White House secretly passes currency controls
in [Design]
|
Prev: Single-Bit Sound Derivative Digitizer
Next: I will renew all of my works books. I am Isaac Newton, have you already drawn a comet on your eggs on Easter?
From: brent on 11 Apr 2010 06:57 On Apr 10, 11:38 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > Ask yourself this: Why is it that a state with close to the highest tax > rate in the nation is deep in the red financially while others with > lower tax burden are not? > That irony seems to be the case for almost every high tax state.
From: Joerg on 11 Apr 2010 12:39 JosephKK wrote: > On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:38:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> JosephKK wrote: >>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:29:29 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:38:40 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>>> Ok, I took the time to find you a link that your political bias won't >>>>>> dismiss because it is out of a rather liberal-trending large newspaper: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/05/2655167/dan-walters-californias-big-pension.html >>>>>> >>>>>> In the aftermath two very predictable things happend. Rush, I and many >>>>>> others saw them coming: A 50% increase was not remotely possible to be >>>>>> absorbed by the pension funds because one cannot assume a stock rally to >>>>>> last 100+ years. Secondly, the trick now is to get transferred to a high >>>>>> cost-of-living area for a year before retirement, then bestow all sorts >>>>>> of promotions on the person (won't get in the way of others because >>>>>> he/she will be gone in a year). Bingo, fattest possible pension is >>>>>> locked in for life while Joe Q. Public gets peanuts. Seen that over and >>>>>> over again. In this NG there had been examples posted where ordinary >>>>>> city engineers now pull five-digits a month (!), for life. >>>>>> >>>>> Why do you so resent that retirement? Do you have any problem earning >>>>> that much per month or more (or the equivalent between the two after >>>>> taxes, i am very aware of the much higher taxes the self-employed pay)? >>>>> Do you resent the difference in (health) benefits instead? Just what >>>>> is your issue with a "civil servant" engineer being compensated >>>>> about what engineers in private practice (typically) are? >>>> As has been pointed out earlier there are limits to the term "much". >>>> $14k/mo is too much, most certainly when scores of teachers get pink >>>> slips because they can no longer be paid. Industry engineers don't pull >>>> in such retirement, and neither will I. >>>> >>>> I certainly resent the way retirement is now calculated where it is easy >>>> to inflate it beyond all proportions. It is IMHO not right. >>>> >>>> However, I no longer expect Bill to understand this. >>>> >>>> [...] >>> So there you are in private practice, not able to manage $100k/year, net? >>> Or not enough to have $100k/y left after buying a nice retirement and >>> medical insurance? ... >> >> In private practice you generally can't. Certainly not if you must buy >> your own gear. In my case I also work on volunteer things, at zero >> Dollars. But even if I wouldn't, $100k after all costs, taxes and >> whatnot would wipe out family life. Plus you still would never be able >> to achieve a plum retirement. I know a lot of private practice guys and >> none of them can't. Unless they are lawyers or dentists. Not engineers. >> > Time will tell, in due time i am going to find out the hard way, by seeing > if i can pull it off. Do you want to go self-employed? What field? >>> ... Ok, a city engineer is a rather high level position, >>> typically in charge of several millions/y budget and responsible to get >>> the most out of it. Are you saying that the pay is too much when compared >>> to private engineers doing equivalent work? ... >> >> Yes, that's what I am saying. This was just one example of many. >> Undoubtedly you have noticed the ruckus of steep raises at the capitol >> that people bestoed on their staff days or on the last day before >> leaving office, during a time where CA has no money. This is >> symptomatic. It's not "their" money so spending is easy, right? > > But that is a bit of a different problem, and does not affect engineers > in public employ. Not that it is right anyway. Well, in a way it has. The pensions that were listed just in the L.A. case are so outrageous that it is no wonder that our budget is critically out of whack. Even the IMHO rather left-leaning Sac Bee reported this morning that the public pension funds together may be 200 billion (!) in the hole in the long run. Usually such numbers later turn out not to be correct. With the correct number being 50% higher :-( >> There have been examples in the paper where an open position got >> throusands of applications during non-recession times. That would be a >> clear sign that something in the compensation ain't right. >> > That also does not affect engineers compensation. Nor is it right. What typically happens in public office or functions is that one group pulls off a fat raise. Then the others all want that, too, and usually get it. Well, at least under the previous gov they did and not we are under water. Predictably. >>> ... Or are you saying that you >>> resent people who select a steady income of 75% of the going rate for >>> a more stable long term position? >>> Let's get honest and numerical about this. >> >> The 75% is wrong. It was probably correct at one time but it no longer is. > > You are entitled to your opinion. All I can tell you is that the whole neighborhood here pretty much has the same opinion. Except for folks who profit from that but even some of those have expressed concern. The topper was a former colleague of mine. "I've solved my exposure to this mess"... "How?" ... We just sold our house in the foothills and bought one in Arkansas" ... and he and his family was gone. >> Ask yourself this: Why is it that a state with close to the highest tax >> rate in the nation is deep in the red financially while others with >> lower tax burden are not? > > Jeorg, you were right here watching it happen. The liberals in Congress > mandated more loans to "disadvantaged" people, and got them. Then the > liberals in Sacramento awash in a surplus in 2004 and 2005 mandated > permanent entitlements that were clearly unsustainable. The bubble went > phsssssh in 2007 and now we have massive deficits. The big difference > for California is magnitude of the bubble and resultant jump in > entitlements being much bigger. By the way, fannie and freddie are still > making more of those funky loans. And on Wednesday Alan testified that he also knew it ... -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: JosephKK on 11 Apr 2010 19:51 On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:39:28 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >JosephKK wrote: >> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:38:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> JosephKK wrote: >>>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:29:29 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:38:40 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>>> Ok, I took the time to find you a link that your political bias won't >>>>>>> dismiss because it is out of a rather liberal-trending large newspaper: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/05/2655167/dan-walters-californias-big-pension.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the aftermath two very predictable things happend. Rush, I and many >>>>>>> others saw them coming: A 50% increase was not remotely possible to be >>>>>>> absorbed by the pension funds because one cannot assume a stock rally to >>>>>>> last 100+ years. Secondly, the trick now is to get transferred to a high >>>>>>> cost-of-living area for a year before retirement, then bestow all sorts >>>>>>> of promotions on the person (won't get in the way of others because >>>>>>> he/she will be gone in a year). Bingo, fattest possible pension is >>>>>>> locked in for life while Joe Q. Public gets peanuts. Seen that over and >>>>>>> over again. In this NG there had been examples posted where ordinary >>>>>>> city engineers now pull five-digits a month (!), for life. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why do you so resent that retirement? Do you have any problem earning >>>>>> that much per month or more (or the equivalent between the two after >>>>>> taxes, i am very aware of the much higher taxes the self-employed pay)? >>>>>> Do you resent the difference in (health) benefits instead? Just what >>>>>> is your issue with a "civil servant" engineer being compensated >>>>>> about what engineers in private practice (typically) are? >>>>> As has been pointed out earlier there are limits to the term "much". >>>>> $14k/mo is too much, most certainly when scores of teachers get pink >>>>> slips because they can no longer be paid. Industry engineers don't pull >>>>> in such retirement, and neither will I. >>>>> >>>>> I certainly resent the way retirement is now calculated where it is easy >>>>> to inflate it beyond all proportions. It is IMHO not right. >>>>> >>>>> However, I no longer expect Bill to understand this. >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>> So there you are in private practice, not able to manage $100k/year, net? >>>> Or not enough to have $100k/y left after buying a nice retirement and >>>> medical insurance? ... >>> >>> In private practice you generally can't. Certainly not if you must buy >>> your own gear. In my case I also work on volunteer things, at zero >>> Dollars. But even if I wouldn't, $100k after all costs, taxes and >>> whatnot would wipe out family life. Plus you still would never be able >>> to achieve a plum retirement. I know a lot of private practice guys and >>> none of them can't. Unless they are lawyers or dentists. Not engineers. >>> >> Time will tell, in due time i am going to find out the hard way, by seeing >> if i can pull it off. > > >Do you want to go self-employed? What field? > Electrical engineering, i have both degree and license. > >>>> ... Ok, a city engineer is a rather high level position, >>>> typically in charge of several millions/y budget and responsible to get >>>> the most out of it. Are you saying that the pay is too much when compared >>>> to private engineers doing equivalent work? ... >>> >>> Yes, that's what I am saying. This was just one example of many. >>> Undoubtedly you have noticed the ruckus of steep raises at the capitol >>> that people bestoed on their staff days or on the last day before >>> leaving office, during a time where CA has no money. This is >>> symptomatic. It's not "their" money so spending is easy, right? >> >> But that is a bit of a different problem, and does not affect engineers >> in public employ. Not that it is right anyway. > > >Well, in a way it has. The pensions that were listed just in the L.A. >case are so outrageous that it is no wonder that our budget is >critically out of whack. Even the IMHO rather left-leaning Sac Bee >reported this morning that the public pension funds together may be 200 >billion (!) in the hole in the long run. Usually such numbers later turn >out not to be correct. With the correct number being 50% higher :-( > Reporting under funded pension plans in lean times is not new. Nor is it reliable. Just the same i have been watching 35 years of benefits cutting including both pension and current employee and retiree medical. > >>> There have been examples in the paper where an open position got >>> throusands of applications during non-recession times. That would be a >>> clear sign that something in the compensation ain't right. >>> >> That also does not affect engineers compensation. Nor is it right. > > >What typically happens in public office or functions is that one group >pulls off a fat raise. Then the others all want that, too, and usually >get it. Well, at least under the previous gov they did and not we are >under water. Predictably. > > >>>> ... Or are you saying that you >>>> resent people who select a steady income of 75% of the going rate for >>>> a more stable long term position? >>>> Let's get honest and numerical about this. >>> >>> The 75% is wrong. It was probably correct at one time but it no longer is. >> >> You are entitled to your opinion. > > >All I can tell you is that the whole neighborhood here pretty much has >the same opinion. Except for folks who profit from that but even some of >those have expressed concern. The topper was a former colleague of mine. >"I've solved my exposure to this mess"... "How?" ... We just sold our >house in the foothills and bought one in Arkansas" ... and he and his >family was gone. > > >>> Ask yourself this: Why is it that a state with close to the highest tax >>> rate in the nation is deep in the red financially while others with >>> lower tax burden are not? >> >> Jeorg, you were right here watching it happen. The liberals in Congress >> mandated more loans to "disadvantaged" people, and got them. Then the >> liberals in Sacramento awash in a surplus in 2004 and 2005 mandated >> permanent entitlements that were clearly unsustainable. The bubble went >> phsssssh in 2007 and now we have massive deficits. The big difference >> for California is magnitude of the bubble and resultant jump in >> entitlements being much bigger. By the way, fannie and freddie are still >> making more of those funky loans. > > >And on Wednesday Alan testified that he also knew it ... And that was piled on top of Grey Davis' electric deregulation which guaranteed the Enron debacle.
From: Joerg on 11 Apr 2010 20:04 JosephKK wrote: > On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:39:28 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> JosephKK wrote: >>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:38:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:29:29 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:38:40 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok, I took the time to find you a link that your political bias won't >>>>>>>> dismiss because it is out of a rather liberal-trending large newspaper: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/05/2655167/dan-walters-californias-big-pension.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the aftermath two very predictable things happend. Rush, I and many >>>>>>>> others saw them coming: A 50% increase was not remotely possible to be >>>>>>>> absorbed by the pension funds because one cannot assume a stock rally to >>>>>>>> last 100+ years. Secondly, the trick now is to get transferred to a high >>>>>>>> cost-of-living area for a year before retirement, then bestow all sorts >>>>>>>> of promotions on the person (won't get in the way of others because >>>>>>>> he/she will be gone in a year). Bingo, fattest possible pension is >>>>>>>> locked in for life while Joe Q. Public gets peanuts. Seen that over and >>>>>>>> over again. In this NG there had been examples posted where ordinary >>>>>>>> city engineers now pull five-digits a month (!), for life. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do you so resent that retirement? Do you have any problem earning >>>>>>> that much per month or more (or the equivalent between the two after >>>>>>> taxes, i am very aware of the much higher taxes the self-employed pay)? >>>>>>> Do you resent the difference in (health) benefits instead? Just what >>>>>>> is your issue with a "civil servant" engineer being compensated >>>>>>> about what engineers in private practice (typically) are? >>>>>> As has been pointed out earlier there are limits to the term "much". >>>>>> $14k/mo is too much, most certainly when scores of teachers get pink >>>>>> slips because they can no longer be paid. Industry engineers don't pull >>>>>> in such retirement, and neither will I. >>>>>> >>>>>> I certainly resent the way retirement is now calculated where it is easy >>>>>> to inflate it beyond all proportions. It is IMHO not right. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, I no longer expect Bill to understand this. >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>> So there you are in private practice, not able to manage $100k/year, net? >>>>> Or not enough to have $100k/y left after buying a nice retirement and >>>>> medical insurance? ... >>>> In private practice you generally can't. Certainly not if you must buy >>>> your own gear. In my case I also work on volunteer things, at zero >>>> Dollars. But even if I wouldn't, $100k after all costs, taxes and >>>> whatnot would wipe out family life. Plus you still would never be able >>>> to achieve a plum retirement. I know a lot of private practice guys and >>>> none of them can't. Unless they are lawyers or dentists. Not engineers. >>>> >>> Time will tell, in due time i am going to find out the hard way, by seeing >>> if i can pull it off. >> >> Do you want to go self-employed? What field? >> > Electrical engineering, i have both degree and license. If you have a PE licence and don't mind non-electronics projects you could probably find a lot of local work. Permit preparation and such. In industry neither matters, what counts is what you can do. Other than agencies nobody was ever interested in my degree. The challenge will be to build up a reputation because nearly everything works word-of-mouth there. What you absolutely will need is a web site. That's not expensive but it's best to get the file set started well before taking the plunge, it has to be ready on day one. >>>>> ... Ok, a city engineer is a rather high level position, >>>>> typically in charge of several millions/y budget and responsible to get >>>>> the most out of it. Are you saying that the pay is too much when compared >>>>> to private engineers doing equivalent work? ... >>>> Yes, that's what I am saying. This was just one example of many. >>>> Undoubtedly you have noticed the ruckus of steep raises at the capitol >>>> that people bestoed on their staff days or on the last day before >>>> leaving office, during a time where CA has no money. This is >>>> symptomatic. It's not "their" money so spending is easy, right? >>> But that is a bit of a different problem, and does not affect engineers >>> in public employ. Not that it is right anyway. >> >> Well, in a way it has. The pensions that were listed just in the L.A. >> case are so outrageous that it is no wonder that our budget is >> critically out of whack. Even the IMHO rather left-leaning Sac Bee >> reported this morning that the public pension funds together may be 200 >> billion (!) in the hole in the long run. Usually such numbers later turn >> out not to be correct. With the correct number being 50% higher :-( >> > Reporting under funded pension plans in lean times is not new. Nor is it > reliable. Just the same i have been watching 35 years of benefits cutting > including both pension and current employee and retiree medical. They haven't looked at it from a lean-times perspective but from averages. Those can't be discussed away, but have been anyway under the previous gov, and that will haunt us for decades. Those of us who stay, that is. >>>> There have been examples in the paper where an open position got >>>> throusands of applications during non-recession times. That would be a >>>> clear sign that something in the compensation ain't right. >>>> >>> That also does not affect engineers compensation. Nor is it right. >> >> What typically happens in public office or functions is that one group >> pulls off a fat raise. Then the others all want that, too, and usually >> get it. Well, at least under the previous gov they did and not we are >> under water. Predictably. >> >> >>>>> ... Or are you saying that you >>>>> resent people who select a steady income of 75% of the going rate for >>>>> a more stable long term position? >>>>> Let's get honest and numerical about this. >>>> The 75% is wrong. It was probably correct at one time but it no longer is. >>> You are entitled to your opinion. >> >> All I can tell you is that the whole neighborhood here pretty much has >> the same opinion. Except for folks who profit from that but even some of >> those have expressed concern. The topper was a former colleague of mine. >> "I've solved my exposure to this mess"... "How?" ... We just sold our >> house in the foothills and bought one in Arkansas" ... and he and his >> family was gone. >> >> >>>> Ask yourself this: Why is it that a state with close to the highest tax >>>> rate in the nation is deep in the red financially while others with >>>> lower tax burden are not? >>> Jeorg, you were right here watching it happen. The liberals in Congress >>> mandated more loans to "disadvantaged" people, and got them. Then the >>> liberals in Sacramento awash in a surplus in 2004 and 2005 mandated >>> permanent entitlements that were clearly unsustainable. The bubble went >>> phsssssh in 2007 and now we have massive deficits. The big difference >>> for California is magnitude of the bubble and resultant jump in >>> entitlements being much bigger. By the way, fannie and freddie are still >>> making more of those funky loans. >> >> And on Wednesday Alan testified that he also knew it ... > > And that was piled on top of Grey Davis' electric deregulation which > guaranteed the Enron debacle. Yup. My jaw dropped when I read back then that long term price hedging like the airline do with kerosene wasn't part of the game. My first thought was that this would become a train wreck in a really hot summer. Which it became in due course ... -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: krw on 11 Apr 2010 21:36
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 03:57:10 -0700 (PDT), brent <bulegoge(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote: >On Apr 10, 11:38�am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> >> Ask yourself this: Why is it that a state with close to the highest tax >> rate in the nation is deep in the red financially while others with >> lower tax burden are not? >> >That irony seems to be the case for almost every high tax state. I don't think the causation is the tax burden, rather the level of the union infestation. They tend to correlate, but it's not 100%. |