. -- Peter
From: Peter on 13 Feb 2010 20:07 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010021316481660903-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-02-13 14:45:15 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said: > >> >> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >> news:4b771f5e$0$22474$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>> news:1OKdnb_9-t7IhOrWnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>> >>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >>>> news:4b77170d$0$21958$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:6dOdnR7OKchgiOrWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:4b76b7b2$0$18772$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not >>>>>>> humanity. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in >>>>>> my pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor, >>>>>> that doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief. >>>>> >>>>> Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our >>>>> society? >>>>> Please clarify. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Peter >>>> >>>> Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's >>>> still not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it >>>> is oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being >>>> great. - We passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi, >>>> we are fast heading to 60% and above. >>> >>> >>> So you want the benefits without paying for them. I get it, you should >>> only pay for the direct benefits you think you need. Not to help society >>> as a whole. >>> >>> Just start with a few common costs. Since you know how much to spend, >>> why don't you fill in the blanks. >>> >>> Military: = ? >>> Education = ? >>> Domestic security protection = ? >>> Road maintenance = ? >>> Court system = ? >>> Helping our genuinely indigent to survive = ? >>> >>> Come on Billy boy, you have investments. What is the cost of the >>> government helping to maintain the integrity of your money. >>> >>> If you expect the benefits of living in our society without paying for >>> them, you are a worse thief than Robin Hood. >>> >>> -- >>> Peter >> >> Well, the problem (as I see it) seems to be in the definition of, >> "Benefits" If you live in a padded cell, and the government does >> (literally) everything for you, then Peter would say life is perfect, and >> we owe everything to our government. Bill would say we are all slaves to >> our government and they are of no more use to us that any slave driver is >> to his property. >> >> In the above example, I think the government's use should fall somewhere >> less than 20% of our gross effort, and you seem to think that it should >> fall somewhere over 50% of our gross effort. >> >> So, the lines are drawn, and all we have to do is argue over where they >> should be. >> >> My argument for my position on the matter is that the more I do for >> myself, the more freedom I enjoy. You position is the more the government >> does for us, the easier life will be for the most people. I don't count >> living in a padded cell as, "life". I want a little more than just >> breathing. But, to each his own....... > > Bill, > The time has come for you to come out of retirement and join the Palin > team. Who knows, you might make a fine Palin Party, Secretary of The > Treasury, or Vice President? > If you remember to bring a Sharpie you could be one of her speech writers. > > ...and I am sure she will have all your health needs covered. If the government spending was at the level he claims to want, he will be very busy: Digging holes to safeguard his money; target practice; worrying whether his doctor really had a medical license; whether his grandchildren's teachers were competent to teach; growing his own food because of worry about adulterating substances; etc. -- Peter
From: C J Campbell on 13 Feb 2010 20:12 On 2010-02-13 14:51:05 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said: > > "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:998en51h0hgpk7isf3icl3747jojn8bmlp(a)4ax.com... >> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said: >> >> [replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a >> long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below] >> >>>> "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax...... >> >> He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have >> about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King >> County and the city of Bellevue). >> >>>> He wouldn't spend any >>>> more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of >>>> dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a >>>> regressive tax system..... >> >> ??? >> What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax >> and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again? >> >> jue > > I am talking about the new "progressive" idea of replacing the income > tax with a national sales tax. The super rich would make out like > bandits, since they have the bulk of their money invested, and spend > only a small fraction of their incomes. But people like me, who are > retired, and spend everything we get on our living expenses would be > paying for all the costs of the society. Why do I get the feeling you do not know the difference between a progressive and a regressive tax? These are distinct economic terms that have nothing to do with whether a tax is "good" or "bad;" they just describe the manner of taxation. "Progressive" taxes collect a higher percentage of income as income goes up. "Regressive" taxes collect a higher percentage of income as income goes down. "Neutral" taxes collect the same percentage of income from everybody. Sales and VAT taxes are called regressive because people with lower incomes tend to spend a greater percentage of their income than people with higher incomes who tend to save and invest. Sales and VAT taxes are ultimately dependent on sales. The poor spend a higher percentage of their income on sales and VAT taxes than do the rich. For this reason it is common (but by no means universal) to mitigate the adverse effects of these taxes on the poor by exempting certain necessities, such as food and drugs. Income taxes are supposed to be either neutral or progressive -- the poor pay a lower rate than the rich. In practice, however, you cannot make income taxes too high or the rich will take steps to shield their incomes from taxation -- as in the extreme example of Sweden. Another extreme example is the United States, which has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, resulting in many US corporations to move as much of their operations as possible to friendlier tax climes. Thus the rich can afford to escape taxation, leaving the poor to pay taxes. A nominally progressive tax system turns into a regressive one. From what I can see here, most of the people arguing about this subject have probably never taken a basic course in economics in their entire lives. Either that, or they forgot everything they ever learned. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor
From: J�rgen Exner on 13 Feb 2010 20:25
C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On 2010-02-13 14:51:05 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said: > >> >> "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:998en51h0hgpk7isf3icl3747jojn8bmlp(a)4ax.com... >>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said: >>> >>> [replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a >>> long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below] >>> >>>>> "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax...... >>> >>> He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have >>> about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King >>> County and the city of Bellevue). >>> >>>>> He wouldn't spend any >>>>> more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of >>>>> dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a >>>>> regressive tax system..... >>> >>> ??? >>> What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax >>> and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again? >>> >>> jue >> >> I am talking about the new "progressive" idea of replacing the income >> tax with a national sales tax. And what on earth does that have to do with the claim that VAT is more regressive than sales tax as was discussed in this branch of the thread? I'm done with the NG. In the past at least you get catch a good advice once in a while but the signal-to-noise ratio has gotten so low that it's absolutely worthless to keep trying. I am sure you won't miss me. jue |