conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: Greegor on 20 May 2010 21:36 krw > I was just talking to Phil Hobbs about that krw > recently. He pointed out that bad krw > management is better than no management. krw > At least it gets everybody pulling in the krw > same direction. JL > Opposite management? It's not good going JL > in the opposite direction as the guy JL > with the purse, either. http://dictionary.infoplease.com/machiavellian being or acting in accordance with the principles of government analyzed in Machiavelli's The Prince, in which political expediency is placed above morality and the use of craft and deceit to maintain the authority and carry out the policies of a ruler is described. --------------------------------------- I always focused on the part about how a bad ruler who maintains control is better than a weak ruler who subjects his people to the costly horrors of revolution.
From: krw on 20 May 2010 23:36 On Thu, 20 May 2010 18:36:44 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47(a)gmail.com> wrote: >krw > I was just talking to Phil Hobbs about that >krw > recently. He pointed out that bad >krw > management is better than no management. >krw > At least it gets everybody pulling in the >krw > same direction. > >JL > Opposite management? �It's not good going >JL > in the opposite direction as the guy >JL > with the purse, either. > >http://dictionary.infoplease.com/machiavellian > >being or acting in accordance with the principles of government >analyzed in Machiavelli's The Prince, in which political expediency is >placed above morality and the use of craft and deceit to maintain the >authority and carry out the policies of a ruler is described. > >--------------------------------------- > >I always focused on the part about how a >bad ruler who maintains control is better >than a weak ruler who subjects his people >to the costly horrors of revolution. Or one who screws up attributions, manually, when software will do it correctly, free.
From: krw on 20 May 2010 23:39 On Thu, 20 May 2010 13:44:25 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:24:09 +0100, Martin Brown ><|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >>Equally the employer should treat employees fairly and not be entitled >>to hire and fire on a whim in the way that seems so common in the USA. > >Employees can walk out on zero notice, leaving projects in random >states. And they sometimes do. How about some symmetry? No, California isn't a right to work state.
From: krw on 20 May 2010 23:51 On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:51:33 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >JosephKK wrote: >> On Tue, 18 May 2010 08:45:14 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> JosephKK wrote: >>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:11:54 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:13:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 00:18:43 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>>>> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:26:28 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>>>>>> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jealous of his wealth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> money they saved _has_ already been taxed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Simple fix: don't tax income. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but >>>>>>>>>>>> not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat >>>>>>>>>>>> VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair >>>>>>>>>>>> at all. >>>>>>>>>>> As I suggested, exempt basics, like food, reasonable rent, generic >>>>>>>>>>> medicines. If people can afford a yacht, they can afford to pay sales >>>>>>>>>>> tax on it. >>>>>>>>>> The point is that that money has already been taxed. It shouldn't matter if >>>>>>>>>> it is used to buy a yacht. Taxing it again is wrong (one reason I don't trust >>>>>>>>>> Roth IRAs). >>>>>>>>> As I suggested, eliminate income taxes and go to sales tax. Then >>>>>>>>> things are only taxed once. >>>>>>>> You're missing the point. Those millions of people who have saved all their >>>>>>>> lives will be taxed a second time. They've *already* been taxed on that >>>>>>>> money. >>>>>>> Not to bust your bubble, but i am already paying both taxes. >>>>>> When income tax gets turned into a point-of-sale tax you'll have paid >>>>>> even more (if you have saved after-tax money). >>>>> I only have a little of such, most is in other (post income tax) forms. >>>> erp. ^^^^/pre >>> >>> Don't know how old you are but if there ain't a big stash in those IRAs >>> and you don't have some plum pension coming your way I'd start saving >>> now :-) >> >> I figure i can only semi-retire. Maybe in 10 years. OK pension, medical >> included. Not as much saving as paying off house. Well over $1000/mo >> there. I have spreadsheets and can use them. The outlook is not grim >> but not flush, so i go to about half time as a consultant. The >> consulting pays for the cake, bread and butter will be taken care of >> unless the Damnicrats deficit spend everything away. > > >If you can imagine comfortably making ends meet with a 50% consulting >workload then you are better off than most people. I know grown men who >are doing min-wage jobs right now just so they don't lose the family >home. And they might still lose it. Hell, I can imagine retiring *well* on 25% consulting workload. In fact if I thought it would last I'd still be "retired", contracting as I was doing two years back. That would be my ideal retirement, AAMOF.
From: krw on 20 May 2010 23:59
On Wed, 19 May 2010 18:05:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:34:59 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:23:02 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 07:50:39 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 11:42:26 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 17, 4:05 pm, "keith...(a)gmail.com" <keith...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On May 17, 3:53 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 17, 3:41 pm, "keith...(a)gmail.com" <keith...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you're missing the point. With after-tax savings you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *already* paying that tax. If the "Fair Tax" is implemented you get >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay the "consumption tax" on the *AFTER-TAX* money. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not missing the point, I just think you're mathematically wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If the thing costs $1 today, or $0.77 plus $0.23 Fair Tax tomorrow, >>>>>>>>>>>>> what have you lost? Where have I gone wrong? >>>>>>>>>>>> Because it cost me $1.40 yesterday (when I earned it) to have the >>>>>>>>>>>> $1.00 today, >>>>>>>>>>> If you paid taxes already under the old system then you were screwed >>>>>>>>>>> *yesterday*. That can't be fixed-it's gone. Sorry. Me too. >>>>>>>>>> No, I was playing the game by the rules yesterday. Today the government >>>>>>>>>> change the rules after the game was in play. The winner is the one who spent >>>>>>>>>> every dime he ever made, not the one who took care of his life. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Many of the ones who took care of their life will then move, to some >>>>>>>>> places outside the US, and escape such confiscatory "fair tax" should it >>>>>>>>> ever happen. Who knows, Baja, NZ, some island ... because then the >>>>>>>>> problem simply goes away. The consequences? Even more layoffs here. >>>>>>>> That's fine if they don't want to take their money with them. They've already >>>>>>>> plugged that hole. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Huh? It's just one big wire transfer. >>>>>> You think you can just wire money out of the country without government >>>>>> intervention? More than $10K requires all sorts of paperwork, and taxes paid. >>>>>> >>>>> Got any links? That would completely squish international trade. I know >>>>> people who have bought rather pricey stuff overseas, and just wired the >>>>> payment. Plus they can't make you pay taxes on already taxed money. >>>> No, but it's been in the news lately, with Obama's attack on the Swiss banks. >>>> Apparently if you move cash out of the country you have to pay the equivalent >>>> of the death tax. >>> >>> This cannot be the case. I have clients who buy expensive machines >>> overseas because they have to. They don't pay a death tax. >> >> Corporations "living" in the US. > > >And proprietors living in the US. So what's the (legal, in terms of >those taxes) difference between them and John Q.Public? Because JQP is likely to skip on his taxes. |