New DSLR lenses from Nikon
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Problem solved:
Next: ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye
From: Pete Stavrakoglou on 11 Feb 2010 15:32 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:i2b8n59tp15ch64gtu0gdt2q5l7vv8huip(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:28:54 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" > <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: > >>Sounds like you are confusing her with Obama. He never had to make a hard >>decision in any facet of his career before becoming president. At least >>Palin has experience running something. > > Running away from running something is a better description. With > Palin as President, she'd lose interest in the job if things didn't > go her way and find some other bright and shiny object to play with. > > To me, she's like the Bearded Lady in the carnival sideshow...people > will pay to see her, but nobody wants to take her home. > > -- > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida She may not be the best choice and is certainly not my first or even second but if it is between her and Obama, there is no contest. I'll take her in an instant over Obama.
From: Bruce on 11 Feb 2010 16:10 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:40:46 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >...and since VAT is a "value added tax" an imported item arriving a >port of entry would have the taxed "added value" of the freight costs >to move it from port of entry to point of distribution or sale. That >would also apply to the cost of transport on domestic products. That >could be considerable for some landlocked states. That is unless >transport is given a VAT exemption Wrong, because the consumer pays VAT only once, at the point of sale. All the VAT that was charged on any intermediate expense, including transport, is reclaimed by the retailer of the product or service. Otherwise, the consumer would be paying tax on tax, and that doesn't happen.
From: Bruce on 11 Feb 2010 16:20 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:57:57 +0100, "Lucas" <cauwels(a)xs4all.nl> wrote: > >Just for your information: the EU does NOT impose VAT, that is the reserved >right of each member country (until now that is...). That isn't true. A country must apply VAT to become a member of the EU. The reason is that the EU takes its income from VAT receipts in each country, amounting to just under 2%. So if a country's VAT is 20% (for example), 18% goes to the country and 2% to the EU budget. >However, there are some EU-regulations regarding VAT, but, as far as I know, >there are no 2 EU member countries that have the same VAT regulations. >There can be several tariffs, over here we have 0% (e.g. medical >products/services); 6% (essentials, e.g. food); and 19% (luxury products). >Only 10 km's from my place, in another counRty (we don't have counties >US-style), you have 0%, 6%, 12% and 21%. Denmark and Sweden even have 25%. >(Same as Norway, but that is not a EU-member.) >And we have about 30 different countries... take your pick... >And, be advised, you will be milked dry: 40 years ago, when VAT was >introduced, over here we had only 4% and 12%. In the UK, VAT started at 10% with a 25% rate on luxuries. It was then reduced to 8% across the board, then was later increased to 15% by the right wing government of Margaret Thatcher (it made no sense at the time). It is now 17.5%. Children's clothes, basic foods and newspapers, magazines and books carry a rate of 0%, but the EU still gets its almost 2% cut, so sales of those items are cross-subsidised from receipts of VAT at the higher rate.
From: Peter on 11 Feb 2010 16:09 "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message news:hl1pcm$tln$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message > news:4b743950$0$22908$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:jqa8n5150cgkug13kev134nhhp66u75ckh(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:03:46 -0500, "Peter" >>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>> >>>>"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message >>>>news:hl17f0$k6o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> >>>>> A New York State resident is required to pay the difference in sales >>>>> tax >>>>> to New York for any item purchased out-of-state. If I buy a camera >>>>> from a >>>>> reseller in another state online, they do not charge me the sales tax. >>>>> I >>>>> am required by law to pay New York the difference. >>>> >>>>You are required to make such a declaraton on your New York Income tax >>>>return. BTW some retailers such as Amazon, do collect the NY sales tax. >>> >>> The general rule is if the seller has a presence (store, outlet, >>> office) in the state, they must charge sales tax, where applicable, to >>> sales made to residents of that state. >>> >>> Ritz Camera gets around that by having their stores in Florida owned >>> by one corporation and their online sales entity owned by a different >>> corporation. >>> >> >> >> AFAIK Amazon has no presence in NY. Our tax authorities are proactively >> attempting to encourage online retailers to collect and turn over the >> sales tax. For several years there have been ongoing negotiations between >> the various States for an inter-state compact, regarding collection of >> sales taxes. There are lots of constitutional and business difficulties >> with such a compact. (most states have lots of problems being paid sales >> taxes collected by their resident businesses.) Though some inter-state >> compacts have been working well, at least in the income tax area. > > New York's logic was that if a New York State resident while in New York > could "click-through" to a website, then that is akin to having a physical > prescence (or some logic of the sort). This would apply to any > out-of-state reseller but thus far, NY is going after the big ones like > Amazon and Buy.com. That logic is contrary to established precedent. NY is using fear, no logic. -- Peter
From: Peter on 11 Feb 2010 16:34
"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message news:hl1pea$ugv$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message > news:4b742b25$0$10724$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message >> news:hl17kf$m7t$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >>> news:4b740603$0$21683$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>> news:OpSdneCy8pAsnu_WnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>>> >>>>> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote in >>>>> message >>>>> news:2010020916350416807-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom... >>>>>> On 2010-02-09 14:48:32 -0800, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:36:11 -0800, C J Campbell >>>>>>> <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> 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. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Peter >>> >>> I'll take her over the current mistake in the White House in a >>> heartbeat. >> >> >> Even though she has no ability to think. Yes, she is an excellent public >> speaker. Excellent public speakers have caused the deaths of millions. >> >> -- >> Peter > > I don't see much evidence that Obama is much of a thinker. Take away the > teleprompter and he's lost for words. You've gotta be kidding. Look at his educational background. He uses the teleprompter just as most public speakers, including myself, use notes. As an assist in getting his points across and to make certain that with complex subjects points are not omitted. BTW did you see the crib notes on Sister Sara's hand? She is incapable of any deep analysis of a problem. Yet because she has such simplistic ideas she will make a lot of money. You and I are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, we've never met, but know each other for years and have a lot of other things in common. I know your opinions are sincere. Please use your intellect and see Palin for the political opportunist she is. She didn't even think she had a commitment to the people of Alaska. Now, she denies quitting and wants to convince us she left because of a higher calling. Think man, think. You are much too smart to believe her bullshit. BTW -- Peter |