"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

I agree to the extent that the debt has to be paid. But it is almost
useless to pay on the debt without reining in spending.

Or enhancing revenues. Why should big corporations be able to post
enormous profits and pay no income taxes? Etc, etc. For one thing,
hiding moneys overseas should be abolished. I had to pay tax on
overseas moneys, so why shouldn't "they"?


Tax "breaks," "loopholes," and the like are generally exceptions built
into the tax code to foster some social goal. Things like "enterprise
zones," subsidies, deductions for green energy are some examples. If,
as a result of these considerations, a company ends up paying NO
taxes, then shouldn't the company be applauded and held up for praise
because it aggressively pursuing these social goals?

Consider: The companies didn't MAKE the rules, they shouldn't be
criticized for playing by them. Conversely, as I said, these companies
should be acclaimed. Applauded. Feted with government appointments (as
the president of GE).

The fact that you had to pay tax on overseas funds is totally due to
your own ignorance.

(Hint: There is no reporting requirement on overseas INSURANCE
policies. There are companies that will take your cash and issue you
an annuity policy in which you can direct the investments and reverse
at any time. Totally non-reportable. Or taxable.)

Now you give me that hint. Too late, it's almost all come here, paying
taxes on the capital gains due to changing exchange rates, and given to
the kids ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Han
wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
s.com:

On 8/3/2011 9:21 AM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in
:

On 8/2/2011 11:13 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Cut taxes so that additional debt is created.

Except since at least JFK, cutting taxes has ALWAYS resulted in
increased revenues.

Fudged statistics, I'm sure. At least it defies logic that by
cutting income you'll get more money in.

No it doesn't. If ABC Company and DEF company both make widgets at
a cost of $6 each and sell them at $10 each, they'll have the same
income.
But if ABC Company cuts its selling price to $9 each, it cuts its
income by a dollar for each widget it sells, so it will make less
money, right? Wrong. It stimulates the market - more people can
buy widgets when they cost less, so more total widgets can be sold.
Plus, some people that would have bought from DEF now buy from ABC
to save a buck. As a result, by reducing its price and thus its
incremental profit margin, ABC gets more money. It's more
complicated, but reducing incremental tax rates has the same overall
effect -- it stimulates growth in the private sector, which
ultimately results in increased revenue.

Widgets aren't like taxes. What you are saying goes for widgets
because of the elasticity of demand. You can increase demand by
lowering prices, thus with a smaller margin, increase net profit. If
you lower income taxes, people have more disposable income, but
spending that extra income (if they do it at all - now they may be
paying off debt) does NOT increase income tax revenue.

Well, you have *part* of this right, but you haven't taken it to its
logical conclusion. What happens to that extra income when they spend
it? It doesn't just evaporate. They're spending it on *something*.
Suppose they decide to buy a TV, and eat out one more time a week. One
family doing that doesn't make any difference to the economy -- but a
hundred thousand families doing that means a hundred thousand more TVs
sold, and about five million more restaurant meals a year. That
creates jobs for waiters, cooks, and anyone involved in the production
and retail of TV sets. It means more jobs for truck drivers hauling
TVs, food, and dishwashing soap. The waiters, cooks, retail clerks,
and truck drivers buy food, they buy cars, they buy houses... it
expands exponentially.

Surely you don't suppose that all those newly employed waiters, cooks,
clerks, and truck drivers pay no taxes, do you?

That's how cutting tax rates leads to an increase in tax revenues.

No it doesn't. That was the fallacious thinking behind the trickledown
stuff of Reagan. Yes, you increase consumption, and maybe even generate
a few jobs. But those people with new jobs don't pay but a small
percentage of their wages in taxes, so it can never, ever make up for the
lost revenue.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering wrote in
. com:

On 8/3/2011 7:12 PM, Han wrote:
Just wrote in
. com:

On 8/3/2011 9:21 AM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in
:

On 8/2/2011 11:13 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Cut taxes so that additional debt is created.

Except since at least JFK, cutting taxes has ALWAYS resulted in
increased revenues.

Fudged statistics, I'm sure. At least it defies logic that by
cutting income you'll get more money in.

No it doesn't. If ABC Company and DEF company both make widgets at
a cost of $6 each and sell them at $10 each, they'll have the same
income.
But if ABC Company cuts its selling price to $9 each, it cuts its
income by a dollar for each widget it sells, so it will make less
money, right? Wrong. It stimulates the market - more people can
buy widgets when they cost less, so more total widgets can be sold.
Plus, some people that would have bought from DEF now buy from ABC
to save a buck. As a result, by reducing its price and thus its
incremental profit margin, ABC gets more money. It's more
complicated, but reducing incremental tax rates has the same overall
effect -- it stimulates growth in the private sector, which
ultimately results in increased revenue.

Widgets aren't like taxes. What you are saying goes for widgets
because of the elasticity of demand. You can increase demand by
lowering prices, thus with a smaller margin, increase net profit. If
you lower income taxes, people have more disposable income, but
spending that extra income (if they do it at all - now they may be
paying off debt) does NOT increase income tax revenue.

Sure it does. When ABC Company sells more widgets, it has more
income.
That income is taxable, so ABC winds up paying more income taxes.

It would work, if the tax rate on that income exceeded 100%. See, that's
were you are so wrong.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/3/2011 11:40 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:03:07 -0500, wrote:

Two shop fans, blowing 105 degree, 90% humidity laden air, and the
temptation to come in from the shop the past couple of days is overwhelming.

AKA why I'm wasting time in the office at this time of day ...

Um, for the price of one of those Festering thingies, you could have
had wall/ceiling insulation and a window air conditioning unit. For a
couple/three of 'em, a full-blown HVAC system.

My, what interesting choices we make in our lives.

They are choices made with eyes wide open, C-Less. I'm quite capable of
installing air conditioning in any building myself, except ...

I do NOT like air conditioning in a wood shop. It causes more problems
than it solves.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 8/4/2011 7:02 AM, Han wrote:

The dollars I paid/pay in FICA every time I get or got a paycheck are
going weither towards SS payouts or that trustfund. No way those dollars
magically turn into debt. They're assets to be used for ss payouts.

Still, it's a government run Ponzi scheme, no different than what Bernie
MadeOff did.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 8/3/2011 8:20 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On 8/3/2011 7:38 PM, Han wrote:
z wrote in
:

The point that hasn't been raised is that the
low-wage earners will get a higher percentage out of SS, as well.
The whole plane is shifted away from the makers to the takers.

I thought that payments were based upon your earnings, and the number
of quarters you were employed. At higher (retired) income levels, SS
is starting to be taxed, I believe.

I believe it was that the lower wage earners will statistically take
out proportionately more than they paid in, versus the higher wage
earners.

I certainly pay taxes on SS, because I'm still earning ... and still
paying in.

I'd have to redo my taxes and see the differences with and without SS.
Oh, wait. This is what the IRS says. Basically, if you have SS income
plus other income part of SS may become taxable.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179091,00.html

What I said, eh?

AAMOF, the government conveniently sends me a SSA1099 form so I can
declare it as income ... and pay taxes on it.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 8/3/2011 8:14 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 08:00:12 -0500, Leon wrote:

So penalize the wealthy for being wealthy. Not much of an incentive to
try to get ahead. Seems that penalizing the wealthy for being fruitful
would create a lower class that does not want to produce and rather wait
for hand outs.

Idon't remember many of the upper class turning to welfare when the
marginal tax rates were 90% or better.

The great hue and cry when top tax rates were 90% was the rich paid no
taxes. They were often right, because while tax rates were 90%, tax
deductions where under every rock (2 martini lunches). Reagan reduced
top rates drastically and also whacked a ton of the deductions.

The rich were happy as their tax rates and deductions went down, and
productivity and tax receipts went up. Unfortunately the left wing
communist democrats and RINO's increased spending in their ongoing
effort to destroy Amerika.

And someone said long ago that no fortune was ever acquired in a manner
that would stand up to the light of day.

Someone once said what the world needs is a better gas to kill the less
intelligent. That was G.W Shaw, the guy you love to quote and he was
wrong. Fortunately Hitler was defeated while implementing Shaw's warped
ideas. Unfortunately some seem to think the idea had merit.

IOW, you can't get rich by working hard and acting in an ethical manner. And yes, I'm sure there
are a few exceptions to that rule, but not many.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Most rich (250g's/yr+) work their ass off to
get that way. Yes, there are exceptions, mostly left wing democrats that
never had a real job or ran a business in their life. Obama, and his
entire administration comes to mind.

--
Jack
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery..."
-- Winston Churchill

http://jbstein.com

On 8/4/2011 7:10 AM, Han wrote:

you'd defeat teaching people selfesteem.

IMO, "self esteem" in youngsters is best applied with a paddle to the
britches as necessary.

But it is very difficult to
teach that a smart kid who doesn't need todo homework to get A's isn't
"worth" as much as a kid who has trouble learning things, but works hard
at it. Now, who has to get the most $$ in his job later on, that's a
different question. But to me, it is all about the sincerety and energy
with which you do your job. You all know that a good hands-on plumber is
worth at least as much as the person faking the budgets for the school
... (DONT TAKE IT PERSONAL -- ANOTHER BIG GRIN)

A few studies at Texas A&M years back showed that after graduation, on
average, the C students ran the companies that hired the A students.

With the advent of MBA programs, and only needing to know how to
acquire/buy out what you need to survive instead of the efficiency and
innovation that comes from really knowing your product, that has
probably changed.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 8/3/2011 8:17 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:43:16 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

Well, half the people with earned income pay no income taxes at all, and
a whole boat load of them get paid to not pay any taxes at all, that
much we know.

We do? Show some proof please.

My son got every penny he paid in income taxes back, plus an additional
$400 bonus because he didn't do enough to become "rich". He was not the
only one, there are a boat load of them, ie, the bottom 50% of wage
earners pay 2.7% of income taxes, the top 50% pay 97.3%.

--
Jack
Got Change: Supply and Demand ====== Command and Control!
http://jbstein.com

Swingman wrote in
:


They are choices made with eyes wide open, C-Less. I'm quite capable
of installing air conditioning in any building myself, except ...

I do NOT like air conditioning in a wood shop. It causes more problems
than it solves.


What kinds of problems?

Puckdropper

In article , Han wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Han
wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
ws.com:

On 8/3/2011 9:21 AM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in
:

On 8/2/2011 11:13 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Cut taxes so that additional debt is created.

Except since at least JFK, cutting taxes has ALWAYS resulted in
increased revenues.

Fudged statistics, I'm sure. At least it defies logic that by
cutting income you'll get more money in.

No it doesn't. If ABC Company and DEF company both make widgets at
a cost of $6 each and sell them at $10 each, they'll have the same
income.
But if ABC Company cuts its selling price to $9 each, it cuts its
income by a dollar for each widget it sells, so it will make less
money, right? Wrong. It stimulates the market - more people can
buy widgets when they cost less, so more total widgets can be sold.
Plus, some people that would have bought from DEF now buy from ABC
to save a buck. As a result, by reducing its price and thus its
incremental profit margin, ABC gets more money. It's more
complicated, but reducing incremental tax rates has the same overall
effect -- it stimulates growth in the private sector, which
ultimately results in increased revenue.

Widgets aren't like taxes. What you are saying goes for widgets
because of the elasticity of demand. You can increase demand by
lowering prices, thus with a smaller margin, increase net profit. If
you lower income taxes, people have more disposable income, but
spending that extra income (if they do it at all - now they may be
paying off debt) does NOT increase income tax revenue.

Well, you have *part* of this right, but you haven't taken it to its
logical conclusion. What happens to that extra income when they spend
it? It doesn't just evaporate. They're spending it on *something*.
Suppose they decide to buy a TV, and eat out one more time a week. One
family doing that doesn't make any difference to the economy -- but a
hundred thousand families doing that means a hundred thousand more TVs
sold, and about five million more restaurant meals a year. That
creates jobs for waiters, cooks, and anyone involved in the production
and retail of TV sets. It means more jobs for truck drivers hauling
TVs, food, and dishwashing soap. The waiters, cooks, retail clerks,
and truck drivers buy food, they buy cars, they buy houses... it
expands exponentially.

Surely you don't suppose that all those newly employed waiters, cooks,
clerks, and truck drivers pay no taxes, do you?

That's how cutting tax rates leads to an increase in tax revenues.

No it doesn't. That was the fallacious thinking behind the trickledown
stuff of Reagan. Yes, you increase consumption, and maybe even generate
a few jobs. But those people with new jobs don't pay but a small
percentage of their wages in taxes, so it can never, ever make up for the
lost revenue.

That simply isn't true.

On 8/4/2011 5:02 AM, Han wrote:
Doug wrote in
eb.com:

On 8/3/2011 7:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote:

But in real life if the government is using your SS contributions to
run the government it is a tax. The past weeks threat of missed SS
payment checks would never have been a second thought if that fund
was a separate entity not mixed in with the general fund. Today the
SS fund is simply another Government liability account. Than you
Prez Clinton.

It IS a separate fund. Funds received by SSA go into a pile called
the Social Security Trust Fund. Those funds are prudently invested in
U.S. Treasury bonds (which pay interest). The governors of the SS
Trust Fund can redeem these bonds anytime they wish.

Today, there is about $2 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund -
in the form of U.S. Treasury Bonds.


All true, however:

The trust fund only contains the surplus collections from over the
years. The rest of the collections are paid out to recipient and for
overhead.

The interest is paid with more bonds.

The surplus taxes collected (that $2 trillion) was spent after the
federal government traded it for the Bonds and plunked it into the
general fund.

When SS needs to redeem the bonds because of deficits (which happened
in 2010 to the tune of $49 billion), the feds need to get the money
from their only sources of money - either from the general fund with
new tax money (which they didn't have), print it (resulting in
inflation which goes by the name of qualatative easing) or borrow
(which they had to do last year and this). $4 billion of the cashed
in bonds (interest) and the additional $45 billion was borrowed and
now became public debt rather than the intragovernmental debt in the
fund.

So, every dollar in the trust fund is a dollar of national debt.

In all, there are around 150 federal trust funds holding close to $5
trillion of debt.

The dollars I paid/pay in FICA every time I get or got a paycheck are
going weither towards SS payouts or that trustfund. No way those dollars
magically turn into debt. They're assets to be used for ss payouts.


Every dollar that wasn't paid out and remains in the trust fund is debt.
It's called intragovernmental debt:

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

Sorry Han, every US treasury bond, US savings bond or any other type of
US government bond is debt and part of that $14.5 trillion number

On 8/4/2011 12:39 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
.... if ABC Company cuts its selling price to $9 each, it cuts its
income by a dollar for each widget it sells, so it will make less
money, right? Wrong. It stimulates the market - more people can buy

Widgets aren't like taxes....

You are correct Han. And further - Just Wondering's proposition is too
simplistic - as he even admits himself. It does not work that simplisticaly
in the business world - let alone in the convoluted world of the US tax
structure/economy.

Whether the proposition explaining why is too simplistic, or just wrong
doesn't change the fact that every time since at least JFK that tax
rates were lowered, tax revenue went up. The reason revenue increases
when tax rates are cut is debatable (most capitalists have no problem
explaining why, even Clinton knew) but the fact revenues go up is simply
fact. I guess you could say the IRS and GAO are lying, and make up your
own numbers, but good luck with that...

--
Jack
Got Change: More Taxes! More Spending! More Debt! More Fraud! More
Government! Less Freedom!
http://jbstein.com

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 08:14:29 -0500, Swingman wrote:
I do NOT like air conditioning in a wood shop. It causes more problems
than it solves.

In other words, what you build in the shop often expands or contracts
when it arrives at its final destination. Must cause quite a few
problems with all that Texas heat.

On 8/4/2011 7:55 AM, HeyBub wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

It IS a separate fund. Funds received by SSA go into a pile called
the Social Security Trust Fund. Those funds are prudently invested
in U.S. Treasury bonds (which pay interest). The governors of the SS
Trust Fund can redeem these bonds anytime they wish.

Today, there is about $2 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund
- in the form of U.S. Treasury Bonds.

To redeem them, the government must first borrow the money. There's
a problem here...

Actually, no. I'm not exactly sure how this works, but if SSA redeems a
bond, the indebtedness of the U.S. goes DOWN as they pay the bond in
funny-money. The U.S. does not have to borrow anything to redeem a SSA bond.

When the SS trust fund buys a Treasury Bond, the money goes from the SS
Trust Fund to the say, General Fund. The General fund spends all this
money and then some. The "then some" amounts to around $12 Trillion,
soon to be DECREASED to $14 trillion (Government Math).

If the SS fund wants to cash in one of their treasury bonds, the general
fund, which is 12 trillion in the hole, has to borrow the money
somewhere else, say China, or print more money (funny money). Now, all
this money is simply clicks on a keyboard, since no money, funny or not,
really transfers into anything other than a ledger entry on some funky
computer.

We could fix everything just by moving some decimal points 6 or 10
digits to the left....like this: 12,000,000,000,000 is now 1200, so
problem solved...

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 08:14:29 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 8/3/2011 11:40 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:03:07 -0500, wrote:

Two shop fans, blowing 105 degree, 90% humidity laden air, and the
temptation to come in from the shop the past couple of days is overwhelming.

AKA why I'm wasting time in the office at this time of day ...

Um, for the price of one of those Festering thingies, you could have
had wall/ceiling insulation and a window air conditioning unit. For a
couple/three of 'em, a full-blown HVAC system.

My, what interesting choices we make in our lives.

They are choices made with eyes wide open, C-Less. I'm quite capable of
installing air conditioning in any building myself, except ...

I figured as much.


I do NOT like air conditioning in a wood shop. It causes more problems
than it solves.

Is it too drying? Wouldn't a humidifier fix that, so your wet wood
wouldn't dry too quickly? Or is it too hard to filter dust from the
a/c unit?

--
In the depth of winter, I finally learned
that within me there lay an invincible summer.
-- Albert Camus

On 8/4/2011 8:17 AM, Han wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in

That's how cutting tax rates leads to an increase in tax revenues.

No it doesn't. That was the fallacious thinking behind the trickledown
stuff of Reagan.

What "fallacious thinking" would that be?

Yes, you increase consumption, and maybe even generate
a few jobs. But those people with new jobs don't pay but a small
percentage of their wages in taxes,

True but when the economy grows and productivity increases, EVERYBODY
gets more money, and the top half of the tax payers make more, pay more.

YOU CAN'T TAX YOUR WAY INTO PROSPERITY!

so it can never, ever make up for the lost revenue.

What lost revenue? You continue to ignore that every time tax rates are
lowered, tax revenue goes up. This can be easily verified all over the
place, and Hey Bub already referenced an example under Bush. If your
conclusion is false, your premise has no meaning...

--
Jack
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy
out of prosperity.
http://jbstein.com

On 8/4/2011 8:49 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
wrote in
:


They are choices made with eyes wide open, C-Less. I'm quite capable
of installing air conditioning in any building myself, except ...

I do NOT like air conditioning in a wood shop. It causes more problems
than it solves.


What kinds of problems?

Biggest problem is rust. Open a door and let in hot moist air into an
air conditioned shop, where the metal surfaces are 20 degrees cooler,
and bingo ... a red patina of rust on everything within hours.

I simply do not have rust problems in this hot, humid climate by
constantly keeping the interior shop and at the same temperature and RH
as outside.

About once a year, in the spring, when fog becomes an issue in the early
mornings in this area due to the dew point, I do cover the machines with
a breathable cloth made for the purpose, because the same thing will
happen when introducing outside air into a shop that has been closed
overnight.

Also, I like to keep my stock at a moisture content corresponding to the
RH of the region. It comes that way from the supplier, and stays that
way throughout fabrication. This causes fewer problems when acclimating
it to an interior installation in the region.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 00:49:17 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:



Well, you have *part* of this right, but you haven't taken it to its
logical conclusion. What happens to that extra income when they spend
it? It doesn't
just evaporate. They're spending it on *something*.

False assumption. It often goes into unspent money - savings. Or... it

Cites, please?

http://goo.gl/Dqy8 half have $2k or less
http://goo.gl/J1ctK 79% not saving enough
http://goo.gl/eh74C 30% hadn't saved for retirement

--
In the depth of winter, I finally learned
that within me there lay an invincible summer.
-- Albert Camus

On 04 Aug 2011 12:17:13 GMT, Han wrote:

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

Surely you don't suppose that all those newly employed waiters, cooks,
clerks, and truck drivers pay no taxes, do you?

That's how cutting tax rates leads to an increase in tax revenues.

No it doesn't. That was the fallacious thinking behind the trickledown
stuff of Reagan. Yes, you increase consumption, and maybe even generate
a few jobs. But those people with new jobs don't pay but a small

Cites, please?


percentage of their wages in taxes, so it can never, ever make up for the
lost revenue.

Dump some govvy jobs to make it up. There are millions of freeloaders
in the system right now. Given a choice, I'd rather have the gov't pay
unemployment (not that they do) rather than the glitzy office budgets
and salaries lots of govvies have.

--
In the depth of winter, I finally learned
that within me there lay an invincible summer.
-- Albert Camus

On 8/4/2011 6:18 AM, Han wrote:
Just wrote in
. com:

On 8/3/2011 7:12 PM, Han wrote:
Just wrote in
. com:

On 8/3/2011 9:21 AM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in
:

On 8/2/2011 11:13 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Cut taxes so that additional debt is created.

Except since at least JFK, cutting taxes has ALWAYS resulted in
increased revenues.

Fudged statistics, I'm sure. At least it defies logic that by
cutting income you'll get more money in.

No it doesn't. If ABC Company and DEF company both make widgets at
a cost of $6 each and sell them at $10 each, they'll have the same
income.
But if ABC Company cuts its selling price to $9 each, it cuts its
income by a dollar for each widget it sells, so it will make less
money, right? Wrong. It stimulates the market - more people can
buy widgets when they cost less, so more total widgets can be sold.
Plus, some people that would have bought from DEF now buy from ABC
to save a buck. As a result, by reducing its price and thus its
incremental profit margin, ABC gets more money. It's more
complicated, but reducing incremental tax rates has the same overall
effect -- it stimulates growth in the private sector, which
ultimately results in increased revenue.

Widgets aren't like taxes. What you are saying goes for widgets
because of the elasticity of demand. You can increase demand by
lowering prices, thus with a smaller margin, increase net profit. If
you lower income taxes, people have more disposable income, but
spending that extra income (if they do it at all - now they may be
paying off debt) does NOT increase income tax revenue.

Sure it does. When ABC Company sells more widgets, it has more
income. That income is taxable, so ABC winds up paying more income taxes.

It would work, if the tax rate on that income exceeded 100%. See, that's
were you are so wrong.


The actual tax rate doesn't matter. As long as ABC sells over a third
more widgets by discounting its price, it pays more in total taxes.
Let's walk through an example step by step. ABC first sells widgets at
$10 each, with a $4 profit margin. If the tax rate is 15%, ABC pays 60
cents in taxes for each widget sold. If ABC sells 1,000 widgets, it
pays $600.00 in taxes. ABC then sells widgets at $9 each, with a $3
profit margin, paying 45 cents in taxes for each widget sold. If ABC
sells 1,334 widgets, it pays $600.30 in taxes. If ABC sells 1,500
widgets, it pays $675.00 in taxes, etc.

"Leon" wrote in message
...

On 8/3/2011 11:51 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:


The elected now are more concerned with re-election than with doing the
"right" thing. At least now we can use FB& twitter to tell them, and
round up help to tell them ...


Correction! The elected are "only" concerned with re-election. There
is no right and wrong in government.


Lawyers, lobbyists and career politicians should be prohibited from entering
DC!

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 09:42:50 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

ie, the bottom 50% of wage
earners pay 2.7% of income taxes, the top 50% pay 97.3%.

That sounds great till you look at the other half of the statistics. The
bottom 50% have 13% of the income, the top 50% have 87%. If you add SS
taxes to that, the bottom half pay a higher percentage than the top half.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Swingman wrote in news:V-
:

On 8/4/2011 8:49 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
wrote in
:


They are choices made with eyes wide open, C-Less. I'm quite capable
of installing air conditioning in any building myself, except ...

I do NOT like air conditioning in a wood shop. It causes more
problems
than it solves.


What kinds of problems?

Biggest problem is rust. Open a door and let in hot moist air into an
air conditioned shop, where the metal surfaces are 20 degrees cooler,
and bingo ... a red patina of rust on everything within hours.

I simply do not have rust problems in this hot, humid climate by
constantly keeping the interior shop and at the same temperature and RH
as outside.

I see. Is that opening the door to pass through, or leaving it open to
move something in/out?

As far as rust goes, you're in kinda a harsh environment aren't you?

About once a year, in the spring, when fog becomes an issue in the
early
mornings in this area due to the dew point, I do cover the machines
with
a breathable cloth made for the purpose, because the same thing will
happen when introducing outside air into a shop that has been closed
overnight.

Also, I like to keep my stock at a moisture content corresponding to
the
RH of the region. It comes that way from the supplier, and stays that
way throughout fabrication. This causes fewer problems when acclimating
it to an interior installation in the region.


I could see acclimation and wood movement being an issue, even if just
moving from the shop to the house. (Especially in 100F heat.)

Anyone in the midwest have AC in their shop? Any problems?

Puckdropper

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 19:36:24 -0500, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

There's a number called the poverty level. No one whose income is at or
below that should have to pay any taxes. All their income goes for the
necessities of life.

Then they shouldn't have any vote to control other people's money,
either.

If they paid *absolutely* no taxes, I might agree. But they pay taxes
that are passed on to them every time they buy anything.



--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 11:27:21 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

We could fix everything just by moving some decimal points 6 or 10
digits to the left....like this: 12,000,000,000,000 is now 1200, so
problem solved...

That's called inflation :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 8/4/2011 11:37 AM, Tom B wrote:


"Leon" wrote in message
...

On 8/3/2011 11:51 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:


The elected now are more concerned with re-election than with doing the
"right" thing. At least now we can use FB& twitter to tell them, and
round up help to tell them ...


Correction! The elected are "only" concerned with re-election. There
is no right and wrong in government.


Lawyers, lobbyists and career politicians should be prohibited from
entering DC!

AAAAAAAFARRRRRRKKKKKINNNNNGMMMEENN!!!

Hell, I'll take it one step further:

Lawyers, or ANYONE who attended a law school in the country, whether a
member of the bar or not, should be prohibited from serving in the
LEGISLATIVE branch of any local, state and federal government PERIOD!!!!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 8/4/2011 11:42 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 8/4/2011 8:49 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
wrote in
:


They are choices made with eyes wide open, C-Less. I'm quite capable
of installing air conditioning in any building myself, except ...

I do NOT like air conditioning in a wood shop. It causes more problems
than it solves.


What kinds of problems?

Biggest problem is rust. Open a door and let in hot moist air into an
air conditioned shop, where the metal surfaces are 20 degrees cooler,
and bingo ... a red patina of rust on everything within hours.

Do you have your tools coated with something like topcote? My shop used
to be in a basement that would get an inch of water in it anytime it
rained. Rust was a non-issue once I found the 3M product no longer
available but appears to be the same as topcote. I never got a drop of
rust after coating with the 3M stuff. Don't know if Topcote is as good,
no way to test it as conditions now dry, but it seems to be the same
product.

Today, my house is air conditioned, but garage shop is not, but is
attached. The cold air naturally migrates down to the shop, so it's
cooler but not 20° cooler. My living quarters seem quite dry and doors
are opened and closed routinely. In fact, air conditioning takes out
tons of moisture. I've never seen condensation in the summer. In the
winter, different story. Moisture condenses out and is sometimes
visible on windows and such when it gets down to zero or below.

Also, I like to keep my stock at a moisture content corresponding to the
RH of the region. It comes that way from the supplier, and stays that
way throughout fabrication. This causes fewer problems when acclimating
it to an interior installation in the region.

That makes sense except what if your stuff will be in air conditioned
home? If your shop is 100*° and humid, and the cabinets are installed
in 72° dry, air conditioned house, then what?

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com

On 8/4/2011 2:49 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 8/4/2011 11:37 AM, Tom B wrote:


"Leon" wrote in message
...

On 8/3/2011 11:51 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:


The elected now are more concerned with re-election than with doing the
"right" thing. At least now we can use FB& twitter to tell them, and
round up help to tell them ...


Correction! The elected are "only" concerned with re-election. There
is no right and wrong in government.


Lawyers, lobbyists and career politicians should be prohibited from
entering DC!

AAAAAAAFARRRRRRKKKKKINNNNNGMMMEENN!!!

Hell, I'll take it one step further:

Lawyers, or ANYONE who attended a law school in the country, whether a
member of the bar or not, should be prohibited from serving in the
LEGISLATIVE branch of any local, state and federal government PERIOD!!!!

Should doctors prohibited as well?

On 8/4/2011 12:29 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
wrote in news:V-


I simply do not have rust problems in this hot, humid climate by
constantly keeping the interior shop and at the same temperature and RH
as outside.

I see. Is that opening the door to pass through, or leaving it open to
move something in/out?

Opening an entry door briefly is not a problem, opening an overhead door
effectively removes most of one entire wall from the enclosure. Most
shops I've been associated with have big doors that are constantly
needing to be opened to move things in and out.

As far as rust goes, you're in kinda a harsh environment aren't you?

In the construction business it is known as a "Hot, Humid Climate", with
building techniques appropriate to that environment taken into account
by most builders ... well, some, anyway.

I could see acclimation and wood movement being an issue, even if just
moving from the shop to the house. (Especially in 100F heat.)

Temperature has infinitesimal effect on wood movement, if any...
relative humidity and reaching the resultant moisture content
equilibrium, everything.


Anyone in the midwest have AC in their shop? Any problems?

In a less humid climate, the problem would not be as obvious, to
non-existent.

That said, were I to live in that type of environment, I still would
prefer to not have air conditioning in my wood shop.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 11:27:21 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

We could fix everything just by moving some decimal points 6 or 10
digits to the left....like this: 12,000,000,000,000 is now 1200, so
problem solved...

That's called inflation :-).

Monetizing the debt.

On 8/4/2011 1:54 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/4/2011 11:42 AM, Swingman wrote:


Also, I like to keep my stock at a moisture content corresponding to the
RH of the region. It comes that way from the supplier, and stays that
way throughout fabrication. This causes fewer problems when acclimating
it to an interior installation in the region.

That makes sense except what if your stuff will be in air conditioned
home? If your shop is 100*° and humid, and the cabinets are installed in
72° dry, air conditioned house, then what?

You do what ANY knowledgeable woodworker should do ... you take into
account the dimensional instability of your project material when
deciding upon your joinery techniques for that particular project.

Amazing how that ALWAYS works, regardless of the regional climate,
indoor or outdoors ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 8/4/2011 1:57 PM, Rita and Neil Ward wrote:
On 8/4/2011 2:49 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 8/4/2011 11:37 AM, Tom B wrote:


"Leon" wrote in message
...

On 8/3/2011 11:51 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:


The elected now are more concerned with re-election than with doing the
"right" thing. At least now we can use FB& twitter to tell them, and
round up help to tell them ...


Correction! The elected are "only" concerned with re-election. There
is no right and wrong in government.


Lawyers, lobbyists and career politicians should be prohibited from
entering DC!

AAAAAAAFARRRRRRKKKKKINNNNNGMMMEENN!!!

Hell, I'll take it one step further:

Lawyers, or ANYONE who attended a law school in the country, whether a
member of the bar or not, should be prohibited from serving in the
LEGISLATIVE branch of any local, state and federal government PERIOD!!!!

Should doctors prohibited as well?

WTF??

Think about it, dude ... Most "doctors" have not been taught the art of
purposely blurring the distinction between right and wrong, ethical and
unethical, and moral or immoral, for profit and personal gain.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 8/4/2011 1:28 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 09:42:50 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

ie, the bottom 50% of wage
earners pay 2.7% of income taxes, the top 50% pay 97.3%.

That sounds great till you look at the other half of the statistics. The
bottom 50% have 13% of the income, the top 50% have 87%. If you add SS
taxes to that, the bottom half pay a higher percentage than the top half.

That sounds stupid! The bottom 50% has 50% of the wages? The top 50%
has the other 50%? If the bottom 50% had 13% of the income, they
wouldn't be the bottom 50% but the bottom 13%?

As far as mandatory SS pension fund payments (SS Tax/Ponzi scheme) it is
currently a flat fee of 12-13% of income up to $106,000. Income above
106K is not subject to SS tax.

I like flat taxes, and not sure how I'd feel about taxing say AlGore or
Pelosi 100% of their income for SS, but I could be talked into it I
guess. Seems unfair unless the maximum payments are raised, but then,
they already (based on tax rates) pay a lot more for the same benefits
in income taxes. If it were like income tax, they would pay
progressively MORE on earnings above 106k...


--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com

On 8/4/2011 3:04 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 8/4/2011 1:54 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/4/2011 11:42 AM, Swingman wrote:


Also, I like to keep my stock at a moisture content corresponding to the
RH of the region. It comes that way from the supplier, and stays that
way throughout fabrication. This causes fewer problems when acclimating
it to an interior installation in the region.

That makes sense except what if your stuff will be in air conditioned
home? If your shop is 100*° and humid, and the cabinets are installed in
72° dry, air conditioned house, then what?

You do what ANY knowledgeable woodworker should do ... you take into
account the dimensional instability of your project material when
deciding upon your joinery techniques for that particular project.

Amazing how that ALWAYS works, regardless of the regional climate,
indoor or outdoors ...

One of the first wood projects I made many years ago was a record
cabinet. The front was solid wood with one drawer and 3 fake drawers.
The fake drawers were really a hinged door that swung out to hold
records. I spent a good deal of time getting the spacing exact so the
inset drawer and door had like a 1/16th gap. Looked great until winter.
Winter came and the gap grew horrendously to over 1/2". I was amazed,
but figured it would close up in the summer... Nope, it never closed up.
I still have it, and still wonder why it shrunk but never swelled.
The wood was kiln dried and I built the sucker in dead summer with high
humidity. I still don't like making stuff in those conditions.

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com

On 8/4/2011 3:11 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/4/2011 3:04 PM, Swingman wrote:

You do what ANY knowledgeable woodworker should do ... you take into
account the dimensional instability of your project material when
deciding upon your joinery techniques for that particular project.

Amazing how that ALWAYS works, regardless of the regional climate,
indoor or outdoors ...

One of the first wood projects I made many years ago was a record
cabinet. The front was solid wood with one drawer and 3 fake drawers.
The fake drawers were really a hinged door that swung out to hold
records. I spent a good deal of time getting the spacing exact so the
inset drawer and door had like a 1/16th gap. Looked great until winter.
Winter came and the gap grew horrendously to over 1/2". I was amazed,
but figured it would close up in the summer... Nope, it never closed up.
I still have it, and still wonder why it shrunk but never swelled. The
wood was kiln dried and I built the sucker in dead summer with high
humidity. I still don't like making stuff in those conditions.

Kiln dried wood will eventually regain equilibrium moisture content with
its environment, one way or the other.

In this area of the USm bringing your wood indoors into the shop will
generally bring it to an EMC that is consistent with the region.

I don't know about your area, but all of the hardwood dealers here keep
their wood indoors in unheated buildings, all with large access doors
which basically remain open during the daytime hours throughout the year.

I generally experience about an average 3% reduction in moisture content
buying from the places, then bringing it into the shop for a week or so.

There is fairly large difference in recommended moisture content for
different parts of the country for indoor use. Basically, the idea is to
keep the moisture content in the middle of the range it will experience
in use.

Here's a handy download:

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fp...chapter_13.pdf

And another treatise on moisture content of wood in use:

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplrn/fplrn226.pdf

That entire Forest Products Laboratory is a gold mine of wood related
information for both construction and furniture uses.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:40:59 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote:

On 8/4/2011 1:28 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 09:42:50 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

ie, the bottom 50% of wage
earners pay 2.7% of income taxes, the top 50% pay 97.3%.

That sounds great till you look at the other half of the statistics. The
bottom 50% have 13% of the income, the top 50% have 87%. If you add SS
taxes to that, the bottom half pay a higher percentage than the top half.

That sounds stupid! The bottom 50% has 50% of the wages? The top 50%
has the other 50%? If the bottom 50% had 13% of the income, they
wouldn't be the bottom 50% but the bottom 13%?

Jack, that's "50% of us, the low-wage earners, make only 13% of the
money and the top half make a whole lot more. The top half ends up
paying the bulk of income tax, dollarwise." Is that easier, cher?
(Whoooeee, dat smarts!)


As far as mandatory SS pension fund payments (SS Tax/Ponzi scheme) it is
currently a flat fee of 12-13% of income up to $106,000. Income above
106K is not subject to SS tax.

I like flat taxes,

I kinda do, too, but you know that they'd end up making us pay even
-more- than we are now, don't you? They would replace the IRS
clusterf*ck with an even better money-bringer so they could go spend
even more of our hard-earned money on useless crap. sigh

--
In the depth of winter, I finally learned
that within me there lay an invincible summer.
-- Albert Camus

On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 11:37:26 -0500, "Tom B"
wrote:



"Leon" wrote in message
m...

On 8/3/2011 11:51 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:


The elected now are more concerned with re-election than with doing the
"right" thing. At least now we can use FB& twitter to tell them, and
round up help to tell them ...


Correction! The elected are "only" concerned with re-election. There
is no right and wrong in government.

Correction: Apparently, there is no "right" in government.


Lawyers, lobbyists and career politicians should be prohibited from entering
DC!

Amen! Anyone who wants to be a politician should be barred from it.

Elect the homeless! They _couldn't_ do worse than existing CONs.

--
In the depth of winter, I finally learned
that within me there lay an invincible summer.
-- Albert Camus

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 14:57:39 -0400, Rita and Neil Ward
wrote:

On 8/4/2011 2:49 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 8/4/2011 11:37 AM, Tom B wrote:


"Leon" wrote in message
...

On 8/3/2011 11:51 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:


The elected now are more concerned with re-election than with doing the
"right" thing. At least now we can use FB& twitter to tell them, and
round up help to tell them ...


Correction! The elected are "only" concerned with re-election. There
is no right and wrong in government.


Lawyers, lobbyists and career politicians should be prohibited from
entering DC!

AAAAAAAFARRRRRRKKKKKINNNNNGMMMEENN!!!

Hell, I'll take it one step further:

Lawyers, or ANYONE who attended a law school in the country, whether a
member of the bar or not, should be prohibited from serving in the
LEGISLATIVE branch of any local, state and federal government PERIOD!!!!

Should doctors prohibited as well?

You bet. Most of -them- are only in it for the money, too.
Are you aware that medical schools no longer require the new doctors
to pledge the Hippocratic Oath? thud

--
In the depth of winter, I finally learned
that within me there lay an invincible summer.
-- Albert Camus

On 04 Aug 2011 17:29:02 GMT, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

Swingman wrote in news:V-
:

On 8/4/2011 8:49 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
wrote in
:


They are choices made with eyes wide open, C-Less. I'm quite capable
of installing air conditioning in any building myself, except ...

I do NOT like air conditioning in a wood shop. It causes more
problems
than it solves.


What kinds of problems?

Biggest problem is rust. Open a door and let in hot moist air into an
air conditioned shop, where the metal surfaces are 20 degrees cooler,
and bingo ... a red patina of rust on everything within hours.

I simply do not have rust problems in this hot, humid climate by
constantly keeping the interior shop and at the same temperature and RH
as outside.

I see. Is that opening the door to pass through, or leaving it open to
move something in/out?

As far as rust goes, you're in kinda a harsh environment aren't you?

Isn't Boeshield the answer? If not, I'd want a cool suit of some sort
to handle working in that ungodly weather.

--
In the depth of winter, I finally learned
that within me there lay an invincible summer.
-- Albert Camus