clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote in message
...

Up here, you have a house with CI sewer pipe, you can NOT get
insurance (new coverage) without tearing out all the CI and putting in
plastic. The insurance companies are SO paranoid the pipe might leak,
and they might have to actually pay out.

That really sucks. I intend to go far out of my way to put in CI pipe in
the house I'm building currently to eliminate noise, which plastic pipe
transfers readily. Water running through the pipes sounds like rocks
running along. All pipes between the main and top floor will not be plastic
for that reason. The no hub pipe CI is a snap (no pun intended) to
install, taking only slightly longer than plastic.

Harold

In article , Harold & Susan Vordos says...

I, for years, resented having to pay into SS. I've already made mention of
the fact that I had to pay both halves, so I know and understand all too
well how you might have your feelings, which I also shared. I recall all
too well having paid what I thought was a fair amount on my quarterly
estimates, only to be hit by a $5,000 tab when I filed my taxes one
particular year. For the most part, it was due to SS fees, which were far
and away higher than my tax tab, and were rising rapidly. SS is a stupid
idea that has gotten completely out of control, but I paid and paid dearly,
so I expect to receive the benefits. The government was unwilling to exempt
me when I hoped they would. I'm not too keen on the idea of letting them
(us?) off the hook now. The money I may have put away for my living
expenses was taken from me by them (us?) without my permission. I had no
choice other than to face possible imprisonment for not paying. .

But that's like any other tax. They taxed you to pay for
somebody elses retirement - and now they're taxing me, to
pay for yours.

Nothing prevented you from putting away more money for retirement,
and nothing prevents the government from telling me, you ain't
getting nothing back. But remember, nothing prevents them
from saying the same to you - sorry, but there's no more money
to give you, and seeing as we're gonna 'starve the beast' and
cut Jim's taxes, your benefit is going to be drastically reduced.

All this stuff that looks like cast in stone entitlement, really
isn't. I learned that when my pension was taken away by my
employer.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Harold & Susan Vordos says...

I, for years, resented having to pay into SS. I've already made mention
of
the fact that I had to pay both halves, so I know and understand all too
well how you might have your feelings, which I also shared. I recall
all
too well having paid what I thought was a fair amount on my quarterly
estimates, only to be hit by a $5,000 tab when I filed my taxes one
particular year. For the most part, it was due to SS fees, which were
far
and away higher than my tax tab, and were rising rapidly. SS is a
stupid
idea that has gotten completely out of control, but I paid and paid
dearly,
so I expect to receive the benefits. The government was unwilling to
exempt
me when I hoped they would. I'm not too keen on the idea of letting
them
(us?) off the hook now. The money I may have put away for my living
expenses was taken from me by them (us?) without my permission. I had no
choice other than to face possible imprisonment for not paying. .

But that's like any other tax. They taxed you to pay for
somebody elses retirement - and now they're taxing me, to
pay for yours.

Nothing prevented you from putting away more money for retirement,
and nothing prevents the government from telling me, you ain't
getting nothing back. But remember, nothing prevents them
from saying the same to you - sorry, but there's no more money
to give you, and seeing as we're gonna 'starve the beast' and
cut Jim's taxes, your benefit is going to be drastically reduced.

Yup, I'm operating on the assumption that SS will not be paying benefits to
me or anybody younger than me. In addition, it probably won't be paying
benefits to people even somewhat older than me.

All this stuff that looks like cast in stone entitlement, really
isn't. I learned that when my pension was taken away by my
employer.

I had an interesting epiphany around 1999 when my (large company based in NJ
and run by Tony Soprano types with MBAs) employer forced every employee in
the company - 100,000+ - to choose between the traditional pension plan and
a cash balance plan. I'm a long way from retirement, and I had to face up to
the recognition that (1) I couldn't possibly trust the thieving executives
to fulfill the current commitments (medical + the federally-protected
defined benefits) of the traditional pension plan even until I retired, and
(2) they wanted me to know that they didn't think we'd be long-term
employees - new employees only had access to the cash balance plan. I took
the cash balance with me when I left the company a few years later and
they've now significantly cut the medical benefits to current retirees.

Pete

In article , Harold & Susan Vordos says...


clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote in message
.. .

Up here, you have a house with CI sewer pipe, you can NOT get
insurance (new coverage) without tearing out all the CI and putting in
plastic. The insurance companies are SO paranoid the pipe might leak,
and they might have to actually pay out.

That really sucks. I intend to go far out of my way to put in CI pipe in
the house I'm building currently to eliminate noise, which plastic pipe
transfers readily. Water running through the pipes sounds like rocks
running along. All pipes between the main and top floor will not be plastic
for that reason. The no hub pipe CI is a snap (no pun intended) to
install, taking only slightly longer than plastic.

This varies widely according to location. In many
nearby areas, cast iron is still required by code, and
plastic is not allowed.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Pete Bergstrom
says...

I had an interesting epiphany around 1999 when my (large company based in NJ
and run by Tony Soprano types with MBAs) employer forced every employee in
the company - 100,000+ - to choose between the traditional pension plan and
a cash balance plan. I'm a long way from retirement, and I had to face up to
the recognition that (1) I couldn't possibly trust the thieving executives
to fulfill the current commitments (medical + the federally-protected
defined benefits) of the traditional pension plan even until I retired, and
(2) they wanted me to know that they didn't think we'd be long-term
employees - new employees only had access to the cash balance plan. I took
the cash balance with me when I left the company a few years later and
they've now significantly cut the medical benefits to current retirees.

Yep. A certain large blue company got it's teat caught
in a wringer over the enforced switchover to cash-ballance
plans. One court ruled on a class-action lawsuit, and said
that yes, doing this is age discrimination.

Of course there will be appeals, but the bottom line is they
can take away whatever they feel like. Real funny to find out
that much of the money gained by taking the pensions away from
older workers went straight to fund another retirement setup
for the executive management.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 17 Nov 2003 06:17:19 -0800, jim rozen
brought forth from the murky depths:

In article , Larry Jaques says...

sarcasm mode on

It's a good thing our defenders of the universe are doing
the right thing and tracking the right criminals. Who cares
if our women are raped, homes are burglarized, vehicles are
carjacked, and banks robbed? Our gov't is catching the -real-
bad guys who hire low-cost workers for Wally World!

Hmm. Good point, I hadn't considered this. Yep, better
if we just give the executives at the megacorporations
the right to simply not pay any taxes at all, to hire
whoever they please and make them work in whatever conditions
they see fit. Then we'll give them carte blanche to ****
all over the environment too, after all, what's good
for business is good for the good old U S of A.

Good thing the wallmart execs have you to look after them.
I'm sure they'll return the favor.

sacrasm mode off

Uh, Jim. I wasn't standing up for Wally World. I was ranting
about our government chasing the wrong bad guys. Crikey, they
need to find at least SOME sense of what our priorities are.

new rant

If we stopped the wars against drugs and oil countries, if we
stopped the congressional looting, if we stopped funding the
innumerable pork projects, our government would have all the
money it needed to meet SS payments.

If the IRS stopped spending $10k to go after the little guy
who owed them $32.12 and started after corporations who each
owed them millions, or plugged the loopholes...

If we stopped coddling the AMA to focus on preventive medicine...

If the gov't stopped funding elections and used public pots
(donations anonymous) which were distributed evenly to each
eligible delegate...

....we all would be better off. (Ditto the entire world.)

Feel free to add to this.

/new rant


---
- Friends don't let friends use FrontPage -
http://diversify.com Dynamic Website Programming

In article , Larry Jaques says...

Uh, Jim. I wasn't standing up for Wally World. I was ranting
about our government chasing the wrong bad guys. Crikey, they
need to find at least SOME sense of what our priorities are.

Ah. I thought you were saying that the government
should allow them free rein to hire illegals, and
not prosecute. I think they should have their feet
held to the fire, if it's shown that they knew
what was going on.


If we stopped the wars against drugs and oil countries, if we
stopped the congressional looting, if we stopped funding the
innumerable pork projects, our government would have all the
money it needed to meet SS payments.

Ah but then we'd have another bunch of out of work
whiners, and we'd have to pay *them* welfare.

If the IRS stopped spending $10k to go after the little guy
who owed them $32.12 and started after corporations who each
owed them millions, or plugged the loopholes...

If we stopped coddling the AMA to focus on preventive medicine...

If the gov't stopped funding elections and used public pots
(donations anonymous) which were distributed evenly to each
eligible delegate...

Umm. OK, I think I get where you're headed on this.
I don't think there will be much dissent here!

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Forty quarters is the minimum to qualify for Social Security. Almost
everyone pays in longer than forty quarters. What you get paid when
you draw Social Security is not easy to calculate. IIRC it depends on
how much you earned in your highest forty YEARS ( not quarters ) with
a factor for when those years were, and the credit varies with the
amount. So a person that earned say $30,000 a year gets 75% of of
what a person that earned $60,000 a year. Not the
correct figures, but the general idea.


Civil Servents were not in the system for a long time and some are
still not in it,but all the newer civil servents have to contribute to
Social Security. About the only people that get out of it are in
Congress.

The military contribute to Social Security. Started while I was in
the Service in the late 50's.

Dan

"Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in message



One of the lessons that may be learned here is the fact that I made mention
of having paid in MORE than the required 40 quarters. I have no way of
knowing, nor is it my business to know, if or why this person has or has not
paid his "dues" as is required. Yes, it's a sad thing that he may be
denied SS, but it would also be a tragedy if they handed it out to those
that held jobs by which they may have been exempt, limiting or eliminating
their contributions. You know, like working for the government? Damn it,
I earned my SS, in spite of the fact that I was not a willing participant.
The key word here is having paid in long enough.

good old LaVar had more than
enough time to make a large brass name plate for the desk of one of the
Generals, who also wasn't required to pay into the SS system.


Harold

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:37:59 GMT, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On 17 Nov 2003 06:17:19 -0800, jim rozen
brought forth from the murky depths:

In article , Larry Jaques says...

sarcasm mode on

It's a good thing our defenders of the universe are doing
the right thing and tracking the right criminals. Who cares
if our women are raped, homes are burglarized, vehicles are
carjacked, and banks robbed? Our gov't is catching the -real-
bad guys who hire low-cost workers for Wally World!

Hmm. Good point, I hadn't considered this. Yep, better
if we just give the executives at the megacorporations
the right to simply not pay any taxes at all, to hire
whoever they please and make them work in whatever conditions
they see fit. Then we'll give them carte blanche to ****
all over the environment too, after all, what's good
for business is good for the good old U S of A.

Good thing the wallmart execs have you to look after them.
I'm sure they'll return the favor.

sacrasm mode off

Uh, Jim. I wasn't standing up for Wally World. I was ranting
about our government chasing the wrong bad guys. Crikey, they
need to find at least SOME sense of what our priorities are.

new rant

If we stopped the wars against drugs and oil countries, if we
stopped the congressional looting, if we stopped funding the
innumerable pork projects, our government would have all the
money it needed to meet SS payments.

If the IRS stopped spending $10k to go after the little guy
who owed them $32.12 and started after corporations who each
owed them millions, or plugged the loopholes...

If we stopped coddling the AMA to focus on preventive medicine...

If the gov't stopped funding elections and used public pots
(donations anonymous) which were distributed evenly to each
eligible delegate...

...we all would be better off. (Ditto the entire world.)

Feel free to add to this.

/new rant

For the most part, Bravo!!
Except the SS is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme in the first place
and should be torn down and replaced.

Gunner

"The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where a
certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the
"lions".
Christopher Morton

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Harold & Susan Vordos says...


clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote in message
.. .

Up here, you have a house with CI sewer pipe, you can NOT get
insurance (new coverage) without tearing out all the CI and putting in
plastic. The insurance companies are SO paranoid the pipe might leak,
and they might have to actually pay out.

That really sucks. I intend to go far out of my way to put in CI pipe in
the house I'm building currently to eliminate noise, which plastic pipe
transfers readily. Water running through the pipes sounds like rocks
running along. All pipes between the main and top floor will not be
plastic
for that reason. The no hub pipe CI is a snap (no pun intended) to
install, taking only slightly longer than plastic.

This varies widely according to location. In many
nearby areas, cast iron is still required by code, and
plastic is not allowed.

As if any of us should be surprised! Sort of reminds me of driving in
Utah, where from county to county U turns were closely regulated, and
generally in opposite directions. In one county it was illegal to make them
in an intersection, yet in the adjoining one it was the only place you could
legally do so. Not sure how it is now, but it was that way when I was a
kid. Don't ask.

I guess not everyone is going by the uniform plumbing code.

Harold

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Harold & Susan Vordos says...

I, for years, resented having to pay into SS. I've already made mention
of
the fact that I had to pay both halves, so I know and understand all too
well how you might have your feelings, which I also shared. I recall
all
too well having paid what I thought was a fair amount on my quarterly
estimates, only to be hit by a $5,000 tab when I filed my taxes one
particular year. For the most part, it was due to SS fees, which were
far
and away higher than my tax tab, and were rising rapidly. SS is a
stupid
idea that has gotten completely out of control, but I paid and paid
dearly,
so I expect to receive the benefits. The government was unwilling to
exempt
me when I hoped they would. I'm not too keen on the idea of letting
them
(us?) off the hook now. The money I may have put away for my living
expenses was taken from me by them (us?) without my permission. I had no
choice other than to face possible imprisonment for not paying. .

But that's like any other tax. They taxed you to pay for
somebody elses retirement - and now they're taxing me, to
pay for yours.

Thanks for the swell check, Jim!

Nothing prevented you from putting away more money for retirement,

Nothing except for a limited income, limited by my determination to work for
a fair wage, not to skin the sheep, choosing to cut the wool instead. I'm
not the typical "grab all you can" kind of guy, and I proved it through my
working years. I put my money where my mouth was. I bid fairly and was
even encouraged to raise my bids on several occasions when I came in a small
fraction of competing bids. My favorite customer (which will remain
nameless here) told me time and again that they didn't want to put me out of
business by buying low when they relied on me for difficult work. In spite
of the fact that there were occasions I raised my price, I never bid a job
at a losing price with this particular customer, so any increase simply gave
me more spending money. That was a rare happening, though, not routine.
I couldn't have put the few dollars away for retirement and made a
difference. :-)


and nothing prevents the government from telling me, you ain't
getting nothing back. But remember, nothing prevents them
from saying the same to you - sorry, but there's no more money
to give you, and seeing as we're gonna 'starve the beast' and
cut Jim's taxes, your benefit is going to be drastically reduced.

All this stuff that looks like cast in stone entitlement, really
isn't. I learned that when my pension was taken away by my
employer.

That, too, sucks. Sorry to hear it. Will you be OK in the future?

The way I see it, as long as there's a Democratic party, we don't have to
worry about any of these things being taken away from us. They'll see to
it. No, I do not vote the Democratic party, and not the Republican one,
either. My leanings are towards the Libertarians.

Don't think I'm not sympathetic, Jim. It's just that I'm now drawing the
things that I was forced to buy, and I expect to get them. I wanted to
opt out. I really did! And for likely all the reasons you've mentioned,
and maybe even more. I'm a fiercely independent type of person, who rarely,
if ever, calls for help. I'll struggle all day long with a board that's
too long to handle before I'll disturb a neighbor with whom I may not have a
great relationship, unlike some of the users I've known in my life.

Harold

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
big snip-----
For the most part, Bravo!!
Except the SS is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme in the first place
and should be torn down and replaced.

Gunner


Realistically, your message could have easily read "should be torn down",
full stop. The idea of SS sucks , but I promise you, when you get to the
retirement age, you'll want to draw your share. I have a friend that could
pay cash for all of us put together. He makes a ton of money, yet couldn't
wait to get in line the moment he turned 62. Realistically, why shouldn't
he? Not speaking from a moral position here, but from a fairness one.
When he was younger, like me and others, he paid what was required and had
no voice in how he may have felt about contributing to the plan. We were
all victims. All of us could have put to good use the money that has been
taken from us by the system. Now that they've taken our money, we want it
back as promised. I doubt you'll feel any differently, especially with
the huge percentage of your wages that are being withheld these days.

Harold

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:33:22 -0800, "Harold & Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
big snip-----
For the most part, Bravo!!
Except the SS is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme in the first place
and should be torn down and replaced.

Gunner


Realistically, your message could have easily read "should be torn down",
full stop. The idea of SS sucks , but I promise you, when you get to the
retirement age, you'll want to draw your share. I have a friend that could
pay cash for all of us put together. He makes a ton of money, yet couldn't
wait to get in line the moment he turned 62. Realistically, why shouldn't
he? Not speaking from a moral position here, but from a fairness one.
When he was younger, like me and others, he paid what was required and had
no voice in how he may have felt about contributing to the plan. We were
all victims. All of us could have put to good use the money that has been
taken from us by the system. Now that they've taken our money, we want it
back as promised. I doubt you'll feel any differently, especially with
the huge percentage of your wages that are being withheld these days.

Harold

Chuckle...it should be torn down, then replaced with individual
retirement/medical accounts. Hows that?

If the last few years have been any indication, by the time Im of
retirement age in 12-15 yrs..I doubt there will be any money in the
kiddy anyways. Im stocking up on the more tastey varieities of dog and
cat food, just in case. Ive already picked out my refridgerator box.

Gunner
"The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where a
certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the
"lions".
Christopher Morton

In article , Harold & Susan Vordos says...

taken from us by the system. Now that they've taken our money, we want it
back as promised.

Harold you still don't 'get' it.

There was no promise.

There's only a tax - an income redistribution.

This tax takes money from workes and gives it
to old or disabled folks. It's not a bad idea.

But I've been given no promise, neither were
you. Only a bill that says, "pay this much,
or else you go to jail."

This is how taxes work. They want their
money, they want it all, and they want it
now. Or else.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:31:58 -0800, "Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote:
Back to the immigrants and the work they do, I'm certainly not in favor of
people taking our jobs away, but I don't see that happening, not at the
hands of the immigrants, anyway. We're in a tough position, of that
there's no doubt, but almost to a man, all of us benefit by the folks from
south of the border, for if it weren't for them, the crops would most likely
still be sitting in the fields, and the cows left unmilked. Many of us may
resent these people coming here, but we should appreciate the fact that they
are doing work that would otherwise not get done.

It is true that a lot of the mechanization and automation which have
taken place in agriculture, along with the consolidation of small farms
into larger ones, are directly the result of the inability to get enough
farm labor to be able to operate in the old ways. Instead, we've had
to turn to large machinery in large fields to allow those we can get
to work to do the job.

This all started after WWII, when the mass migration from the farm
to the city became a tidal wave. But it didn't really start to get critical
until the late 1960s when it became easier to draw welfare than to
do farm labor. At that point, farm labor essentially dried up. That
was the point where farms under about 1,000 acres started to be
uneconomical, because the required mechanization to farm them
with available labor cost so much that one couldn't amortize the
equipment on a smaller farm.

But some forms of agriculture remain labor intensive because they
are not easily mechanized or automated. If sufficient workers can't
be found here to do that sort of work, those agricultural products
would have to be imported from farms in countries where people
are willing to do that sort of work.

So we face a choice, import the crops, or import the labor. Neither is
a good choice, but as long as we can't get enough Americans to do
the jobs (and currently we can't), they're the only choices we have.

Gary

If the IRS stopped spending $10k to go after the little guy
who owed them $32.12 and started after corporations who each
owed them millions, or plugged the loopholes...

There are no such things as "Loopholes." To say loophole is to imply
an error on someone's part it putting it there.

Think 'carrot and stick.' This is one way the government has to get
you to do something it wants you to do, but can't come right out and
make it a law. They are giving you 'free will' with a built in fine
for going against their wishes.

Just another example of "all the justice you can afford."

Ron Thompson
On the Beautiful Mississippi Gulf Coast
USA

http://www.plansandprojects.com

'Don't trust anything that has no moving parts. Especially if it's a relative' Red Green

You can always opt out. SS is not mandantory. There is an IRS form to
withdraw.


Ron Thompson
On the Beautiful Mississippi Gulf Coast
USA

http://www.plansandprojects.com

'Don't trust anything that has no moving parts. Especially if it's a
relative' Red Green

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:33:22 -0800, "Harold & Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
big snip-----
For the most part, Bravo!!
Except the SS is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme in the first place
and should be torn down and replaced.

Gunner


Realistically, your message could have easily read "should be torn down",
full stop. The idea of SS sucks , but I promise you, when you get to the
retirement age, you'll want to draw your share. I have a friend that could
pay cash for all of us put together. He makes a ton of money, yet couldn't
wait to get in line the moment he turned 62. Realistically, why shouldn't
he? Not speaking from a moral position here, but from a fairness one.
When he was younger, like me and others, he paid what was required and had
no voice in how he may have felt about contributing to the plan. We were
all victims. All of us could have put to good use the money that has been
taken from us by the system. Now that they've taken our money, we want it
back as promised. I doubt you'll feel any differently, especially with
the huge percentage of your wages that are being withheld these days.

Harold

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Harold & Susan Vordos says...

taken from us by the system. Now that they've taken our money, we want
it
back as promised.

Harold you still don't 'get' it.

There was no promise.

There's only a tax - an income redistribution.

This tax takes money from workes and gives it
to old or disabled folks. It's not a bad idea.

But I've been given no promise, neither were
you. Only a bill that says, "pay this much,
or else you go to jail."

This is how taxes work. They want their
money, they want it all, and they want it
now. Or else.

Jim

Oh, but I *DO* "get it".

They held my feet to the fire, with which I'm sure you'd agree.

I have no quarrel with almost everything you stated!

However, now it's my turn to hold feet to the fire, because the basis by
which they stole my money was that when I retired they would put me on the
payroll. I'm retired. I demand I be on the payroll. It's my turn to
hold feet to the fire. I paid the taxes, which gives me the right to do
so.

Yes, I understand that it was a tax, and is a tax. So is a building permit.
The dirty underhanded *******s force us to pay for a permit (tax) to build a
house so they will have a record of the house with which they will further
tax us. How stupid is that? Pay to make sure you pay again and again.
Don't you just love politicians?

Harold

"Ron Thompson" wrote in message
...
You can always opt out. SS is not mandantory. There is an IRS form to
withdraw.


Ron Thompson

You may be right, but right now you're sounding a lot like an ex friend of
mine that was damned sure that he wasn't required to pay income tax. He
had the balls to tell IRS so, right in their face. Funny how he saw things
differently as he desperately tried to raise the $26,000 they wanted so he
wouldn't lose his 10 acres of land which they were foreclosing. Be the
ruling to pay taxes right or wrong, he ended up paying. That's the harsh
reality.

If you claim there's a form one can file, please provide the name and number
of the form. I don't believe it. I was instructed by a trusted CPA that
is well versed on tax law that I was mandated to pay into SS, so I did so.
I did not choose to do so.

Harold

Larry Jaques wrote:

Uh, Jim. I wasn't standing up for Wally World. I was ranting
about our government chasing the wrong bad guys. Crikey, they
need to find at least SOME sense of what our priorities are.

So we should just forget about enforcing any laws other than the
handful that address the most urgent issues? Are you contending that
people (and companies) should be allowed to break laws with impunity
as long as they aren't breaking high-priority laws?

new rant

If we stopped the wars against drugs and oil countries, if we
stopped the congressional looting, if we stopped funding the
innumerable pork projects, our government would have all the
money it needed to meet SS payments.

Yep.

If the IRS stopped spending $10k to go after the little guy
who owed them $32.12 and started after corporations who each
owed them millions, or plugged the loopholes...

Do you actually know of any cases where the IRS spent $10K to go after
someone who owed them $32.12? It is my understanding (and I could be
wrong) that you have to owe more than some threshold amount (the
actual amount being a closely guarded secret) before the IRS will even
think about coming after you. And even then, I doubt they would spend
$10K unless it was a complex case with big bucks involved. Not that
I'm trying to defend the IRS. Certainly they have had (and probably
still have) some serious problems with the way they do their job. I'm
just not sure that what you described actually happens.

Incidentally, it's up to Congress, not the IRS, to plug the loopholes.

If we stopped coddling the AMA to focus on preventive medicine...

Not exactly sure what you're talking about here...

If the gov't stopped funding elections and used public pots
(donations anonymous) which were distributed evenly to each
eligible delegate...

By "funding elections" are you referring to paying for the logistics
of elections (printing the ballots, setting up polling places, etc.),
or are you talking about the Presidential Election Campaign Fund? If
it's the latter, why do you think "distributing evenly" would be
better than distributing based on the existing matching funds concept?

Bert

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Harold & Susan Vordos says...

taken from us by the system. Now that they've taken our money, we want it
back as promised.

Harold you still don't 'get' it.

There was no promise.

There's only a tax - an income redistribution.

This tax takes money from workes and gives it
to old or disabled folks. It's not a bad idea.

But I've been given no promise, neither were
you. Only a bill that says, "pay this much,
or else you go to jail."

You're right in the sense that there was never a promise to give back
the money that was paid in as SS tax. On the other hand, there has
always been a promise (certainly implied, but also I believe
explicitly voiced by various Congressmen and Presidents over the
years) that SS would still be around to provide at least *some*
retirement benefits for everyone who contributed.

Bert

Ron Thompson wrote:

If the IRS stopped spending $10k to go after the little guy
who owed them $32.12 and started after corporations who each
owed them millions, or plugged the loopholes...

There are no such things as "Loopholes." To say loophole is to imply
an error on someone's part it putting it there.

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that a loophole can't be
intentional, but even if that's the case, I think you're giving too
much credit to our elected officials to say that our laws are purely
intentional and free of errors. Very few Congressmen have the wisdom
or the intelligence to foresee all the ways in which tax laws (or any
other laws) will be used and bent, nor can they envision the extent to
which those laws will be used and bent. Thus, they don't always do a
good job of crafting the laws and unforeseen consequences can arise
(i.e., loopholes).

Bert

In article , Bert says...

You're right in the sense that there was never a promise to give back
the money that was paid in as SS tax. On the other hand, there has
always been a promise (certainly implied, but also I believe
explicitly voiced by various Congressmen and Presidents over the
years) that SS would still be around to provide at least *some*
retirement benefits for everyone who contributed.

Well, that's a nice story.

There are certain things that politicians cannot
do. One is come right out, and say "we're going
to keep on funding the present crop of retirees
after X date, but after that the wage earners
will still have to pay SS tax until the last
recipient (and all the SS paper pushers) die,
but won't receive any benefit at all.

The other thing they cannot do is say, we're
simply going to abolish the system completely,
no more payroll tax, no more benefits. Too bad
for the folks that contributed and are going
to get nothing.

But aside from that, they can pull all kinds of
shenanigans, and nothing, and I mean absolutely
NOTHING is ruled out. There have been no promises,
nothing that would stand up in court, the government
can and will cut the water off when they think
it's the right time.

A scheme like SS is great, but it's a bit like
drinking from a spitoon. Real tough to stop
once you start.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Harold & Susan Vordos says...

However, now it's my turn to hold feet to the fire, because the basis by
which they stole my money was that when I retired they would put me on the
payroll. I'm retired. I demand I be on the payroll. It's my turn to
hold feet to the fire. I paid the taxes, which gives me the right to do
so.

They didn't 'steal' your money. It was a tax. The same
way that the govenment taxes me for everything under the
sun.

I suppose as a self-employed the sting was so great
that it felt like stealing. This is one reason, btw,
that my wife simply quit practicing law.

Unfortunately the only folks with the ability to toast
the toes would be, the govenment. So if they decide your
benefit (not pay, it sounds so much more tenuous if
they call it a benefit - like they're being benificent
or something...) is causing too much of a drain on the
'trust fund' which does not exist, they'll reduce it.

Skunks that they are.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...

A scheme like SS is great, but it's a bit like
drinking from a spitoon. Real tough to stop
once you start.

Jim

Yep! Those that praised the beginning of our government trying to
intervene in private lives with these damned concepts should have had their
heads examined. I'll never understand why it's the government's job to see
to it that fools have something to eat. Sure would cut down on the fools
if they were left to fend for themselves. Darwin said so in his own way.
Wasn't it something like natural selection, or survival of the fittest?

Harold

Have you ever looked at the form? I do not qualify or I would have done it.

Dan


Ron Thompson wrote in message . ..
You can always opt out. SS is not mandantory. There is an IRS form to
withdraw.


Ron Thompson
On the Beautiful Mississippi Gulf Coast
USA

"Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in message ...


Realistically, your message could have easily read "should be torn down",
full stop. The idea of SS sucks

Yet, if you had to pay full taxes on the schemes that many
conservatives used to be able to cry about the cost, you'd cry about
that too. IF you want to tear down something, and you seem to have
that foremost on your mind,

Tear down any system for government loan guarantees to corporate or
other business interests. Apply the full commercial tax rate to the
land they own, apply full income tax on their net incomes, before the
stockholder gets one ****ing cent. Tear down the structures for
mineral rights, water rights, timber rights, most of which were
"Purchased" more than a century ago, for the grand sum of One ****ing
Dollar, and are in force on privately owned lands even today. Those
are the programs that do nothing to help the average person today, yet
highly valued and protected to the death by their scab sucking slaves,
the republican party. Token payments for raping and ruining a public
park are only symbols that America is for sale if you've got the
bucks. The one thing that can be said for SS that cannot be said for
any of the business giveaways, it works, and will unless the
repubicanreptiles get their stinking fingers in it to **** it up
totally. They're trying.

"Dan Caster" wrote in message
m...
Have you ever looked at the form? I do not qualify or I would have done
it.

Dan



So you answer my request for enough information to review the form with
another question? Did I not clearly ask you for the name and number of
the form so I could see it for myself?

If there is such a form, I'd be interested in hearing when it was approved.
My choices were made for me in 1967, so if there is such a form, I'd like to
know if it was available back then. As I stated, I'd have opted out of SS.

Once again, would you please provide the name and number of the form you
speak of? If you're so sure about it, surely you must know enough to
provide all of us with the information.

Harold

"Lennie the Lurker" wrote in message
om...
"Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...


Realistically, your message could have easily read "should be torn
down",
full stop. The idea of SS sucks

Yet, if you had to pay full taxes on the schemes that many
conservatives used to be able to cry about the cost, you'd cry about
that too. IF you want to tear down something, and you seem to have
that foremost on your mind,

Tear down any system for government loan guarantees to corporate or
other business interests. Apply the full commercial tax rate to the
land they own, apply full income tax on their net incomes, before the
stockholder gets one ****ing cent. Tear down the structures for
mineral rights, water rights, timber rights, most of which were
"Purchased" more than a century ago, for the grand sum of One ****ing
Dollar, and are in force on privately owned lands even today. Those
are the programs that do nothing to help the average person today, yet
highly valued and protected to the death by their scab sucking slaves,
the republican party. Token payments for raping and ruining a public
park are only symbols that America is for sale if you've got the
bucks. The one thing that can be said for SS that cannot be said for
any of the business giveaways, it works, and will unless the
repubicanreptiles get their stinking fingers in it to **** it up
totally. They're trying.

I think you should read my message such that it is against government
intervention in citizens private lives. What the hell, are we communists
here, relying on the government to provide us everything, including our
thoughts? I am not in favor of SS, nor anything remotely related to it, but
that's not the hand I was dealt.

In spite of the fact that I had hoped to opt out of SS when I became self
employed, I was not so permitted, and now that I am of retirement age, like
you, I think it works, and works fine. It may run like a pig on stilts, but
it runs. Money was involuntarily taken from me under the threat of legal
entanglements, so I paid. I have absolutely no conscience about receiving
my monthly check now, and if I have any hard feelings, it's towards those
that tapped what used to be a SS fund, money that was supposedly set aside
for SS. Those *******s in government couldn't stand to see that money
sitting when they could get it involved in a few sweetheart deals, as I
understand it. I'm a terrible student of history and government in
general, so perhaps I don't have it right.

The one place I disagree with you, and TOTALLY, is taxing business entities.
Business does not pay tax, only consumers do. Regardless of the degree of
taxation, industry will pass along to the consumer every dime through
pricing of their goods or services, so who is really paying the tax?

How's Lennie? Any new (old) machines?

Harold

On 17 Nov 2003 18:36:37 -0800, jim rozen
brought forth from the murky depths:

In article , Larry Jaques says...

Uh, Jim. I wasn't standing up for Wally World. I was ranting
about our government chasing the wrong bad guys. Crikey, they
need to find at least SOME sense of what our priorities are.

Ah. I thought you were saying that the government
should allow them free rein to hire illegals, and
not prosecute. I think they should have their feet
held to the fire, if it's shown that they knew
what was going on.

Yes, but to waste tens (hundreds?) of thousands of man hours
and dollars to prove that illegals were hired does noone any
good. The JD wasted all that manpower instead of doing something
meaningful. Some of us in CA (way back when) voted for the laws
which said we shouldn't have to overburden our schools with
children of people who shouldn't be here in the first place. (The
kids should have been in their own country's schools.) It passed
but was immediately thrown out by court appeal. Ditto the hospital
emergency room where kids with colds and flu were brought on a daily
basis. The State (OK, we taxpayers got reamed for it) paid for all
that when the Feds should have been deporting any illegals
immediately. Why do we have all these UNENFORCED laws?
/rhetorical Q The feds ought to put up or shut up.

(And don't get me started about the taxpayers paying for voter's
information pamphlets and ballots in TWENTY EIGHT DIFFERENT
LANGUAGES. Only in California?) I'm happy to be a new Webfoot.


Ah but then we'd have another bunch of out of work
whiners, and we'd have to pay *them* welfare.

Couldn't they just start working for a -working- INS?


If the gov't stopped funding elections and used public pots
(donations anonymous) which were distributed evenly to each
eligible delegate...

Umm. OK, I think I get where you're headed on this.
I don't think there will be much dissent here!

I don't want to sound like a Socialist, but some of their
ideas might work well to remove the corruption from the
election system. Also, wouldn't it be nice to limit all
campaigning to TWO WEEKS prior to each vote? I think Europe
has something to that effect. They're out there buying votes
for a minimum of two years now, as things stand in the system
today. tearful sigh


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Life is full of little surprises. * Comprehensive Website Development
--Pandora * http://www.diversify.com

On 18 Nov 2003 07:32:34 -0800, jim rozen
brought forth from the murky depths:

This is how taxes work. They want their
money, they want it all, and they want it
now. Or else.

Does anyone else smell that tea brewing? Are we
in Boston yet? Let's party!


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Life is full of little surprises. * Comprehensive Website Development
--Pandora * http://www.diversify.com

"Dan Caster" wrote in message
m...
Have you ever looked at the form? I do not qualify or I would have done
it.

Dan


Ron Thompson wrote in message
. ..
You can always opt out. SS is not mandantory. There is an IRS form to
withdraw.


Ron Thompson
On the Beautiful Mississippi Gulf Coast
USA

OOps! Sorry, Dan. I replied to your post as if it was you who had
originally posted the one about the opting out of SS form (It was Ron
Thompson!). You, obviously, did not say anything to me in that regard.
Had my head in a dark place, apparently. Apology extended!

Harold

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:19:21 GMT, Bert brought
forth from the murky depths:

Larry Jaques wrote:

Uh, Jim. I wasn't standing up for Wally World. I was ranting
about our government chasing the wrong bad guys. Crikey, they
need to find at least SOME sense of what our priorities are.

So we should just forget about enforcing any laws other than the
handful that address the most urgent issues? Are you contending that
people (and companies) should be allowed to break laws with impunity
as long as they aren't breaking high-priority laws?

Wouldn't it have been possible for a single pair of detectives
to find out what Wally World did and bring them to court? I feel
that the case was given far too much time and manpower to bring
in. YMMV.


Do you actually know of any cases where the IRS spent $10K to go after
someone who owed them $32.12? It is my understanding (and I could be

No, but I've seen editorials showing lists given to them
by the IRS which show the millions of dollars owed by large
companies which they never went after. They showed the small
amounts the service collected and the vast majority was from
people making under $100k. I'll see if it was googled and
linked in one of the forums I browse and list it for you if
I can.


Incidentally, it's up to Congress, not the IRS, to plug the loopholes.

ACK.


If we stopped coddling the AMA to focus on preventive medicine...

Not exactly sure what you're talking about here...

Stop letting doctors get away with giving people -seventeen-
different prescriptions and make them actually cure the
patient if possible. Point in case: My father was up to 17
different drugs 2 years before he died. My sister and I looked
into it and asked the doctor to remove the obvious ones.

He had high blood pressure so they gave him a blood pressure
drug, Lopressor (IIRC). It caused nausea so they gave him an
anti-nausea drug which caused itchiness so they give him an
anti-itch drug. "BTW, Doc, he still has high blood pressure.
WTF are you trying to do to my father, or do you care?"

Anyway, we got him down to 10 or so plus some herbs and he
had a much better time for those two last years with CHF,
Congestive Heart Failure.

If doctors did their job, people wouldn't suffer like they
do. Do you know that new doctors don't have to sign the
Hippocratic Oath any longer? Don't quote me on this but I
think the new motto required to graduate from med school is
"GIVE ME ALL YOUR MONEY!"


If the gov't stopped funding elections and used public pots
(donations anonymous) which were distributed evenly to each
eligible delegate...

By "funding elections" are you referring to paying for the logistics
of elections (printing the ballots, setting up polling places, etc.),
or are you talking about the Presidential Election Campaign Fund?

Sorry. Call it campaign funding. Better term. But not just
presidential. ALL campaigns, from city council on up.


it's the latter, why do you think "distributing evenly" would be
better than distributing based on the existing matching funds concept?

1) Because it wouldn't be publically funded. (we'd save money)
2) Because if the money went into a non-disclosure kitty,
it wouldn't be subject to the abuses which now exist.

One can buy a politician nowadays, y'know. Just donate a million
bucks to his campaign fund. If Candidates A, B, C, and D received
$400, $25k, $125k, and $14M for their campaign and donors were
listed, who do you think would be a bought (wo)man? Now put it
all into a kitty containing $14,150,400. Each candidate now gets
$3,537,600 to run their campaign but nobody knows who donated
what and no single man was bought. (Of course, the large donor
probably wouldn't be putting that much into the fund, would he?)
Wouldn't you feel better listening to all the candidates equally
vs. just the one who had the money to run 400 commercials and buy
double spreads in the newspaper? I'd like to slow, if not stop,
the corruption in our government.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Life is full of little surprises. * Comprehensive Website Development
--Pandora * http://www.diversify.com

And lo, it came about, that on Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:43:09 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking , Gunner was inspired to utter:

Chuckle...it should be torn down, then replaced with individual
retirement/medical accounts. Hows that?

Should follow the Chilean model.

All those who are retired will continue to get their pension from the
government. Those close to retiring, too. If memory serves, there was a
sliding scale depending on how close to retirement you were.

Everybody else got a choice of pension planning. You were required to open
a pension account and fund it with a percentage of your income (there was a
maximum limit as well.) The were (I think) 14 funds vetted by the Government,
and you had your choice. You could pile up money now, retire when you were
fifty five, and take up fishing. Or you could pile it up, then keep working
till you got "old". Or variations on those theme.
But it was _your_ money in the pension plan, and your heirs got what was
left.

Oh yes, when the change-over was made, there was an option to get the
government pension anyway. This was chosen by an extremely small number of
people, mostly Socialists.

If the last few years have been any indication, by the time Im of
retirement age in 12-15 yrs..I doubt there will be any money in the
kiddy anyways. Im stocking up on the more tastey varieities of dog and
cat food, just in case. Ive already picked out my refridgerator box.

--
pyotr filipivich
The cliche is that history rarely repeats herself. Usually she just
lets fly with a frying pan and yells "Why weren't you listening
the first time!?"

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:03:20 GMT, Larry Jaques
wrote:


One can buy a politician nowadays, y'know. Just donate a million
bucks to his campaign fund. If Candidates A, B, C, and D received
$400, $25k, $125k, and $14M for their campaign and donors were
listed, who do you think would be a bought (wo)man? Now put it
all into a kitty containing $14,150,400. Each candidate now gets
$3,537,600 to run their campaign but nobody knows who donated
what and no single man was bought. (Of course, the large donor
probably wouldn't be putting that much into the fund, would he?)
Wouldn't you feel better listening to all the candidates equally
vs. just the one who had the money to run 400 commercials and buy
double spreads in the newspaper? I'd like to slow, if not stop,
the corruption in our government.

Our state government had a proposal that politicians election
expenses be paid from public funds. There was a stink when it came
out that the opposition party had secretly agreed to it and it was
quietly dropped.

I actually think it is a good idea.

Each candidate be allowed one A4 leaflet per elector at public
expense, to be bundled in one envelope with all the other candidates
leaflets and posted in one mailing.

Thats it

- no radio/TV/magazine advertising/lies, including political party
advertising.

If all candidates agree, they may have a radio/tv debate with each
allowed equal time - wouldn't that make the top rating!

The candidates may hold as many rallies/meetings etc as they want
to explain their policies in their electorate. Councils/cities
should be required to permit rallies in public parks/halls at no
charge to all candidates but any expenses such as private hall hire to
come from their own pockets and be a non deductible expense. Any cash
donations by others would automatically disqualify the candidate from
office. Supporters would not be prevented from canvassing on the
candidates behalf, which is as it should be.
One can always tell them to bugger off - but do it politely -
PLEASE bugger off VBG
Alan
in beautiful Golden Bay, Western Oz, South 32.25.42, East 115.45.44 GMT+8
VK6 YAB ICQ 6581610 to reply, change oz to au in address

Not a problem.

There is indeed a form. But IIRC you have to swear that you are a
member of the clergy of a sect that takes care of retired clergy. Or
that you object on religous grounds. It has been a very long time
since I looked at it.

Dan


"Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in message

OOps! Sorry, Dan. I replied to your post as if it was you who had
originally posted the one about the opting out of SS form (It was Ron
Thompson!). You, obviously, did not say anything to me in that regard.
Had my head in a dark place, apparently. Apology extended!

Harold

In article , Larry Jaques says...

Ah. I thought you were saying that the government
should allow them free rein to hire illegals, and
not prosecute. I think they should have their feet
held to the fire, if it's shown that they knew
what was going on.

Yes, but to waste tens (hundreds?) of thousands of man hours
and dollars to prove that illegals were hired does noone any
good. The JD wasted all that manpower instead of doing something
meaningful.

Hey, if the company is found guilty then fine them to
recover the costs, and then put some extra on top
to discourage this from happening again, and again, and
again....

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in message ...

The one place I disagree with you, and TOTALLY, is taxing business entities.
Business does not pay tax, only consumers do. Regardless of the degree of
taxation, industry will pass along to the consumer every dime through
pricing of their goods or services, so who is really paying the tax?

I have no problems with tax reductions or elimination for charitable
organizations, churches pay no property tax, and serve individuals
well. I do object to St Gobain glass and Aire Liquide paying a lower
tax rate on their property than I pay on my residence. Especially
since the parent companies are both in france, our totally unreliable
allies. IF the street in front of my house is repaired, (replaced)
Guess who gets the bill? If the street in front of either of the
above mentioned entities is replaced, and they do not replace their
own private roads, I also get to pay my share of their replacement,
they pay nothing. I can see no reason for private individuals to be
forced out of homes they can no longer afford, and industry gets a
free ride. While it is true that they provide some employment,
without the people they employ, they could not exist.

How's Lennie? Any new (old) machines?

Production mill, U.S. Milling machine co, looks to be mid to late
40's. Soon as it's repaired, I'm going to dump it. Cutting keyways
by the thousands is something I don't need to do. (Excess backlash in
the knee screw, think a thrust bushing is gone, haven't really looked
yet.) Next spring before I do any more on it, too damn cold to work
in the garage. Got a number 1 B&O, scraping the old paint and filler
off, then will try to make it look good again. Got full set of
tooling with it, including a damn nice box mill. Mechanically it's in
good shape, has a bunch of tapped holes that need to be plugged, none
of any real consequence, just looks like hell. Couple of old
bandsaws, one with a 7 inch throat, the other with 24 inch throat.
Little one's cute as hell. Paid $2 for the little one, $4 for the
bigger. Cheap entertainment.

New computer coming today, 2.66ghz P4, one gig memory, 120 gig hard
drive. Linux box, screw anything micro$oft. Tired of windoze
crashing on frame 230 of a 500 frame animation. SuSe linux 9.0 Pro
edition. Got win XP on the 2 ghz pentium now, haven't found anything
it will run without crashing reliably. Just say no to anything
micro$oft touched, it's polluted.

On 19 Nov 2003 11:27:00 -0800, jim rozen
brought forth from the murky depths:

Hey, if the company is found guilty then fine them to
recover the costs, and then put some extra on top
to discourage this from happening again, and again, and
again....

Hmmm, how would you like to foot the bill for abusive
legal excesses which were caused by the gov't not doing
their job in the first place? If illegals weren't already
in the country you wouldn't have been able to use a company
who hired them. Or let's say you want to divorce your wife.
Since you started it, she hires a 43 man team to track your
every move. That runs every credit card you have to its limit
and they sue you for the rest. Is that fair and just, too?

Don't pile on extra crime/stupidity just because someone
might be found guilty of another.

And who pays for it if they're found innocent? (We do!)
Please don't lend credibility to already poor decisions.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Life is full of little surprises. * Comprehensive Website Development
--Pandora * http://www.diversify.com

"Dan Caster" wrote in message
m...
Not a problem.

There is indeed a form. But IIRC you have to swear that you are a
member of the clergy of a sect that takes care of retired clergy. Or
that you object on religous grounds. It has been a very long time
since I looked at it.

Dan


Ha! Sort of eliminates the old agnostic, then! Also exonerates the CPA, who
told me I had no outs. He was right.

Harold