From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)> wrote in
> message
> news:2010020916350416807-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom...
>> On 2010-02-09 14:48:32 -0800, Bruce <docnews2011(a)> said:
>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:36:11 -0800, C J Campbell
>>> <christophercampbellremovethis(a)> wrote:
>>>> Both parties are obsessed with populist "blame the bankers for the
>>>> economy" rhetoric. Which means they are likely to do nothing. Which is
>>>> just the way I like it. Unfortunately, while neither party has said
>>>> "Jewish bankers," the message is just as clear. The nation is being run
>>>> by fascists who dominate both sides of the aisle.
>>> You should thank God for Sarah Palin, then.
>>> Palin to the rescue, 2012. ;-)
>> I think not. She will be a fine news commentator -- meaning she will be
>> good for Fox's ratings. But she is regarded as poison by both parties.
>> Her image would need considerable rehabilitation to make her a viable
>> candidate for pretty much anything.
>> I am sure that there are politicians who have a clear sense of
>> responsibility to the Republic and who are not hostage to the extremists
>> of their party. I am also sure that no one like that has a snowball's
>> chance in Hades of getting elected president. Apparently, being a
>> certifiable nutcase is prerequisite for the job. Okay. So Palin to the
>> rescue, then.
> Nutcase or not, if she does nothing but stop those presses from printing
> money, I'll vote for her.......

You are even more scary than I thought.


From: Geoffrey S. Mendelson on
Peter wrote:
> Almost right. What you call a sales tax is actually a use tax. If a purchase
> is made for resale, or to be shipped outside the taxing jurisdiction, the
> purchase is usually exempt.

The concept of a VAT was to combine all sales and use taxes, import duties,
etc into one flat tax. The principal behind it is that it is your money,
you should be able to spend it on whatever you want.

That's also why things like food (raw, packaged and take away) are excempt,
but luxuries, e.g. eating in a restaurant is not.

At one time the UK had a vary complicated structure of import duties, luxury
taxes, etc. The VAT was created by calculating the expected income from all
of them and dividing it by the total amount people were expected to spend.

It's considered a regressive tax because poor people pay VAT at the same
rate as rich people, but that's not really true. They pay the same rate,
but rich people pay much more of it because they are able to afford more
items that are not excempt.

So a poor person who spends 90% of their income on excempt items pays
VAT on 10% of their income, while a rich person who spends 20% of their income
on excempt items pays VAT on 80% of their income.

VAT is also popular in countries that do a lot of exports to the US. Tax
treaties prevent them from charging import duites, but luxury taxes and
VAT are allowed.

Sales taxes can be a problem and generally are used to punish the poor.
When I lived in Philly, the state of PA had a 6% sales tax, the city had
just added a 1% sales tax. We lived on the edge of the city and could easily
go out of the city to make major purchases, while someone who lived in a
less affluent neighborhood or could not afford a car, had to pay the extra
sales tax.

I understand that is the same way with most major cities in the U.S.


Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm(a) N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.
From: Peter on
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message

> I knew there was going to be a problem when I had lenders lined up telling
> me my home, which I bought in 1993 for $125K was valued at over $400K and
> I should benefit from some of that equity.
> I didn't bite.
> I did take advantage of a drop in interest rates in 2001. I refinanced at
> a lower rate and shorter term, without taking any additional equity out of
> the inflated valuation. As a result I have a small balance and mortgage
> payments lower than I could rent for today.
> I have since witnessed 5 foreclosures in my immediate neighborhood, and I
> continue to get offers from any number of banks to "lower my payment."
> I am also aware of foreclosures on properties of individuals I worked
> with, who had bought homes they could not in any real World afford.
> Among those foreclosed on in our neighborhood, were two families who had
> bought their first homes, and who were lead on by the realtors and the
> banks to take advantage of phantom equity growth, to put themselves into
> debt they could never possibly support. Their economic future has been
> effectively destroyed due to their naivety, greed and the predatory
> behavior of the realtors and the banks.

I have a similar story. As a result when we sold our home we put 100% of the
selling price into the bank.

Is it predatory for me to take advantage of your greed?

Contrast with: if I encourage you to be greedy and then take advantage of


From: Peter on
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)> wrote in message
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:12:40 -0800, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote:
>>I knew there was going to be a problem when I had lenders lined up
>>telling me my home, which I bought in 1993 for $125K was valued at over
>>$400K and I should benefit from some of that equity.
> How you doing on Homeowner's Insurance? I've been with State Farm for
> the 28 years I've been in this house (and also with them on my
> previous homes). State Farm has announced a 15% increase for this
> next year (starting March 15, for me) and they are petitioning the
> legislature for considerably larger increases in the future. They are
> also trying to pull out of Florida because of hurricane losses.
> I've got bids from four other insurers, and all of them value my home
> at least double what I could sell it for. The rates are based on the
> replacement cost and not what the house would bring on the market.

Are they including land in replacement cost?


From: whisky-dave on

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)> wrote in message
> On 2010-02-09 11:36:55 -0800, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon(a)> said:
>> In article <edWdnTLZJMvSMezWnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d(a)>,
>> no(a) says...
>>> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
>>> crazy.
>> Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.
> Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
> has no VAT.

So what are these taxes that USains have to pay ?

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Prev: Problem solved:
Next: ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye