On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:22:50 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article cgoq7ch8fu046tln444tpl7fti5hkqim8p@
4ax.com, says...

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:08:44 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article s0go7c1gfgipb6p470ceh0sogdqal82cjj@
4ax.com, says...

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:01:02 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/14/2017 6:28 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:08:43 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:47:45 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/14/2017 10:04 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 9:20:41 AM UTC-5, Meanie wrote:
On 1/14/2017 12:11 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 11:27:41 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
On 1/13/2017 9:19 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
Home Depot was all out of Siberian Larch lumber so I **** canned this
project. ^º^

https://www.youtube.com/embed/xj4gSMdaaxE?autoplay=1

Shipping cost for a used one from Lohmar, Germany?
https://www.machinio.com/listings/15...lohmar-germany



I love those videos

At 15:35 he makes a zero clearance insert. What do you think that
pre-drilled - complete with leveling screws - blank is made from?

What do you think spares for different sized zero clearance inserts cost?

I vote for "not cheap".


It's similar to buying a luxury vehicle such as Mercedes, BMW or a
higher end brand. If they can afford it, they can afford the parts and
service when needed.

I have never subscribed to that argument. It all depends on how you are
using the word "afford", which is usually defined as "to have enough money
to pay for".

"If they can afford a pool, they can afford a pool maintenance man."
"If they can afford a house with a huge lawn, they can afford a landscaper."
"If they can afford luxury car, they can afford the parts."

Correct

Buying and affording are very different animals.

Many people buy vehicles or homes but mostly on credit because they
cannot afford/don't have the cash to buy any other way.

I imagine that exceedingly few buy their first house with cash. I
don't have an issue with mortgages.

Neither do I but during the government guaranteed loans fiasco a very
large number of people qualified for homes that they should not have
qualified for. They were strapped for every penny and when things
happened and there was not enough money to make a mortgage payment it
all went to hell in a hand basket.

If they had a fixed mortgage, it wouldn't have mattered. If I lost my
job, I would have had a problem, too. The issue wasn't mortgages that
were too large, rather people were sold ARMs. At the cost of money,
at the time, ARMs were downright stupid.


Think about the housing mortgage crisis 9 years ago.

What about it? I had no issues, even bought an sold a house. If you
had good credit, there was no issue. Some fools had ARMs. They
didn't do so well, of course.


It did not bother or my wife either, but we were not buying or trying to
sell in 2008.

I did (sold at the end of '07 and bought in August '08). No issues. I
did lose $30K in '11/'12 on my house but I'll more than make that up
on this one (it was a foreclosure - now "worth" almost twice what I
paid for it).

In Houston housing prices dipped to what they should be
and selling was tough as there were many foreclosures that were dirt cheap.
Either way there are many people that were able to keep their homes but
are finding that with demand going back up and property values going up
it is causing taxes to go way up. They can no longer afford those
homes. I pay about 3% in property taxes each year. Many near by places
have a higher rate.

Then the property taxes should have been going down when the values
tanked. I pay about 1%. It was more like .5% on my last house. ;-)
Taxes were on the list of the reasons we left Vermont. There was no
way I could retire, given that cost of living. I don't see a reason
to live where it's more expensive than necessary.

Believe me if you pay property taxes and know some one that pays less
than you do, you may be paying more than necessary. Why should some one
in a million dollar home pay more property tax than some in a $250,000
home. Is the guy in the million dollar home getting 4 times as many
services. Probably not. Property taxes should not be based on value of
the property. Everyone should pay the same amount for the same services.

Why? Because it's "progressive". Why should I pay more income tax
than a hamburger flipper? They're almost assuredly getting more
government services than I.

Two years ago I was living on food stamps and
half time minimum wage. Today I'm living on a
full time quant's salary which means I pay more
in income tax than my entire compensation in the
last engineering job I had.

What's a "quant"? Your last engineering job must have sucked. ;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_anal
yst.

Suffice it to say that it pays a _lot_ more than
engineering, it's a _much_ better work
environment, and if somebody had told me 40
years ago that this kind of work existed I would
have never become an engineer.

Dunno, doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me. I'm still doing the
engineering thing because it pays well and making things is fun.

I don't begrudge the services rendered to poor
people nor do I feel that taxing them further
into poverty serves any purpose.

Not to the point.

Well actually, since the argument seems to be
that they use more services so they should pay
more tax, it kind of _is_ the point.

No, it's the opposite of my point. However, I do believe that
everyone should share some of the pain for government. Highly
progressive taxes are counterproductive.

I'd rather pay less tax but not if it means
imposing taxes on the poor that they do not have
the means to pay.

Forcing someone to choose between food, shelter,
and taxes is rather sadistic IMO.

The level of taxation on everyone is sadistic but, again, irrelevant.

I don't find it at all sadistic. Not at my
level. What's sadistic is--you know those guys
who stand in line outside Home Depot hoping for
a day job? Well if they're honest about their
taxes then they have to pay 15 percent up front
in "self employment tax" before they even get
started on income tax. That's why they like to
get paid cash under the table--there's no paper
trail.

God only wants 10%.

Nobody should be taxed into poverty and nobody
who is already there should be taxed further
into it. Doing so isn't addressing any real
social problem.

Save the argument for Hillary.

Yes the taxes did go down with property values but remember that the
economy tanked also and people lost their jobs. And while these homes
did go down in value when the crisis hit they have now rebounded with a
vengeance and have sky rocketed way past the values when originally bought.

That seems to be one area that Vermont actually did better. They had
a "Grand List" of all property in the town. The tax rate was set at
the annual budger divided by the "Grand List". If property values
tank, the rate goes up. The total tax is the same (in theory). Here,
the taxes colllected vary with property taxes. Seems they should vary
by the "needs" of the community.

The "needs" of the community can include quite a
lot of cruft that could be done away with.

Sing it, brother! Though saying it doesn't change reality.

People always lose jobs. I can't imagine everyone being able to
absorb a (long term) job loss without having to move. It's not a
reasonable expectation.

Move to where?

Out of where they are living (the mortgage is predicated on working,
no?). To? Well, to where there *is* a job, would be a suggestion.
I've done it several times, though I won't do chase a job again
because there will be no need.

Where is the job though? And while the mortgage
may be predicated on working, that doesn't mean
that it's more than the rent would be if one
moved.

If one has no job *here*, it doesn't much matter what the rent is
*there*. There is where the job is.