conservation of Euros

On May 27, 9:56 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

<snip>

That, my friend, will do more to rein in spending and save the country
than just about anything else could.

You honestly believe that? It takes a wee political shift in a certain
direction and you have willy-nilly spending. Then ... "oh s..t!" ... we
have to raise the "fair tax" rate from 23% to 26%.

Yes, I believe that. You can raise the rate, but people will notice.
That's not currently true for more than half of us.

And what do you do with states that have dug themselves into a hole?
Like California with its reckless spending for super fat bureaucrat
pensions. Do you give them a bigger chunk of the "fair tax" than states
that knew how to do a budget well? And how are you going to muffle the
public backlash from doing that?

The Fair Tax assiduously avoids making those political judgements.
The Fair Tax is just a simpler way to collect the same amount of money
we currently collect. What the money is used for is up to the
politicians, as usual.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Joerg]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 27, 9:56 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

snip

That, my friend, will do more to rein in spending and save the country
than just about anything else could.
You honestly believe that? It takes a wee political shift in a certain
direction and you have willy-nilly spending. Then ... "oh s..t!" ... we
have to raise the "fair tax" rate from 23% to 26%.

Yes, I believe that. You can raise the rate, but people will notice.
That's not currently true for more than half of us.

Sorry, but I don't expect that much from politicians. When they screw up
the budget like they did in CA they'd simply raise the rate. I don't
believe they care much about what people think.

Seriously, in this morning's paper there was an article where a certain
politician basically said "We should lower the pension fund estimates
and bill the balance to the taxpayer". That's how low it's gotten.

A former assembly speaker fessed up on our local TV, quite candidly
which really surprised me, here (they make you sit through one ad ...):

http://cbs13.com/video/?id=72770@kovr.dayport.com
http://cbs13.com/video/?id=72762@kovr.dayport.com

And what do you do with states that have dug themselves into a hole?
Like California with its reckless spending for super fat bureaucrat
pensions. Do you give them a bigger chunk of the "fair tax" than states
that knew how to do a budget well? And how are you going to muffle the
public backlash from doing that?

The Fair Tax assiduously avoids making those political judgements.
The Fair Tax is just a simpler way to collect the same amount of money
we currently collect. What the money is used for is up to the
politicians, as usual.

So, back to the question above: Does this mean states would slap on an
extra "fair tax" at whatever rate they want?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Joerg]

Charlie E. wrote:

Jeorg,
Let me chime in, here.

Now, I have a bit of savings. Yes, those earning were all taxed when I
saved them, but they are in the bank now. They are earning a (very)
little interest.

Now, they implement this fair tax. That money doesn't go away, it is
still in the bank. Now, you can tell me that it was just de-valued by
the amount of the tax, lets say 23%, but that doesn't happen right
away. It only happens when I pull it out and spend it. ...

Which, as you get older, you eventually will have to do. And then stuff
is going to be more expensive because of this new tax. Your savings will
get taxed a second time, by shriveling up some of its purchasing power.
Unless you move to Cabo or some other place

... Now, we never
agreed on what that 23% meant. Did it replace the existing sales
taxes? Or just add to them? If it added to them, then every think I
now have to buy just got a third more expensive. Not a good thing.

It's meant to replace pretty much all the taxes. But we all know how
that goes "But, but, we need that sales tax revenue", and so on.

But, if I don't spend that money, it is still there and making
interest. If I wait, it doesn't loose any additional value. If I
make additional money, then I save on those funds.

I would probably do just fine on the fair tax, but they will never do
it...

I hope not. And they don't want it anyway because it would make tax
blatantly visible to people. Old saying: "Taxation is the art of
plucking a goose while alive, with the least amount of hissing"

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2010 17:08:47 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 07:46:53 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

[VAT]

That's how it works for consultants in Europe. The payee gets the cash,
but in the end it's a wash. What that did was create yet another huge
bureaucracy. With public worker pensions, public worker health care et
cetera. Great.
So what's different?

That the US high-tech sector is more healthy IMHO. But that can change
for the worse, and I am sure we all don't want that to happen. More
nonsensical bureaucracy = bad.

It hasn't been healthy in decades and is swirling the drain. Since our
economy is becoming Europeon, it's not surprising.

Hmm, I can't say that yet. My clients are often looking for talent and
some is as hard to find as it was 10 or 20 years ago. Not just analog.
For example, right now we are looking for a transducer array engineer,
an ultrasound guy that knows ceramics such as PZT5 and backing
materials. If anyone is aware of a good candidate we could hire please
let me know.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:53:25 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 17:08:47 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 07:46:53 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:


[VAT]

That's how it works for consultants in Europe. The payee gets the cash,
but in the end it's a wash. What that did was create yet another huge
bureaucracy. With public worker pensions, public worker health care et
cetera. Great.
So what's different?

That the US high-tech sector is more healthy IMHO. But that can change
for the worse, and I am sure we all don't want that to happen. More
nonsensical bureaucracy = bad.

It hasn't been healthy in decades and is swirling the drain. Since our
economy is becoming Europeon, it's not surprising.


Hmm, I can't say that yet. My clients are often looking for talent and
some is as hard to find as it was 10 or 20 years ago. Not just analog.
For example, right now we are looking for a transducer array engineer,
an ultrasound guy that knows ceramics such as PZT5 and backing
materials. If anyone is aware of a good candidate we could hire please
let me know.

Not dead yet, no, but it's on its way, by design. I'm sure there are pockets
in Europe, too.

 

[JosephKK]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 20:30:06 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2010 04:24:16 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 26, 8:42 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 16:33:44 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
snip

There may be no guarantees, but there also may be revolution.  Every one of
these games pushes the cart that much closer to the edge.

"Revolution is brewing" -- Tea Party sign

I liked "Obamanomics: Trickle up poverty"

Um, make that: "Flood up poverty", please. With lots of "sucker punch"
fish, that go around sucker punching previously sea worthy boats into
being state re-floatable sinkers.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 27/05/2010 19:43, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

On 13/05/2010 04:49, JosephKK wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 14:36:14 -0700 (PDT), x x<noname.namenot@gmail.com
wrote:

Larkin, why don't you mind your own fucking business?

No big deal. We'll never pay it back.

The doomsday repayment scenario is a major earthquake in Tokyo resulting
in the Japanese calling in their huge loans to the US quickly to do a
rebuild. I think you will find it hard to resist paying up.

You live in a fantasy world. What would they do? Drag a couple
pieced together W.W. II Zeros out of a museum and threaten to bomb Pearl
Harbor? There is no pressure they could apply that wouldn't cause them
more problems. You know what happened the last time they got pushy.
The technology& yield are much better these days.

You seem to think that they would need to use military might to make the
US pay back some of the huge borrowing. I suspect that public opinion in
the wake of a major earthquake catastrophe would be more than enough. It
is only a matter of time they are on a major Pacific plate boundary
fault - a bit like with San Francisco.

They would have better luck making Europe pay up.

Europe would certainly help to get Tokyo back on its feet.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:53:25 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 17:08:47 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 07:46:53 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

[VAT]

That's how it works for consultants in Europe. The payee gets the cash,
but in the end it's a wash. What that did was create yet another huge
bureaucracy. With public worker pensions, public worker health care et
cetera. Great.
So what's different?
That the US high-tech sector is more healthy IMHO. But that can change
for the worse, and I am sure we all don't want that to happen. More
nonsensical bureaucracy = bad.
It hasn't been healthy in decades and is swirling the drain. Since our
economy is becoming Europeon, it's not surprising.

Hmm, I can't say that yet. My clients are often looking for talent and
some is as hard to find as it was 10 or 20 years ago. Not just analog.
For example, right now we are looking for a transducer array engineer,
an ultrasound guy that knows ceramics such as PZT5 and backing
materials. If anyone is aware of a good candidate we could hire please
let me know.

Not dead yet, no, but it's on its way, by design. I'm sure there are pockets
in Europe, too.

I doubt it. The US has always been a country of inventors and
entrepreneurs, more so than many other. However, the recent legislative
changes do not bode well at all and if that continues to fester you
could be right :-(

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 28 May 2010 08:48:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:53:25 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 17:08:47 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 07:46:53 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

[VAT]

That's how it works for consultants in Europe. The payee gets the cash,
but in the end it's a wash. What that did was create yet another huge
bureaucracy. With public worker pensions, public worker health care et
cetera. Great.
So what's different?
That the US high-tech sector is more healthy IMHO. But that can change
for the worse, and I am sure we all don't want that to happen. More
nonsensical bureaucracy = bad.
It hasn't been healthy in decades and is swirling the drain. Since our
economy is becoming Europeon, it's not surprising.

Hmm, I can't say that yet. My clients are often looking for talent and
some is as hard to find as it was 10 or 20 years ago. Not just analog.
For example, right now we are looking for a transducer array engineer,
an ultrasound guy that knows ceramics such as PZT5 and backing
materials. If anyone is aware of a good candidate we could hire please
let me know.

Not dead yet, no, but it's on its way, by design. I'm sure there are pockets
in Europe, too.


I doubt it. The US has always been a country of inventors and
entrepreneurs, more so than many other.

Because of the relative lack of government intervention into your life.

However, the recent legislative
changes do not bode well at all and if that continues to fester you
could be right :-(

It's been getting worse for a couple of decades. It's just more obviously
South. Recoverable?

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:00:26 -0700, Charlie E. <edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:

Jeorg,
Let me chime in, here.

Now, I have a bit of savings. Yes, those earning were all taxed when I
saved them, but they are in the bank now. They are earning a (very)
little interest.

Now, they implement this fair tax. That money doesn't go away, it is
still in the bank. Now, you can tell me that it was just de-valued by
the amount of the tax, lets say 23%, but that doesn't happen right
away. It only happens when I pull it out and spend it. Now, we never
agreed on what that 23% meant. Did it replace the existing sales
taxes? Or just add to them? If it added to them, then every think I
now have to buy just got a third more expensive. Not a good thing.

Added to them. The 23% replaces *federal* taxes, including income and
employment taxes. State bureaucrats still gotta live.

But, if I don't spend that money, it is still there and making
interest. If I wait, it doesn't loose any additional value. If I
make additional money, then I save on those funds.

How would it? It's not taxed until it's spent.

I would probably do just fine on the fair tax, but they will never do
it...

There are a *lot* of assumptions with the fair tax. One of which is that
Congresscritters will give up the power of the tax code. You're right - not
happening.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Martin Brown wrote:

On 27/05/2010 19:43, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

On 13/05/2010 04:49, JosephKK wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 14:36:14 -0700 (PDT), x x<noname.namenot@gmail.com
wrote:

Larkin, why don't you mind your own fucking business?

No big deal. We'll never pay it back.

The doomsday repayment scenario is a major earthquake in Tokyo resulting
in the Japanese calling in their huge loans to the US quickly to do a
rebuild. I think you will find it hard to resist paying up.

You live in a fantasy world. What would they do? Drag a couple
pieced together W.W. II Zeros out of a museum and threaten to bomb Pearl
Harbor? There is no pressure they could apply that wouldn't cause them
more problems. You know what happened the last time they got pushy.
The technology& yield are much better these days.

You seem to think that they would need to use military might to make the
US pay back some of the huge borrowing. I suspect that public opinion in
the wake of a major earthquake catastrophe would be more than enough. It
is only a matter of time they are on a major Pacific plate boundary
fault - a bit like with San Francisco.

Where was the foreign help after any of the California quakes? The
numerous hurricanes that hit the US in the last decade? The wildfires
that destroyed thousands of US homes and consumed thousands of acres of
forest? All we ever got was genuine surplus Mexicans.

They would have better luck making Europe pay up.

Europe would certainly help to get Tokyo back on its feet.

Sure. Greece can lone them a few trillion out of their party fund.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 08:48:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:53:25 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 17:08:47 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 07:46:53 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

[VAT]

That's how it works for consultants in Europe. The payee gets the cash,
but in the end it's a wash. What that did was create yet another huge
bureaucracy. With public worker pensions, public worker health care et
cetera. Great.
So what's different?
That the US high-tech sector is more healthy IMHO. But that can change
for the worse, and I am sure we all don't want that to happen. More
nonsensical bureaucracy = bad.
It hasn't been healthy in decades and is swirling the drain. Since our
economy is becoming Europeon, it's not surprising.
Hmm, I can't say that yet. My clients are often looking for talent and
some is as hard to find as it was 10 or 20 years ago. Not just analog.
For example, right now we are looking for a transducer array engineer,
an ultrasound guy that knows ceramics such as PZT5 and backing
materials. If anyone is aware of a good candidate we could hire please
let me know.
Not dead yet, no, but it's on its way, by design. I'm sure there are pockets
in Europe, too.

I doubt it. The US has always been a country of inventors and
entrepreneurs, more so than many other.

Because of the relative lack of government intervention into your life.

And that seems to be a-changin' :-(

However, the recent legislative
changes do not bode well at all and if that continues to fester you
could be right :-(

It's been getting worse for a couple of decades. It's just more obviously
South. Recoverable?

Depends. Some stuff gets so deeply embedded into law that the damage is
all but irreversible. Like the California pension problem. Even people
that have defrauded or done other bad things have an iron-clad guarantee
to keep receiving their fat pension.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:23:45 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 08:48:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:53:25 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 17:08:47 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 07:46:53 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

[VAT]

That's how it works for consultants in Europe. The payee gets the cash,
but in the end it's a wash. What that did was create yet another huge
bureaucracy. With public worker pensions, public worker health care et
cetera. Great.
So what's different?
That the US high-tech sector is more healthy IMHO. But that can change
for the worse, and I am sure we all don't want that to happen. More
nonsensical bureaucracy = bad.
It hasn't been healthy in decades and is swirling the drain. Since our
economy is becoming Europeon, it's not surprising.
Hmm, I can't say that yet. My clients are often looking for talent and
some is as hard to find as it was 10 or 20 years ago. Not just analog.
For example, right now we are looking for a transducer array engineer,
an ultrasound guy that knows ceramics such as PZT5 and backing
materials. If anyone is aware of a good candidate we could hire please
let me know.
Not dead yet, no, but it's on its way, by design. I'm sure there are pockets
in Europe, too.

I doubt it. The US has always been a country of inventors and
entrepreneurs, more so than many other.

Because of the relative lack of government intervention into your life.


And that seems to be a-changin' :-(

Exactly.

However, the recent legislative
changes do not bode well at all and if that continues to fester you
could be right :-(

It's been getting worse for a couple of decades. It's just more obviously
South. Recoverable?


Depends. Some stuff gets so deeply embedded into law that the damage is
all but irreversible. Like the California pension problem. Even people
that have defrauded or done other bad things have an iron-clad guarantee
to keep receiving their fat pension.

Bankruptcy courts can alter contracts, too. That *is* happening.

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:23:45 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 08:48:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

[...]

However, the recent legislative
changes do not bode well at all and if that continues to fester you
could be right :-(
It's been getting worse for a couple of decades. It's just more obviously
South. Recoverable?

Depends. Some stuff gets so deeply embedded into law that the damage is
all but irreversible. Like the California pension problem. Even people
that have defrauded or done other bad things have an iron-clad guarantee
to keep receiving their fat pension.

Bankruptcy courts can alter contracts, too. That *is* happening.

For a whole state? Never heard of that one but quite frankly for CA I
don't see any other way out. According to credible studies the pension
costs have already ballooned 2000% over a time frame of 10 years (that's
two thousand ...). And this is most likely just the tip of the iceberg.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/06/opinion/la-oe-crane6-2010apr06

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:00:26 -0700, Charlie E. <edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:

Jeorg,
Let me chime in, here.

Now, I have a bit of savings. Yes, those earning were all taxed when I
saved them, but they are in the bank now. They are earning a (very)
little interest.

Now, they implement this fair tax. That money doesn't go away, it is
still in the bank. Now, you can tell me that it was just de-valued by
the amount of the tax, lets say 23%, but that doesn't happen right
away. It only happens when I pull it out and spend it. Now, we never
agreed on what that 23% meant. Did it replace the existing sales
taxes? Or just add to them? If it added to them, then every think I
now have to buy just got a third more expensive. Not a good thing.

Added to them. The 23% replaces *federal* taxes, including income and
employment taxes. State bureaucrats still gotta live.

So you would still have to do a state income tax return? Then the whole
notion of doing away with compliance costs would be a joke and the whole
thing would become a non-starter.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Joel Koltner]

"Joerg" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:86b5h5Fl1tU1@mid.individual.net...

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/06/opinion/la-oe-crane6-2010apr06

Wow.

Perhaps I should change my retirement plans to becoming a California civil
servant? Amazing that even in the face of such massive debt that's going to
really, really hurt for years to come, they're unwilling to make changes so
that at least their grandkids (or maybe great grandkids) aren't saddled with
such massive debts.

---Joel

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 28 May 2010 17:30:19 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:23:45 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 08:48:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:


[...]

However, the recent legislative
changes do not bode well at all and if that continues to fester you
could be right :-(
It's been getting worse for a couple of decades. It's just more obviously
South. Recoverable?

Depends. Some stuff gets so deeply embedded into law that the damage is
all but irreversible. Like the California pension problem. Even people
that have defrauded or done other bad things have an iron-clad guarantee
to keep receiving their fat pension.

Bankruptcy courts can alter contracts, too. That *is* happening.


For a whole state?

From reading the news, it'll happen one city at a time. It *has* to happen.

Never heard of that one but quite frankly for CA I
don't see any other way out. According to credible studies the pension
costs have already ballooned 2000% over a time frame of 10 years (that's
two thousand ...). And this is most likely just the tip of the iceberg.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/06/opinion/la-oe-crane6-2010apr06

It *has* to happen.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 28 May 2010 17:33:03 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:00:26 -0700, Charlie E. <edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:

Jeorg,
Let me chime in, here.

Now, I have a bit of savings. Yes, those earning were all taxed when I
saved them, but they are in the bank now. They are earning a (very)
little interest.

Now, they implement this fair tax. That money doesn't go away, it is
still in the bank. Now, you can tell me that it was just de-valued by
the amount of the tax, lets say 23%, but that doesn't happen right
away. It only happens when I pull it out and spend it. Now, we never
agreed on what that 23% meant. Did it replace the existing sales
taxes? Or just add to them? If it added to them, then every think I
now have to buy just got a third more expensive. Not a good thing.

Added to them. The 23% replaces *federal* taxes, including income and
employment taxes. State bureaucrats still gotta live.


So you would still have to do a state income tax return?

Sure. The feds have no interest in paying state obligations. The "Fair Tax"
addresses the feds only.

Then the whole
notion of doing away with compliance costs would be a joke and the whole
thing would become a non-starter.

I'm sure some states would follow, since they're based on the fed now.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Dave Platt wrote:

In article <F7ydnS1kP9mslGXWnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Out here in the desert, you need to keep hydrated AND salted! You may
not realize it, but just sitting around in even A/C with a <20%
humidity takes a lot of moisture out of you. Get the temperature up
to the nineties, and if you don't drink and eat salt, you get
seriously ill, fast!

I agree. When I was in school, you were required to take a salt
tablet when gym class was out in the hot sun. I've had days I drank
three full two liter bottles of ice water in two hours, then two full
two liter bottles of Diet Mt Dew when I got home. A half hour later I
was starting to cool down, and needed another two liter bottle of water.

It's not just hot areas that are the problem! When visiting a center
dedicated to Antarctic research a few weeks ago, I read that the
drinking-water demand for research field teams down there is about one
liter per three hours per person! Collecting snow and melting it to
provide water takes up a substantial portion of each working day.

I doubt that the salt demand is proportionately high ("cool" sweating
vs. sweating to cool down the body) but it's probably still higher
than in a less evaporation-prone climate.

I spent a year at the US Army cold weather research center in the
early '70s. Dry, cracked and bleeding skin was second to frostbite as a
major health problem. Zero humidity, and below -20F through the
winter. The record low for that site was -69F. It was quite easy to
become dehydrated when you were outdoors. The newer buildings had steam
heat that raised the humidity to an almost acceptable level. You still
had to use handfuls of baby oil after your shower, to seal in as much
moisture as possible.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On May 22, 5:25 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 04:30:33 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On May 22, 7:58 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:21:57 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:12:51 -0700, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 23:36:35 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 21:01:34 -0700, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:15:21 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:17:31 -0700, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:49 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:35:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

"keith...@gmail.com" wrote:

On May 21, 10:37 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-
My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato
chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the
contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as
3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they
manage to come so close when the quantization is so large?

I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution...

You are partially right.

John

Small chips ?

Salt

  Nothing wrong with salt.  I have to use five to seven times the
recommended amount to prevent pressure sores.

There is a lot wrong with salt.  Some need more than others, but almost
everyone gets far more than they need. Many get dangerous levels.

From the wikipedia page on salt...

Meta-analysis in 2009 found that the sodium consumption of 19,151
individuals from 33 countries fit into the narrow range of 2,700 to
4,900 mg/day. The small range across many cultures, together with
animal studies, suggest that sodium intake is tightly controlled by
feedback loops in the body, making recommendations to reduce sodium
consumption below 2,700 mg/day potentially futile.[72]

...which is interesting. Salt intake is not particularly associated
with Western diets. I trust my body to self-regulate basic stuff like
this.

What do you mean mot associated with Western diets.  We eat a *ton* of salt.
It's added, in massive quantities, to just about everything.  You may be able
to trust your body to self-regulate, but add a little kidney or heart damage
and that won't work out so well.  

Well, just now, I'm cooking up a pot of home-made chicken broth, which
includes no salt. It just tastes so much better than the commercial
junk.

But I think bodies know what they want and don't want. And excrete
whatever they have too much of. Why would my body absorb more salt
than it needs, when it could just let it pass through?

If the kidneys or heart are damaged it can't "just pass through".

Why not? Why would my intestines import more salt than my body needs?

Because they aren't very smart.  The regulation is on the other end..  If the
kidney doesn't work the salt builds up.

Maybe your body isn't very smart. Mine is. It regulates tens of
thousands of chemicals, temperatures, pressures, and emotions a lot
better than any computer (or any doctor) could.

There you go again. All that regulation wasn't designed - it evolved.

And then it evolved some more. Lots more. Evolution itself evolved.

It stopped evolving when it kept the body healthy enough through the
child-bearing and child-raising years to guarantee that the phenotype
would pass on its genotype.

How do you account for 90 year old ladies?

The grandaughters do better if granny survives until they appear.
There was an interesting research result published recently.

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/sear/pdfs/fox.pdf

It certainly includes stupidities
equivalent to the recurrent laryngeal nervein the giraffe, which is
metres longer than it needs to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve

Bodies have all sorts of excellent regulatory mechanisms. Maybe a lot
of salt is bad for people whose systems are damaged, but normal people
regulate their appetites and chemistry just fine. We evolved to do
that.

The regulatory mechanisms aren't excellent. They are just mostly good
enough - that's the way evolution works. Single-point nuclear
polymorphisms mean that many of them don't work as well as they did in
your remote ancestors, which is also the way evolution works, since it
discards a lot of less- than advantageous random changes in pursuit of
the occasional advantageous random change

It's been a long time since evolution worked by single-point nuclear
polymorphisms. Bodies *are* smarter than that.

I never said that it did. It is still one of the mechanisms in action.
Other mechanisms seem to duplicate fairly long stretches of genetic
material, sometimes including complete genes, which can then
differentiate from their source version and end up doing something
else - the hox genes are the classic example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeobox

Like all systems, it works to a point.  We regulate sugar, too.  Don't try
abusing that regulation for thirty years, though.

I've eaten all the sugar I wanted for twice 30 years now. And
everything is working fine.

A lot of Americans seem to want - and get - more sugar than is good
for them. Maybe they inherited a slightly less favourable genotype.

Americans are the most diverse genetic mix on the planet.

They aren't. Africa has the highest level of genetic diversity. The
slave traders did import some of that diversity inot the USA, but
sampled a fairly limited populations.

To say that
"Americans" inherited any genotype is silly. Some specific
subpopulations, like those of the Pacific Islander path, seem
especially unable to handle a European (wheat, meat, dairy, sugar)
diet. But people are different.

Some Americans have genotypes that differ from other Americans. Some
American do get fat, while others - like you - don't. All Americans
inherit their own geneotypes and - for all except identical siblings -
each genotype is different. To think that my comment implied that
Americans represent a race having a common genotype is obviously
silly, and I can't imagine how you managed to read that into my
comment. You can be remarkably ignorant, but not that dumb.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen