Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Nov 2006 07:16 In article <f6puk2h159avfjh0th7ibh2vrbufn75iq7(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 15:58:18 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >Smith) wrote: > >>In article <ein6vl$8qk_002(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[....] >>>My state is going to have an all Democrat political system with >>>no checks nor balances. The guy running for governor is promising >>>to break the 2.5% property tax mandate, eliminating the high >>>school graduation test, increase the income tax (against >>>another taxpayer mandate), and somehow thinks that all this >>>new tax income will create jobs. >> >>What is he going to spend the money on? If it is an improved >>infrastructure, it is likely he is right. A lot of states have roads that >>are in disrepair and have to live with railway level crossings on high >>traffic roads. If the infrastucture issues have been a drag on industry, >>it is very likely that increased taxes to pay for increased spending on >>them is exactly what is needed. >> >> > > >In California, we're being asked to approve a huge bond issue to >repair infrastructure. The gas tax was supposed to maintain >infrastructure, but for the last 30 years they've spent most of that >money on other stuff. "Infrastructure" is a good catchword to sell tax >increases (and they provide sufficient potholes to make the point) but >don't vote that way unless the money is guaranteed to be used for >roads and parks... otherwise it will go down the standard socialist >ratholes. We get guarantees all the time. Our politicians don't even obey the state Constitution. I'd rather trust a used car salesman. > >Luckily, businesses and jobs are mobile, so if any state or country >goes over the line, the best people and companies will leave for >places that make them a better offer. Right. Our idiots are saying that raising all those taxes will cause people and companies to beg to move in :-). /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Nov 2006 07:46 In article <cXH3h.6200$B31.5579(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ein8p9$8qk_001(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <zNSdnSXXb4_BIdHYnZ2dnUVZ8sydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: <snip> >> If this conflict becomes a war against Islam, all factions will >> cooperate with each other temporarily. Why do you think Al >> Queda is trying to make this a war against Islam? > >And exactly why have we decided to act in such a way as to make those claims >credible to many Middle Eastern Muslims? We removed the Arab leader who attacked other Arabs and intended to do it again. The middle eastern Muslims would have the opposite opinion. > >>>Unsettled is talking nonsense and creating more strawmen than usual here. >>>Siding with him on this does your argument no good. >> >> Will you get it through your head that I am not siding with anybody >> except myself? > >You might be more convincing in this statement if you were to stop blindly >spouting the Republicans' fear-mongering talking points. If the Republicans mention a fact, you automatically believe it's a lie. When non-Republicans mention the same fact, you automatically catagorize them as blind and aping Rep. statements of fact. This thinking is illogical. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Nov 2006 07:47 In article <1608b$454f3eaa$4fe747e$30818(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Spehro Pefhany wrote: > >> On Mon, 06 Nov 06 12:16:44 GMT, the renowned jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>This is the first field test of governments trying to tax >>>internet transactions. If it works well in this state, >>>a similar tax law will become national. >>> >>>THINK! dammmit. >>> >>>/BAH >> >> >> AFAIUI, state governments in the US have long demanded payment of >> "equivalent to" sales taxes on things bought from companies with nexus >> in other states (by mail, internet or whatever). They have no way of >> enforcing it for individuals (so it is routinely ignored), but for >> companies who must have sales tax licenses the "use tax" on taxable >> items (typically on items that are not consumed in production) is >> easily enforced since records must be kept to deduct the cost or to >> calculate depreciation of capital cost on all corporate purchases. >> >> Here's some information from California: >> >> http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/usetaxreturn.htm >> >> They're just making it convenient by allowing you to report it on the >> IT return, if you're so inclined. I imagine compliance rates are very >> low. >> >> This isn't so much "taxing the internet" but equalizing taxation >> between in and (completely) out-of-state businesses. It could only be >> widely enforced (for individuals) if states agreed between themselves >> to collect and remit taxes for other states. > >It will eventually happen. Government is greedy. You are the government. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Nov 2006 07:49 In article <59174$454f52df$4fe747e$31539(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <n9duk29u8drj3219h96heic6vvt69detb8(a)4ax.com>, >> Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 06 Nov 06 12:16:44 GMT, the renowned jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>>This is the first field test of governments trying to tax >>>>internet transactions. If it works well in this state, >>>>a similar tax law will become national. >>>> >>>>THINK! dammmit. >>>> >>>>/BAH >>> >>>AFAIUI, state governments in the US have long demanded payment of >>>"equivalent to" sales taxes on things bought from companies with nexus >>>in other states (by mail, internet or whatever). >> >> >> Yup. That's why those extra lines on each catalog order form >> exist. >> >> >>>They have no way of >>>enforcing it for individuals (so it is routinely ignored), but for >>>companies who must have sales tax licenses the "use tax" on taxable >>>items (typically on items that are not consumed in production) is >>>easily enforced since records must be kept to deduct the cost or to >>>calculate depreciation of capital cost on all corporate purchases. >>> >>>Here's some information from California: >>> >>>http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/usetaxreturn.htm >>> >>>They're just making it convenient by allowing you to report it on the >>>IT return, if you're so inclined. I imagine compliance rates are very >>>low. >> >> >> Now imagine all that lovely data collected when people who buy >> stuff use the store's discount card. This kind of buying >> data is already getting collected by some states. You ain't >> paranoid enough yet :-). >> >> >>>This isn't so much "taxing the internet" but equalizing taxation >>>between in and (completely) out-of-state businesses. >> >> >> The advent of web pages have made the old ways of collecting >> more difficult. In the future, unfortunately the near future, >> all purchases are going to be done on the net. Either the states >> find a way to tax purchases retroactively or they come up with >> a general tax that is a guesstimate of would have been collected >> through a sales tax. > >Internet purchases are generally done by credit card. It is >an easy thing to force credit card companies into tax >collectors. Oh there will be complaints and lawsuits, >but in the end taxation always wins. This is already being done with anti-smoking lobby's approval. /BAH
From: T Wake on 7 Nov 2006 07:54
"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:eipoc7$mrh$5(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <1f889$45505fc8$4fe724c$5551(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> babbled: >>There's nothing as effective as example and first >>hand experience to inject the democracy meme into >>a society. Before they go back home, let them have >>a weekend in whatever USA setting they'd like to >>experience. > > You don't really get much about democracy in Disney Land or a whorehouse. I don't know......... |