New DSLR lenses from Nikon
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Problem solved:
Next: ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye
From: Bill Graham on 12 Feb 2010 21:54 "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message news:hl3j7e$nf7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:nvSdnZKGdc8wmejWnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "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. >>> >> Sales taxes represent double taxation, and should be declared >> unconstitutional. Anyone with an ounce of feeling about what's right and >> fair would know this, and fight any and all sales taxes. I fought them >> for years by living in California and buying everything either on line, >> or going to Oregon and buying it. I registered all my vehicles up here in >> Oregon for many years before I retired and actually moved up here. Now >> the idiot liberals are talking about replacing the income tax with a >> National Sales Tax. What a boon to the lawyers that would be......another >> 100 years of tax litigation handed to them on a silver (no pun intended) >> platter! Throw out the form 1040 and do it all over again! Even I would >> vote for such a thing on the off chance that there's an afterlife so I >> could laugh for another 100 years........ > > There's something to be said about a natianal sales tax, in spite of the > idiot liberals. A national sales tax will eliminate the underground > money. Hiding income from the IRS will be moot. When you spend money, > whether ill-gotten or legitimately earned, the sales tax is applied to > whatever you buy. > > The problem with a national sales tax is that it will not elimiate the > income tax. There is no way the federal income tax will ever be > eliminated because the federal government uses the tax code for political > reason and they won't be able to do so with a national sales tax. All > they'll wind up doing is adding a national sales tax in addition to the > income tax. > > A somewhat similar concept is bandied around from time-to-time on Long > Island. Here, we pay exhorbitant property taxes. To give you an example, > I bought my home for $ 300,000 and my property taxes have now topped $ > 11,000 per year and they just go up every year. 2/3 of that amount is the > school tax. People can't afford it anymore. Property owners pay the > taxes. In some communities, particularly where illegal immigrants live, > there are single-family homes that are rented to multiple families. There > may be ten kids living in the home. Those kids have to be educated, > illegal or not. Juxtapose that with a single family living in a home with > two kids. Both homes in the same community pay the same property tax yet > one home has ten kids in it going to school. This puts a tremendous tax > burden on the homeowners. So, a solution bandies around is to impose an > income tax to pay for the school taxes. However, the income tax will not > replace the property tax, it will be in addition to the property tax. > This will keep property taxes from rising and it will also get people who > don't own property yet have kids in school to also pay as long as they > earn an income. It will also keep property taxes from rising and will > help the retirees from being forced to move because their property taxes > are too high. The problem for working people who are fairly successful is > that the additional income tax imposed will be more than their property > taxes would increase. School's have an insatiable appetite for our money > just like our government does. > > Tell me about it. This is why they voted for a property tax limit in California many years ago. Older folk were being evicted from the homes they had bought, paid for, and lived in their whole working lives, because the value of the houses had gone up so far that they couldn't afford the property taxes. Paying 11 grand a year for a 300 grand house is a good example of that. I would have to move right now if that were the case here. I have a 300 grand house, and I only have to pay about $3500 a year.
From: Bill Graham on 12 Feb 2010 22:00 "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2010021209321443658-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom... > On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said: > >> >> "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:smh8n5h5vlu9k0pdj3qj0u6rsnmtcgt9b6(a)4ax.com... >>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 2010-02-09 14:12:21 -0800, J�rgen Exner <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> said: >>>> >>>>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. >>>>>> America >>>>>> has no VAT. >>>>> >>>>> 1: Canada does have VAT, it is called "Goods and Services Tax". Don't >>>>> know about other countries in America. >>>>> 2: I am quite certain I prefer a flat simple straightforward VAT over >>>>> the impenetrable jungle of local, state, county and other sales taxes >>>>> that are slapped on in the US and sometimes vary just across the >>>>> street. >>> [...] >>>> If you like this oppressive, extremely regressive tax, fine with me. >>> >>> ??? >>> You see me mystified and scratching my head. >>> >>> How is a system that charges exactly the same percentage from >>> everyone[*] regressive, or even worse "extremely regressive", in >>> absolute terms? >>> And how is it more regressive in relative terms (if that's what you >>> meant) than sales tax where rich cities, which are rich because rich >>> people are living there, don't leverage sales tax while poor cities have >>> no other choice? >>> >>> *: In reality there are typically 3 or 4 different levels of VAT, none >>> or reduced for basic needs like e.g. food, standard, and high for luxury >>> items, thus actually making it a rather progressive tax because >>> low-income people are unlikely to buy large amounts of the high-taxed >>> luxury items. >>> >>> jue >> >> And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax......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..... > > You know, I don't know where people get this caricature of Bill Gates > being a greedy, selfish moneybags. We are talking about a guy who retired > from Microsoft a long time ago to devote his life to humanitarian causes, > including the eradication of malaria, building high schools, agricultural > development, health care and nutrition, among other things. > I didn't say anything about Bill Gates being a greedy anything. All I said was that if they replaced the income taxes with a national sales tax, he would be making out like a bandit. The very rich would all make out very well, because they don't spend the same percentage of their incomes on stuff like the rest of us do. So this is a very "regressive" idea, if you will. Someone like Gates or Opera Winfrey who had many millions to invest, would be raking in the money like gangbusters without hardly paying anything at all, while their investments continued to climb to the stars.......
From: Bill Graham on 12 Feb 2010 22:28 "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message > BTW I was in Alaska last Summer, passed through Wasilla and could not see > Russia. > > -- > Peter It takes vision, son.......
From: Ray Fischer on 12 Feb 2010 22:47 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 $1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing products to sell. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 12 Feb 2010 22:49
Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message >news:hl3i1v$egi$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:e639n5l1ojhndtjn77g7nu75vhljjuj5n5(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:32:37 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" >>> <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: >>> >>>>"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. >>>> >>> It seems to me that one of the biggest hurdles any modern-day >>> President has is to effectively work with Congress by retaining the >>> support of his/her own party members and securing at least some >>> support of the opposing party's members. >>> >>> Obama has not been particularly effective in this, but Palin would not >>> be at all effective in this. IMO. >>> -- >>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> >> It's the policy differences that matter more to me. The differences >> between Palin and Obama are like night and day. >> >That's exactly right. Obama makes a very creditable president, and Palin >would not. But Obama is a liberal Democrat, which is my worst nightmare, and >Palin is a conservative Republican which is the closest thing to a perfect >leader I can imagine, so I would vote for her in a New York minute. A "conservative" republican who was governer of a state that relies quite heavily on federal money. Anyone who would vote for Palin is an idiot. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |