New DSLR lenses from Nikon
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Problem solved:
Next: ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye
From: Bill Graham on 14 Feb 2010 00:16 "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ssjen59ms6qc2ov41orq1dhjar6ulb9d3t(a)4ax.com... >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 Awwww....Are you taking your ball and bat with you?
From: C J Campbell on 14 Feb 2010 01:11 On 2010-02-13 18:02:28 -0800, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said: > C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 2010-02-13 11:46:54 -0800, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said: >> >>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> You know, I don't know where people get this caricature of Bill Gates >>>>>>>> being a greedy, selfish moneybags. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To some degree nearly every corporate CEO is a greedy, selfish >>>>>>> moneybag. It's nearly a job requirement. >>>>>> >>>>>> You obviously refuse to recognize the responsibility of a CEO, regardless >>>>>> of >>>>>> the size of the corporation. >>>>> >>>>> Correct. >>>>> >>>>>> When you open up in the morning and realize >>>>>> that x number of people are looking to you for guidance and depend on your >>>>>> skills to prevent starvation, or to promote a reasonable life style, you >>>>>> should recognize that you have an awesome responsibility. Sure, some are >>>>>> greedy turds, but they are in the minority. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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? >>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> 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? >> >> What are you talking about? Happens all the time. Or do you read the >> financial pages? > > Then you should be able to provide plenty of examples.... Probably a little above your head, but try this article about a study of what happens to boards of directors after they fire a CEO. http://knowledge.emory.edu/article.cfm?articleid=347 Notice that the study examined 144 corporations, of whom 48 had fired CEOs. Not that I expect any number of examples to change your mind. You apparently have some psychological need to demonize CEOs and directors in order to rationalize your own feelings of powerlessness. Even if someone did manage to convince you that these people are not the cause of your problems, you would simply transfer your need of a scapegoats to some other group. > > Over the past three decades executive income has exploded. The income > of workers? Nearly stagnant and, in the past decade, the average has > actually gone down. > > But you're a gullible idiot. You say "thank you" when you're getting > screwed. Actually no, I do not. I do not invest in companies that I think are poorly run. I went for decades without buying Motorola stock because the company had an incompetent CEO that stifled innovation and who was impossible to get rid of because he controlled so much of the company's stock. The difference between you and me is that I understand that when a CEO or board of directors makes headlines because of bad or incompetent behavior, they do so because the event is rare. Newspapers are not in the habit of writing about the mundane except as public notices. I recognize that when an airplane crashes, millions of other airplanes arrived at their destination safely. It is the same with corporations and their management. Just because one company fails spectacularly does not mean that everyone else is stupid, incompetent or corrupt. So far you have offered nothing to support your thesis that competent CEOs are very rare other than to call everyone who disagrees with you an idiot or some other name. So on that note, your having demonstrated that you are incapable of civil discussion, I leave you to froth at the mouth alone. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor
From: C J Campbell on 14 Feb 2010 01:13 On 2010-02-13 21:14:24 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said: > > "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote in > message > news:2010021317123450073-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom... >> 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. >> > Well, regardless of what you call it, can you see that replacing the > income tax with a sales tax would be a boon to those of us who invest > most of our incomes, and a blow to those of us who have to spend > everything we make in order to live? I think that is, in essence, what I said. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor
From: C J Campbell on 14 Feb 2010 01:15 On 2010-02-13 20:38:04 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said: > > "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote in > message > news:2010021316512875249-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom... > > >>> The US is like that neighbor down the road with the great house, >>> country place, 3 luxury cars, a boat (big), country club members, etc, >>> etc. but who are running the whole thing on massive debt. It is >>> unsustainable. A fire sale will ensue. Please note that I did not say this. Watch what you are doing when attributing quotes. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor
From: tony cooper on 14 Feb 2010 01:51
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:13:02 -0800, C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> Well, regardless of what you call it, can you see that replacing the >> income tax with a sales tax would be a boon to those of us who invest >> most of our incomes, and a blow to those of us who have to spend >> everything we make in order to live? > >I think that is, in essence, what I said. But it really isn't a fair assessment of what would happen if the "FairTax" was to be implemented. (Which, in my opinion, it never will be) The proposal isn't just to switch from the present income tax system to a consumption tax. There are other bells and whistles involved that do level the playing field. To understand it, maybe you should both read the book this gentleman is holding: http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/787863894_7MeCq-XL.jpg It just so happens that I went to a Tea Party "Hob Nob and Straw Poll" rally today here in Orlando where I took this photo. I went there only because I thought it would be a good opportunity to take some candid photographs. Since I am not a Conservative, a Republican*, or remotely interested in the politics of this group, I spent a lot of time shooing away people who wanted me to sign petitions or sport their campaign buttons. *Technically, I am a Republican. I registered as a Republican in 1959 and have never changed my registration status. I vote cross-ticket in local and state elections and usually on the Democrat side for national elections. Being a registered Republican, though, allows me to vote in the Republican primary and for the opponent of anyone backed by the Christian Coalition or that shows signs of being in the Religious Right. Gee whiz...photography is actually part of this thread now. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |