OT What if,

[George Herold]

On Feb 8, 3:46 pm, default wrote:

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 19:48:02 -0800 (PST), George Herold

gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
it cost $0.01 to send an email?  This is meant to reduce spam.
Perhaps the cost is too high?

George H.

No that's not too high.  BUT where does the money go? and who controls
the cost?  I seem to remember first class postage costing 2 cents...
Give governments a revenue source and they will milk it - then how
about a penny or two to download a megabyte?

Where does it end?

Personally I don't care where the money goes. you can throw my share
in the ocean, the goverment, charity, church, local school,...
whatever.

George H.

 

[George Herold]

On Feb 8, 3:49 pm, default wrote:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 08:31:23 -0800, John Larkin





jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 19:48:02 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:

it cost $0.01 to send an email?  This is meant to reduce spam.
Perhaps the cost is too high?

George H.

That would be great. Even a tenth of a cent would make spam too
expensive. Except that lots of spam is sent by trojans in hijacked
PCs.

All stock transactions should be taxed, maybe 0.1% or so, or better
yet a sliding scale based on how long the stocks are held, like 0.1%
divided by hold time in years. That would kill a lot of programmed
trading and stabilize the market.

John

Right on!  Quit treating corporations like they were numbers on a
roulette wheel by stock traders.

Quit rewarding CEO's on the instantaneous stock price.

Now, what to do about commodities markets?
You have to use X% of the commodity that you buy?

George H.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[George Herold]

On Feb 8, 6:39 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 21:12:17 +0100, Sjouke Burry





burrynulnulf...@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:
George Herold wrote:
On Feb 8, 12:20 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 19:48:02 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
it cost $0.01 to send an email?  This is meant to reduce spam.
Perhaps the cost is too high?
George H.
That would be great. Even a tenth of a cent would make spam too
expensive. Except that lots of spam is sent by trojans in hijacked
PCs.
So how'd that sort of tax be enforced, say, at a server in Tadjikistan?

I have no idea about the details.  Certainly it would have to be a
world wide thing.  Doesn't everyone have to have an ISP?  Can't they
count emails coming from you and then add a bit to your bill?

Not as long as webmail is done through Google or other
netbased services, those mails never use your own ISP,
and so cannot be taxed.

Tax Google.  Or better, allow ISPs to collect $.001 on every email received,
from its sending ISP.  The government gets nothing but the ISPs have an
incentive to add customers not spammers.

As far as your ISP is concerned, you are visiting a website,
talking to that site, and your ISP is unaware of the results.

That's not email, either.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmm that's a good idea. The penny goes to the reciever of the email!
Kinda nice sending email to someone.

George H.

 

[George Herold]

On Feb 8, 6:46 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

George Herold wrote:
On Feb 8, 12:20 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 19:48:02 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
it cost $0.01 to send an email?  This is meant to reduce spam.
Perhaps the cost is too high?
George H.
That would be great. Even a tenth of a cent would make spam too
expensive. Except that lots of spam is sent by trojans in hijacked
PCs.
So how'd that sort of tax be enforced, say, at a server in Tadjikistan?

I have no idea about the details.  Certainly it would have to be a
world wide thing. ...

What if the king of Rarotonga says no?

Geesh I don't know. He doesn't get to play then.

         ...  Doesn't everyone have to have an ISP?  Can't they
count emails coming from you and then add a bit to your bill?

In the US they could tax some, and then there'd be an uproar. In
consequence some smart folks who send mass emails would, of course, sign
up with a foreign ISP. How that should be handled with all those free
email services, I wouldn't have the foggiest. It's just not practical.

What if the money goes to the reciever. When I post a message on
Usenet the money goes usenet.
(what ever that means.)

All stock transactions should be taxed, maybe 0.1% or so, or better
yet a sliding scale based on how long the stocks are held, like 0.1%
divided by hold time in years. That would kill a lot of programmed
trading and stabilize the market.
No new taxes. There's enough already.

Hmm, I expect either taxes to increase and/or services to be
drastically cut.  With lots of screaming either way.

There's smarter ways. An example, fresh from this morning's paper:
Supposedly some state workers drive around at times to "burn gasoline"
so that their department's gasoline budget for next year isn't cut. A
complete waste, plus they are on paid time doing a non-service to the
public. It's called "use it or lose it". That stuff needs to stop. Now.

Yeah some waste but pennies on the dollar if not much worse.

Then there's the pensions ...

Now they start to scream. Here in NY the Govenor wants to lay off
~10,000. Lots of screaming but I bet they are gone... (the previous
gov. did all the heavy lifting)

George H.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Joerg]

George Herold wrote:

On Feb 8, 6:46 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
George Herold wrote:
On Feb 8, 12:20 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 19:48:02 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
it cost $0.01 to send an email? This is meant to reduce spam.
Perhaps the cost is too high?
George H.
That would be great. Even a tenth of a cent would make spam too
expensive. Except that lots of spam is sent by trojans in hijacked
PCs.
So how'd that sort of tax be enforced, say, at a server in Tadjikistan?
I have no idea about the details. Certainly it would have to be a
world wide thing. ...
What if the king of Rarotonga says no?

Geesh I don't know. He doesn't get to play then.

That would be the collapse of the core ideas of Internet, uncensored
communication. If that country is being excluded because they won't pay
some obscure new tax that wouldn't be right.

... Doesn't everyone have to have an ISP? Can't they
count emails coming from you and then add a bit to your bill?
In the US they could tax some, and then there'd be an uproar. In
consequence some smart folks who send mass emails would, of course, sign
up with a foreign ISP. How that should be handled with all those free
email services, I wouldn't have the foggiest. It's just not practical.

What if the money goes to the reciever. When I post a message on
Usenet the money goes usenet.
(what ever that means.)

But you know how that goes. Stick out a finger and they grab the whole
hand. "Oh, we need to triple the tax, but only for two years, and blah,
blah". We had exactly that happen here in CA. Now they want to extend
it. The usual ...

All stock transactions should be taxed, maybe 0.1% or so, or better
yet a sliding scale based on how long the stocks are held, like 0.1%
divided by hold time in years. That would kill a lot of programmed
trading and stabilize the market.
No new taxes. There's enough already.
Hmm, I expect either taxes to increase and/or services to be
drastically cut. With lots of screaming either way.
There's smarter ways. An example, fresh from this morning's paper:
Supposedly some state workers drive around at times to "burn gasoline"
so that their department's gasoline budget for next year isn't cut. A
complete waste, plus they are on paid time doing a non-service to the
public. It's called "use it or lose it". That stuff needs to stop. Now.

Yeah some waste but pennies on the dollar if not much worse.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. It is a pattern that needs to be
pulled because it happens the same way with huge budgets. "Use it or
lose it" is a very bad recipe but, unfortunately, firmly entrenched in
the minds of bureaucrats. Because usually that's the way "things work".
What it leads to is that frugality is not rewarded, it is punished.
Clearly that is wrong and it's a structural issue.

Then there's the pensions ...

Now they start to scream. Here in NY the Govenor wants to lay off
~10,000. Lots of screaming but I bet they are gone... (the previous
gov. did all the heavy lifting)

Out here, the gov before Arnold let this whole mess happen.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Joerg]

George Herold wrote:

On Feb 8, 11:31 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 19:48:02 -0800 (PST), George Herold

gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
it cost $0.01 to send an email? This is meant to reduce spam.
Perhaps the cost is too high?
George H.
That would be great. Even a tenth of a cent would make spam too
expensive. Except that lots of spam is sent by trojans in hijacked
PCs.

Yeah, but if you got a bill for $100 because a 'trojan' on your
computer was spamming the world, I bet you would hurry up and fix
it!

And if grandma Miller gets a $100 bill she won't be able to buy the next
refill of her heart medication. All she knows about spam is that it's
the stuff in the blue and yellow can that li'l Joey likes to eat.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[George Herold]

On Feb 8, 9:29 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

George Herold wrote:
On Feb 8, 6:46 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
George Herold wrote:
On Feb 8, 12:20 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 19:48:02 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
it cost $0.01 to send an email?  This is meant to reduce spam.
Perhaps the cost is too high?
George H.
That would be great. Even a tenth of a cent would make spam too
expensive. Except that lots of spam is sent by trojans in hijacked
PCs.
So how'd that sort of tax be enforced, say, at a server in Tadjikistan?
I have no idea about the details.  Certainly it would have to be a
world wide thing. ...
What if the king of Rarotonga says no?

Geesh I don't know.  He doesn't get to play then.

That would be the collapse of the core ideas of Internet, uncensored
communication. If that country is being excluded because they won't pay
some obscure new tax that wouldn't be right.

OK, But I'm starting to really like this idea. (Don't worry I'll wake
up in the morning.) Imagine there's some amount attached to each
email. I send you a question, it costs me a penny. You send me an
answer, Now my question is free.

George H.

         ...  Doesn't everyone have to have an ISP?  Can't they
count emails coming from you and then add a bit to your bill?
In the US they could tax some, and then there'd be an uproar. In
consequence some smart folks who send mass emails would, of course, sign
up with a foreign ISP. How that should be handled with all those free
email services, I wouldn't have the foggiest. It's just not practical.

What if the money goes to the reciever.  When I post a message on
Usenet the money goes usenet.
(what ever that means.)

But you know how that goes. Stick out a finger and they grab the whole
hand. "Oh, we need to triple the tax, but only for two years, and blah,
blah". We had exactly that happen here in CA. Now they want to extend
it. The usual ...

No my money goes to you! Dang I'd happily be willing to send you a
dollar along with an email question.

All stock transactions should be taxed, maybe 0.1% or so, or better
yet a sliding scale based on how long the stocks are held, like 0.1%
divided by hold time in years. That would kill a lot of programmed
trading and stabilize the market.
No new taxes. There's enough already.
Hmm, I expect either taxes to increase and/or services to be
drastically cut.  With lots of screaming either way.
There's smarter ways. An example, fresh from this morning's paper:
Supposedly some state workers drive around at times to "burn gasoline"
so that their department's gasoline budget for next year isn't cut. A
complete waste, plus they are on paid time doing a non-service to the
public. It's called "use it or lose it". That stuff needs to stop. Now..

Yeah some waste but pennies on the dollar if not much worse.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. It is a pattern that needs to be
pulled because it happens the same way with huge budgets. "Use it or
lose it" is a very bad recipe but, unfortunately, firmly entrenched in
the minds of bureaucrats. Because usually that's the way "things work".
What it leads to is that frugality is not rewarded, it is punished.
Clearly that is wrong and it's a structural issue.

Then there's the pensions ...

Now they start to scream.  Here in NY the Govenor wants to lay off
~10,000.  Lots of screaming but I bet they are gone...  (the previous
gov. did all the heavy lifting)

Out here, the gov before Arnold let this whole mess happen.

Hmm, I hate finger pointing. Let's start by saying we are all

responsible for the present mess.

George H.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[asdf]

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:48:02 -0800, George Herold wrote:

it cost $0.01 to send an email? This is meant to reduce spam. Perhaps
the cost is too high?

It was debated multiple times. My opinion is that by doing so only rich
spammers would profit but spam would not diasappear. The market of buyers
would shrink for other spammers to the advantage of the richer ones that
could afford say $1000 to spam 100,000 people because it probably will
return the "investment" anyway.

 

[Rich Grise]

asdf wrote:

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:48:02 -0800, George Herold wrote:

it cost $0.01 to send an email? This is meant to reduce spam. Perhaps
the cost is too high?

It was debated multiple times. My opinion is that by doing so only rich
spammers would profit but spam would not diasappear. The market of buyers
would shrink for other spammers to the advantage of the richer ones that
could afford say $1000 to spam 100,000 people because it probably will
return the "investment" anyway.

I can vouch for this. I once got a sweet contract to write a program to
manage a mailing list for a marketing company - this was direct mail, where
they'd send physical advertising stuff ("junk" mail) but they had a list of
about 8,000 people who were known, verified buyers. The fact that the joint
was an "adult toys" place is pretty much irrelevant - they had this list
of 8,000 names and addresses of known buyers. This was in the days before
spam - the internet was in its infancy; the closest we had was bulletin
board systems, so virtually everything was word-of-mouth, newspaper coupons,
and direct mail.

So, I wrote this list manager program, using the 8,000 name list that the
client had "lent" me, got paid, and we parted company friends. They were
happy, I was happy. (That's the magick of the Free Market, BTW.)

About a year later, I got a call from a competitor of my client see above.
He was interested in this year-old mailing list. I didn't have any binding
non-disclosure with the first client, and the guy wanted to buy the list
from me. We made a deal: I sent him a few hundred names and addresses for
him to test to sell _his_ adult toys, and after testing it for buyers, he
paid me $800.00 for a copy of the list.

A win-win-win situation!

Praise Freedom!!!!

Thanks,
Rich

 

[George Herold]

On Feb 9, 5:55 am, asdf <a...@nospam.com> wrote:

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:48:02 -0800, George Herold wrote:
it cost $0.01 to send an email?  This is meant to reduce spam. Perhaps
the cost is too high?

It was debated multiple times. My opinion is that by doing so only rich
spammers would profit but spam would not diasappear. The market of buyers
would shrink for other spammers to the advantage of the richer ones that
could afford say $1000 to spam 100,000 people because it probably will
return the "investment" anyway.

Sure that's OK. I still get junk mail from the post office. There
will always be some advertising sent to me. But I bet I wouldn't get
any more emails from Helga in Russia, wanting to be my friend (and
she'll send pictures).

George H.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

George Herold wrote:

On Feb 9, 5:55 am, asdf <a...@nospam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:48:02 -0800, George Herold wrote:
it cost $0.01 to send an email? This is meant to reduce spam. Perhaps
the cost is too high?

It was debated multiple times. My opinion is that by doing so only rich
spammers would profit but spam would not diasappear. The market of buyers
would shrink for other spammers to the advantage of the richer ones that
could afford say $1000 to spam 100,000 people because it probably will
return the "investment" anyway.

Sure that's OK. I still get junk mail from the post office. There
will always be some advertising sent to me. But I bet I wouldn't get
any more emails from Helga in Russia, wanting to be my friend (and
she'll send pictures).

Send her a picture of dimbulb. She'll never bother you again.

--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:20:40 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 19:48:02 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

it cost $0.01 to send an email? This is meant to reduce spam.
Perhaps the cost is too high?

George H.

That would be great. Even a tenth of a cent would make spam too
expensive. Except that lots of spam is sent by trojans in hijacked
PCs.


So how'd that sort of tax be enforced, say, at a server in Tadjikistan?

Beats me. That's a technical issue.

All stock transactions should be taxed, maybe 0.1% or so, or better
yet a sliding scale based on how long the stocks are held, like 0.1%
divided by hold time in years. That would kill a lot of programmed
trading and stabilize the market.


No new taxes. There's enough already.

We need *different* taxes. The ones we have generate government
revenue but harm the economy. As long as we need some gov revenue, we
may as well have taxes that steer socially beneficial actions.

John

 

[Joerg]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:20:40 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

[...]

All stock transactions should be taxed, maybe 0.1% or so, or better
yet a sliding scale based on how long the stocks are held, like 0.1%
divided by hold time in years. That would kill a lot of programmed
trading and stabilize the market.

No new taxes. There's enough already.

We need *different* taxes. The ones we have generate government
revenue but harm the economy. As long as we need some gov revenue, we
may as well have taxes that steer socially beneficial actions.

You don't honestly believe they'd let go of any single one of the
already existing taxes without a major hissy fit, do you? How long did
we pay taxes to finance the Spanish-American war? I mean the years after
it was over. Or I should have said decades ...

Same with extra taxes, like here in CA. "Oh, only for a couple years".
Now it's "Oh, just another five year, puleeeeze!".

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 08:45:59 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:20:40 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

[...]


All stock transactions should be taxed, maybe 0.1% or so, or better
yet a sliding scale based on how long the stocks are held, like 0.1%
divided by hold time in years. That would kill a lot of programmed
trading and stabilize the market.

No new taxes. There's enough already.

We need *different* taxes. The ones we have generate government
revenue but harm the economy. As long as we need some gov revenue, we
may as well have taxes that steer socially beneficial actions.


You don't honestly believe they'd let go of any single one of the
already existing taxes without a major hissy fit, do you?

Actually, no.

One refreshing thing about Jerry Brown is that he is proposing to
absolutely eliminate the state urban renewal program. Not reform it,
not reduce it, eliminate it.

John

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 21:20:12 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:20:40 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 19:48:02 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

it cost $0.01 to send an email? This is meant to reduce spam.
Perhaps the cost is too high?

George H.

That would be great. Even a tenth of a cent would make spam too
expensive. Except that lots of spam is sent by trojans in hijacked
PCs.


So how'd that sort of tax be enforced, say, at a server in Tadjikistan?

Beats me. That's a technical issue.

---
Effect and cause. No surprise there.

---
JF

 

[m II]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11-02-09 07:53 AM, George Herold wrote:

Sure that's OK. I still get junk mail from the post office. There
will always be some advertising sent to me. But I bet I wouldn't get
any more emails from Helga in Russia, wanting to be my friend (and
she'll send pictures).

I'll bet the word 'underdeveloped' never enters the scene....




mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNVxK4AAoJEJXfKw5kUPt7TGIH/3JbMKbC+QPXy2m95dcLXjgN
d+9IsQPs7cigOLvQY6kFtzOlnK2ZgItnzvqFUffjevKoQ5StH8jeRIAOspRbB2qJ
kXi8vjkb6LqoPUiZd/b3HlbALg5D+G3Asdlntvt2dgQYIO4vwLWMrWFQqTXl0anJ
zS52M8HofYVKpQqA9uKorpZTTop30n88X6VLRIFM25PFUpS5WAkRaSJuQeQerYDI
zUOg6vAaQmvL47nnLs9t5u7d9iHW8q4e2G5GmqLzb+bQuH5kunLfCoJ0R+2tYfWH
9Pp0L5p4mLAQROGwtTb4fYYGUxRKsSk+w66CIVbvaR0MjXkyzuwho6QmHZ+0Qz0=
=pqzG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Joerg]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 08:45:59 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:20:40 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
[...]

All stock transactions should be taxed, maybe 0.1% or so, or better
yet a sliding scale based on how long the stocks are held, like 0.1%
divided by hold time in years. That would kill a lot of programmed
trading and stabilize the market.

No new taxes. There's enough already.
We need *different* taxes. The ones we have generate government
revenue but harm the economy. As long as we need some gov revenue, we
may as well have taxes that steer socially beneficial actions.

You don't honestly believe they'd let go of any single one of the
already existing taxes without a major hissy fit, do you?

Actually, no.

One refreshing thing about Jerry Brown is that he is proposing to
absolutely eliminate the state urban renewal program. Not reform it,
not reduce it, eliminate it.

Yes, that is refreshing. But pension reform is the number one priority,
I don't see CA get back on its feet without that.

He should also structure his tax plea differently. For example, a
gradual phase-out over five years. In year six these tax surcharges need
to have reached zero. How else should people trust that they don't ask
for another five years afterwards, and another, and another? People out
here said that it is like buying a drunkard the next bottle, just
because he promised it's going to be the last one.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Rich Grise]

Joerg wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 08:45:59 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:20:40 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
John Larkin wrote:
[...]
One refreshing thing about Jerry Brown is that he is proposing to
absolutely eliminate the state urban renewal program. Not reform it,
not reduce it, eliminate it.

Yes, that is refreshing. But pension reform is the number one priority,
I don't see CA get back on its feet without that.

He should also structure his tax plea differently. For example, a
gradual phase-out over five years. In year six these tax surcharges need
to have reached zero. How else should people trust that they don't ask
for another five years afterwards, and another, and another? People out
here said that it is like buying a drunkard the next bottle, just
because he promised it's going to be the last one.

So, how do we get them into taxoholic rehab?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Joerg]

Rich Grise wrote:

Joerg wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 08:45:59 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:20:40 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
John Larkin wrote:
[...]
One refreshing thing about Jerry Brown is that he is proposing to
absolutely eliminate the state urban renewal program. Not reform it,
not reduce it, eliminate it.
Yes, that is refreshing. But pension reform is the number one priority,
I don't see CA get back on its feet without that.

He should also structure his tax plea differently. For example, a
gradual phase-out over five years. In year six these tax surcharges need
to have reached zero. How else should people trust that they don't ask
for another five years afterwards, and another, and another? People out
here said that it is like buying a drunkard the next bottle, just
because he promised it's going to be the last one.

So, how do we get them into taxoholic rehab?

Same way it happened in Washington D.C. end of last year? I think the
new presidential term for that is shellacking ... 8-D

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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