A giant. Age 56. We'll miss him.

On Oct 5, 6:51*pm, Robatoy wrote:
A giant. Age 56. We'll miss him.

Absolutely - Fought the disease, and remained innovative and
productive until the end.

RonB

Robatoy wrote in news:44df47f9-6331-4dcf-852d-
:

A giant. Age 56. We'll miss him.

The world is smaller now. Steve will be missed!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

I worked for a semi house that would from time to time supply
parts. Depended on the product. We supported (boss and I)
100% during the day or after hours his engineering staff.
One thing that Jobs as an engineer taught his people through
the years - if you don't know or can't figure it - get help no
harm - harm if you don't get help when needed. This concept
was to keep the customer (you and I ) and their products as
most important element of the company. What a guy.

IBM was reverse. IBM would rat on each other so the less ratted
one would be promoted. Calls from them were rare. I've made
arrangements after 10PM to talk to an engineer. They would
be alone in the place and no bad guys in the next cube.

We are starting to loose winners out of silicon Valley. Movie
stars for some time.

Martin

On 10/5/2011 6:58 PM, RonB wrote:
On Oct 5, 6:51 pm, wrote:
A giant. Age 56. We'll miss him.

Absolutely - Fought the disease, and remained innovative and
productive until the end.

RonB

I was an Apple employee after he left the company and left before he came back. I knew a lot of people who worked directly for him and/or had some "face time" with him. He was hard on his troops, but hard on himself as well. He understood technology better than most and he'll be missed.

Looking back, what a career.

MJ

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
A giant. Age 56. We'll miss him.

one of the last true visionaries. He will be missed.

Vic

In article
,
Robatoy wrote:

A giant. Age 56. We'll miss him.

I'm keeping my iPhone at half-charge today.

Amazing how much one man could change our relationship with technology,
making complex tools so easy to use.

--
Woodworking and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 20:45:59 -0700 (PDT), MJ
wrote:

I was an Apple employee after he left the company and left before he came back. I knew a lot of people who worked directly for him and/or had some "face time" with him. He was hard on his troops, but hard on himself as well. He understood technology better than most and he'll be missed.

Looking back, what a career.

Indeed. I think he made the proper decision. (see sig)

--
The most decisive actions of our life - I mean those that are most
likely to decide the whole course of our future - are, more often
than not, unconsidered.
-- Andre Gide

A brilliant innovator and marketer. Changed the way we work with
computers.

However, Apples have stolen family-wage jobs here to be made in foreign
factories that cruelly exploit their employees and ruin the environment,
with the expectation that the poor folks here will still forever buy the
Apples with their last dimes, all to enrich some shareholders who
apparently believe these bad practices will never affect them.

I'm pretty conflicted about Mr. Jobs.

On 10/11/2011 9:39 PM, scritch wrote:
A brilliant innovator and marketer. Changed the way we work with computers.

However, Apples have stolen family-wage jobs here to be made in foreign
factories that cruelly exploit their employees and ruin the environment,
with the expectation that the poor folks here will still forever buy the
Apples with their last dimes, all to enrich some shareholders who
apparently believe these bad practices will never affect them.

I'm pretty conflicted about Mr. Jobs.


See if you can find a copy of "The Pirates of Silicone Valley" on DVD.

Jobs was a jerk.

But compared to Bill Gates he's a Knight in Shining Armor.

I interviewed with Jobs as a programmer - LONG long ago.
I'm forever thankful that I wasn't all that interesting to him.

I did pretty good as a PC Assembly programmer.

"scritch" wrote:

A brilliant innovator and marketer. Changed the way we work with
computers.

However, Apples have stolen family-wage jobs here to be made in
foreign factories that cruelly exploit their employees and ruin the
environment, with the expectation that the poor folks here will
still forever buy the Apples with their last dimes, all to enrich
some shareholders who apparently believe these bad practices will
never affect them.

I'm pretty conflicted about Mr. Jobs.
-----------------------------------
During the last half of the 19th century (1870-1900) and the first
half of the
20th century (1901-1950), the industrial revolution eliminated
thousands of
jobs on the farms, driving people to the cities looking for low paying
jobs.

This led to the formation of the labor movement and a better way of
life.

Continued development of automation has continued to reduce the need
for manual labor performed by the uneducated with the exception of
harvesting
fruits and vegetables.

Jobs and Apple are simply driving the process of needing a better
educated
society on a world wide basis.

Look at today's job market.

There are lots of jobs available in high-tech industries, but a lack
of trained
applicants to fill those jobs.

It's a major problem our society faces.


Lew

"scritch" wrote in message
...
A brilliant innovator and marketer. Changed the way we work with
computers.

However, Apples have stolen family-wage jobs here to be made in foreign
factories that cruelly exploit their employees and ruin the environment,
with the expectation that the poor folks here will still forever buy the
Apples with their last dimes, all to enrich some shareholders who
apparently believe these bad practices will never affect them.

I'm pretty conflicted about Mr. Jobs.

I own no Apple products. As for Jobs and jobs, I'd guess he is no better or
worse than any other computer/electronics maker. What portable phone is
made in the US or Canada? Try to find a toaster not made in China. Yet we
buy because it is such a good value. Is it?

The Pogo rule seems to apply inmost cases. "we have met the enemy and it is
us:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"scritch" wrote in message
...
A brilliant innovator and marketer. Changed the way we work with
computers.

However, Apples have stolen family-wage jobs here to be made in
foreign factories that cruelly exploit their employees and ruin the
environment, with the expectation that the poor folks here will still
forever buy the Apples with their last dimes, all to enrich some
shareholders who apparently believe these bad practices will never
affect them.

I'm pretty conflicted about Mr. Jobs.

I own no Apple products. As for Jobs and jobs, I'd guess he is no
better or worse than any other computer/electronics maker. What
portable phone is made in the US or Canada? Try to find a toaster not
made in China. Yet we buy because it is such a good value. Is it?

The Pogo rule seems to apply inmost cases. "we have met the enemy and
it is us:

Pretty soon the US$ will have devalued sufficiently so that manufacturing
here will become profitable again (it is already for cars and some other
things). Now whether this new-found wealth will flow to workers or
investors/rich people will be the next question ...

IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent buy
more ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 12 Oct 2011 11:55:54 GMT, Han wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"scritch" wrote in message
...
A brilliant innovator and marketer. Changed the way we work with
computers.

However, Apples have stolen family-wage jobs here to be made in
foreign factories that cruelly exploit their employees and ruin the
environment, with the expectation that the poor folks here will still
forever buy the Apples with their last dimes, all to enrich some
shareholders who apparently believe these bad practices will never
affect them.

I'm pretty conflicted about Mr. Jobs.

I own no Apple products. As for Jobs and jobs, I'd guess he is no
better or worse than any other computer/electronics maker. What
portable phone is made in the US or Canada? Try to find a toaster not
made in China. Yet we buy because it is such a good value. Is it?

The Pogo rule seems to apply inmost cases. "we have met the enemy and
it is us:

Pretty soon the US$ will have devalued sufficiently so that manufacturing
here will become profitable again (it is already for cars and some other
things). Now whether this new-found wealth will flow to workers or
investors/rich people will be the next question ...

What's your best guess, Han? Why should things change regarding
wealth?


IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent buy
more ...

GOOD punchline. g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there? How
do the poor buy more?)

--
Every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are
based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that
I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as
I have received and am still receiving.
-- Albert Einstein

On Oct 12, 10:48*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On 12 Oct 2011 11:55:54 GMT, Han wrote:









"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:

"scritch" wrote in message
...
A brilliant innovator and marketer. *Changed the way we work with
computers.

However, Apples have stolen family-wage jobs here to be made in
foreign factories that cruelly exploit their employees and ruin the
environment, with the expectation that the poor folks here will still
forever buy the Apples with their last dimes, all to enrich some
shareholders who apparently believe these bad practices will never
affect them.

I'm pretty conflicted about Mr. Jobs.

I own no Apple products. *As for Jobs and jobs, I'd guess he is no
better or worse than any other computer/electronics maker. *What
portable phone is made in the US or Canada? *Try to find a toaster not
made in China. *Yet we buy because it is such a good value. *Is it?

The Pogo rule seems to apply inmost cases. *"we have met the enemy and
it is us:

Pretty soon the US$ will have devalued sufficiently so that manufacturing
here will become profitable again (it is already for cars and some other
things). *Now whether this new-found wealth will flow to workers or
investors/rich people will be the next question ...

What's your best guess, Han? *Why should things change regarding
wealth?

IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent buy
more ...

GOOD punchline. *g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there? *How
do the poor buy more?)


Simple... build cheaper ****? Maybe let them keep more of their
income?

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 12 Oct 2011 11:55:54 GMT, Han wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"scritch" wrote in message
...
A brilliant innovator and marketer. Changed the way we work with
computers.

However, Apples have stolen family-wage jobs here to be made in
foreign factories that cruelly exploit their employees and ruin the
environment, with the expectation that the poor folks here will
still forever buy the Apples with their last dimes, all to enrich
some shareholders who apparently believe these bad practices will
never affect them.

I'm pretty conflicted about Mr. Jobs.

I own no Apple products. As for Jobs and jobs, I'd guess he is no
better or worse than any other computer/electronics maker. What
portable phone is made in the US or Canada? Try to find a toaster
not made in China. Yet we buy because it is such a good value. Is
it?

The Pogo rule seems to apply inmost cases. "we have met the enemy
and it is us:

Pretty soon the US$ will have devalued sufficiently so that
manufacturing here will become profitable again (it is already for
cars and some other things). Now whether this new-found wealth will
flow to workers or investors/rich people will be the next question ...

What's your best guess, Han? Why should things change regarding
wealth?

Seems to me that if the US can produce more cheaply, the US will do more
of the earning, less of the buying from other countries. Sort of the
reveerse of the flight of manufacturing and services to East Asia? Or
isn't it that simple?

IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent buy
more ...

GOOD punchline. g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there? How
do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent will lead
to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:48:28 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On 12 Oct 2011 11:55:54 GMT, Han wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"scritch" wrote in message
...
A brilliant innovator and marketer. Changed the way we work with
computers.

However, Apples have stolen family-wage jobs here to be made in
foreign factories that cruelly exploit their employees and ruin the
environment, with the expectation that the poor folks here will still
forever buy the Apples with their last dimes, all to enrich some
shareholders who apparently believe these bad practices will never
affect them.

I'm pretty conflicted about Mr. Jobs.

I own no Apple products. As for Jobs and jobs, I'd guess he is no
better or worse than any other computer/electronics maker. What
portable phone is made in the US or Canada? Try to find a toaster not
made in China. Yet we buy because it is such a good value. Is it?

The Pogo rule seems to apply inmost cases. "we have met the enemy and
it is us:

Pretty soon the US$ will have devalued sufficiently so that manufacturing
here will become profitable again (it is already for cars and some other
things). Now whether this new-found wealth will flow to workers or
investors/rich people will be the next question ...

What's your best guess, Han? Why should things change regarding
wealth?


IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent buy
more ...

GOOD punchline. g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there? How
do the poor buy more?)

Walmart.

On 10/12/2011 11:16 AM, Han wrote:

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent will lead
to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

That works ... as long as you don't do it with credit (cards) that
further enslaves them by legal usury!

Mea culpa ... but that process chaps my rosy red.


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 12 Oct 2011 16:16:49 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 12 Oct 2011 11:55:54 GMT, Han wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"scritch" wrote in message
...
A brilliant innovator and marketer. Changed the way we work with
computers.

However, Apples have stolen family-wage jobs here to be made in
foreign factories that cruelly exploit their employees and ruin the
environment, with the expectation that the poor folks here will
still forever buy the Apples with their last dimes, all to enrich
some shareholders who apparently believe these bad practices will
never affect them.

I'm pretty conflicted about Mr. Jobs.

I own no Apple products. As for Jobs and jobs, I'd guess he is no
better or worse than any other computer/electronics maker. What
portable phone is made in the US or Canada? Try to find a toaster
not made in China. Yet we buy because it is such a good value. Is
it?

The Pogo rule seems to apply inmost cases. "we have met the enemy
and it is us:

Pretty soon the US$ will have devalued sufficiently so that
manufacturing here will become profitable again (it is already for
cars and some other things). Now whether this new-found wealth will
flow to workers or investors/rich people will be the next question ...

What's your best guess, Han? Why should things change regarding
wealth?

Seems to me that if the US can produce more cheaply, the US will do more
of the earning, less of the buying from other countries. Sort of the
reveerse of the flight of manufacturing and services to East Asia? Or
isn't it that simple?

I don't think it is. In reducing the cost of U.S.-made goods, the cost
of labor and bennies will almost certainly have to come down...unless
you can figure out how to limit the profits made by stockholders and
wages of CEOs and other upper mangle^H^H^Hagement.


IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent buy
more ...

GOOD punchline. g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there? How
do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent will lead
to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd love it!

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer

Swingman wrote in
:

On 10/12/2011 11:16 AM, Han wrote:

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent will
lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

That works ... as long as you don't do it with credit (cards) that
further enslaves them by legal usury!

Mea culpa ... but that process chaps my rosy red.

I'm lucky, and, perhaps, not dumb, in that I always pay off all CCs each
month.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote in
news
On 12 Oct 2011 16:16:49 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

On 12 Oct 2011 11:55:54 GMT, Han wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"scritch" wrote in message
...
A brilliant innovator and marketer. Changed the way we work with
computers.

However, Apples have stolen family-wage jobs here to be made in
foreign factories that cruelly exploit their employees and ruin
the environment, with the expectation that the poor folks here
will still forever buy the Apples with their last dimes, all to
enrich some shareholders who apparently believe these bad
practices will never affect them.

I'm pretty conflicted about Mr. Jobs.

I own no Apple products. As for Jobs and jobs, I'd guess he is no
better or worse than any other computer/electronics maker. What
portable phone is made in the US or Canada? Try to find a toaster
not made in China. Yet we buy because it is such a good value.
Is it?

The Pogo rule seems to apply inmost cases. "we have met the enemy
and it is us:

Pretty soon the US$ will have devalued sufficiently so that
manufacturing here will become profitable again (it is already for
cars and some other things). Now whether this new-found wealth will
flow to workers or investors/rich people will be the next question
...

What's your best guess, Han? Why should things change regarding
wealth?

Seems to me that if the US can produce more cheaply, the US will do
more of the earning, less of the buying from other countries. Sort of
the reveerse of the flight of manufacturing and services to East Asia?
Or isn't it that simple?

I don't think it is. In reducing the cost of U.S.-made goods, the cost
of labor and bennies will almost certainly have to come down...unless
you can figure out how to limit the profits made by stockholders and
wages of CEOs and other upper mangle^H^H^Hagement.

Remember that the dollar is worth far less than it once was?. 1 € costs
now about US$1.32, but earlier it was almost $1.50. At the high point of
the $ vs € it was $0.82 or so. So between high and low there is almost a
2-fold difference. The more $ "they" can get for a €, the cheaper our
goods are to them, and vice versa. And that was without finagling wages
or benefits. We would be even richer as a nation if the resulting wealth
was spread out more evenly, not going to corporations and really rich
people who can afford to stash it abroad.

IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline. g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent will
lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd love it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to corporations
and really rich people who can afford to stash it abroad.

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer




--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 12 Oct 2011 19:14:34 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
news
On 12 Oct 2011 16:16:49 GMT, Han wrote:
Seems to me that if the US can produce more cheaply, the US will do
more of the earning, less of the buying from other countries. Sort of
the reveerse of the flight of manufacturing and services to East Asia?
Or isn't it that simple?

I don't think it is. In reducing the cost of U.S.-made goods, the cost
of labor and bennies will almost certainly have to come down...unless
you can figure out how to limit the profits made by stockholders and
wages of CEOs and other upper mangle^H^H^Hagement.

Remember that the dollar is worth far less than it once was?. 1 € costs
now about US$1.32, but earlier it was almost $1.50. At the high point of
the $ vs € it was $0.82 or so. So between high and low there is almost a
2-fold difference. The more $ "they" can get for a €, the cheaper our
goods are to them, and vice versa. And that was without finagling wages
or benefits. We would be even richer as a nation if the resulting wealth
was spread out more evenly, not going to corporations and really rich
people who can afford to stash it abroad.

And what are your ideas to allow us to achieve either of those goals?
Are you talking "redistribution of wealth" here?

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:42:07 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

We would be even richer as a nation if the resulting wealth
was spread out more evenly, not going to corporations and really rich
people who can afford to stash it abroad.

And what are your ideas to allow us to achieve either of those goals?
Are you talking "redistribution of wealth" here?

Ever since we stopped living as small groups of hunter-gatherers, the
problem of accumulation of excess goods has been with us. The toughest
or smartest guys, with the least ethics, glommed onto everything they
could and left little for the masses. The advent of technology
accelerated the process.

I don't know that there is a solution, since human nature tries to find a
way around any restrictions.

Income inequality did seem to be less in the '50s when marginal income
tax rates could go up into the confiscatory range, but that may have been
a coincidence.

But can anyone truly say that any person is worth more than a million
dollars a year? I certainly don't think so.

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

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 12 Oct 2011 19:14:34 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
news
On 12 Oct 2011 16:16:49 GMT, Han wrote:
Seems to me that if the US can produce more cheaply, the US will do
more of the earning, less of the buying from other countries. Sort
of the reveerse of the flight of manufacturing and services to East
Asia?
Or isn't it that simple?

I don't think it is. In reducing the cost of U.S.-made goods, the
cost of labor and bennies will almost certainly have to come
down...unless you can figure out how to limit the profits made by
stockholders and wages of CEOs and other upper mangle^H^H^Hagement.

Remember that the dollar is worth far less than it once was?. 1 €
costs now about US$1.32, but earlier it was almost $1.50. At the high
point of the $ vs € it was $0.82 or so. So between high and low there
is almost a 2-fold difference. The more $ "they" can get for a €, the
cheaper our goods are to them, and vice versa. And that was without
finagling wages or benefits. We would be even richer as a nation if
the resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to
corporations and really rich people who can afford to stash it abroad.

And what are your ideas to allow us to achieve either of those goals?
Are you talking "redistribution of wealth" here?

We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the loopholes and
preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher effective rates. Both
corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes have been going up, as have
state and local as well as sales taxes. That has put more and more of
the burden on lower wage earners, while higher wage earners and those not
relying on earned income have gotten a break. It's time to put more
purchasing power in the hands of lower income people.

And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:07:43 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:42:07 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

We would be even richer as a nation if the resulting wealth
was spread out more evenly, not going to corporations and really rich
people who can afford to stash it abroad.

And what are your ideas to allow us to achieve either of those goals?
Are you talking "redistribution of wealth" here?

Ever since we stopped living as small groups of hunter-gatherers, the
problem of accumulation of excess goods has been with us. The toughest
or smartest guys, with the least ethics, glommed onto everything they
could and left little for the masses. The advent of technology
accelerated the process.

I don't know that there is a solution, since human nature tries to find a
way around any restrictions.

Income inequality did seem to be less in the '50s when marginal income
tax rates could go up into the confiscatory range, but that may have been
a coincidence.

I picked up a copy of a Tea Party book, Rasmussen's _Mad as Hell_, and
it appears we've been taking a dive since the second world war. And I
don't think it's just the tax rate adjustments, either.


But can anyone truly say that any person is worth more than a million
dollars a year? I certainly don't think so.

I don't, either, but we're not shareholders and we're not voting on
uber manglement compensation.

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer

Han wrote:

We would be even richer as a
nation if the resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going
to corporations and really rich people who can afford to stash it
abroad.


There is a common notion, with some justification, that if a magic jellybean
could somehow redistribute all the wealth in the nation equally, within a
short time, the original distribution would again obtain.

Herman Cain said just this week, "If you're not rich, blame yourself!"

Larry Blanchard wrote:

But can anyone truly say that any person is worth more than a million
dollars a year? I certainly don't think so.

What's "worth" got to do with anything? Some HAVE more than a million
because others willingly GAVE it to them.

Oh, there are exceptions, but in the main the wealthy earned their fortunes.

Han wrote:

We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the loopholes
and preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher effective rates.
Both corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes have been going up,
as have state and local as well as sales taxes. That has put more
and more of the burden on lower wage earners, while higher wage
earners and those not relying on earned income have gotten a break.
It's time to put more purchasing power in the hands of lower income
people.

And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.

The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all! How is
that fair?

I'm with you on eliminating loopholes. There are two goals of the tax system
as it is currently implemented:
1. To raise revenue.
2. To foster (or suppress) social activity.

For example, we think that home ownership is a worthwhile thing, so we give
a tax deduction for mortgage interest payments. We think smoking is bad, so
we put a confiscatory tax on cigarettes.

Only if you are willing to give up the social goals sometimes associated
with taxation will you be able to make the tax system "fair."

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the loopholes
and preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher effective rates.
Both corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes have been going up,
as have state and local as well as sales taxes. That has put more
and more of the burden on lower wage earners, while higher wage
earners and those not relying on earned income have gotten a break.
It's time to put more purchasing power in the hands of lower income
people.

And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.

The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all!
How is that fair?

Obviously that is NOT true. It only holds for federal income taxes, and
is in part due to the fact that we as society through our representatives
have created a tax code that gives credits for living. Employed people
pay payroll taxes (some of that paid by the employer), they pay state
taxes and sales taxes, and whether or not they own their homes, they pay
property and school taxes.

I'm with you on eliminating loopholes. There are two goals of the tax
system as it is currently implemented:
1. To raise revenue.
2. To foster (or suppress) social activity.

And to foster or suppress economic activities (this is important too).
We all directly or indirectly agreed to the system at some point. But
now the system has become burdensome by complexity and inequitable
because it created (intended AND unintended) loopholes and special
circumstances. Some of those were created by hanky panky. There should
be an independent nonpartisan committee that examines the "special
categories" and explains who and what the consequences are of each
special condition in the tax code.

For example, we think that home ownership is a worthwhile thing, so we
give a tax deduction for mortgage interest payments. We think smoking
is bad, so we put a confiscatory tax on cigarettes.

Only if you are willing to give up the social goals sometimes
associated with taxation will you be able to make the tax system
"fair."

Yes indeed!! The social and economic goals need to be reexamined over
time. Is this or that special condition still what we all want? Or
shuld home mortgage interest over a certain amount NOT be deductible
anymore? The AMT was a way to limit deductibility, but the asses didn't
put in a cost of living escalation clause, so now the AMT is applied to
people who aren't that wealthy. Is that right?

I'm sure you and I and others can keep going on ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

We would be even richer as a
nation if the resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going
to corporations and really rich people who can afford to stash it
abroad.


There is a common notion, with some justification, that if a magic
jellybean could somehow redistribute all the wealth in the nation
equally, within a short time, the original distribution would again
obtain.

Herman Cain said just this week, "If you're not rich, blame yourself!"

Having had help gettting were I am, I am sure that such a statement is a
bad joke for many who didn't have the same type of help. Cain is a flash
in the pan, a true American politician. Next he'll write a book how he
almost won the presidency. He has nice slogans and appeals to the simple
minds that think as simplistic as he does. Just wait until more real
economists talk more about his 9-9-9 plan that'll suck the life out of
poor people.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 10/12/2011 2:05 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On 10/12/2011 11:16 AM, Han wrote:

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent will
lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

That works ... as long as you don't do it with credit (cards) that
further enslaves them by legal usury!

Mea culpa ... but that process chaps my rosy red.

I'm lucky, and, perhaps, not dumb, in that I always pay off all CCs each
month.


As do I, actually my credit cards, as do probably yours do, actually
pay me to use them. And that works for every one providing they pay
them off every month.

I believe this country would be a lot better off if our kids were
required to take and pass simple finance classes before graduating. Or
you must pass a basic understanding of finance charges and their real
impact before qualifying for a credit card, controlled by a 3rd party.

On 10/13/2011 7:10 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/12/2011 2:05 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On 10/12/2011 11:16 AM, Han wrote:

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent will
lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

That works ... as long as you don't do it with credit (cards) that
further enslaves them by legal usury!

Mea culpa ... but that process chaps my rosy red.

I'm lucky, and, perhaps, not dumb, in that I always pay off all CCs each
month.


As do I, actually my credit cards, as do probably yours do, actually pay
me to use them. And that works for every one providing they pay them off
every month.

I believe this country would be a lot better off if our kids were
required to take and pass simple finance classes before graduating. Or
you must pass a basic understanding of finance charges and their real
impact before qualifying for a credit card, controlled by a 3rd party.

What you guys do, besides paying off your own credit card debt every
month, is grossly overestimate the intelligence of the progressive
fostered middle class who has most of the credit card debt in this country.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 10/12/2011 9:33 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:

But can anyone truly say that any person is worth more than a million
dollars a year? I certainly don't think so.

What's "worth" got to do with anything? Some HAVE more than a million
because others willingly GAVE it to them.

Oh, there are exceptions, but in the main the wealthy earned their fortunes.



Those that earned their wealth, how much harder than you did they work
to earn that amount?


Lets say you work 40 hours a week and earn $100,000 per year.

Do you think that on average that some one that makes $1,000,000 per
year has worked 10 times harder than you?

For the most part the wealthy beyond need just happened to be in the
right place at the right time, so to speak.

On 10/12/2011 9:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:

We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the loopholes
and preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher effective rates.
Both corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes have been going up,
as have state and local as well as sales taxes. That has put more
and more of the burden on lower wage earners, while higher wage
earners and those not relying on earned income have gotten a break.
It's time to put more purchasing power in the hands of lower income
people.

And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.

The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all! How is
that fair?

I'm with you on eliminating loopholes. There are two goals of the tax system
as it is currently implemented:
1. To raise revenue.
2. To foster (or suppress) social activity.



IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount of
taxes. THIS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO IMPLEMENT AND THERE COULD BE
SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT DAMN FEW. Every one means a family of 5 pays 5
times what a single person pays. You might be surprised to learn that
it is doable with the understanding that it would take several years to
fully implement.

Would that be fair? Absolutely. Why should you pay more taxes than
your neighbor when he gets the same benefits as you. Why shouldn't he
pays as much in taxes since he gets the same benefits as you?


A fact, a great number of voters do not pay taxes and expect the
government to take care of them. One political party uses these voters
to keep them in office. Take away the freebies and make everyone pay
their fair share and see what happen with government. No more playing
favorites. Every one will expect the government to trim down and act
responsibly because that will lower everyone's taxes. If you don't pay
taxes you really don't care whether the government is going farther into
debt or not.
We need to get the government back to doing what it was intended to do,
defend out country and maintain the infrastructure.

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
news
Snip



IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent will
lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd love it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to corporations
and really rich people who can afford to stash it abroad.


Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? Probably
not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the hand that
feeds us.

Swingman wrote in
:

On 10/13/2011 7:10 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/12/2011 2:05 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On 10/12/2011 11:16 AM, Han wrote:

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent
will lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

That works ... as long as you don't do it with credit (cards) that
further enslaves them by legal usury!

Mea culpa ... but that process chaps my rosy red.

I'm lucky, and, perhaps, not dumb, in that I always pay off all CCs
each month.


As do I, actually my credit cards, as do probably yours do, actually
pay me to use them. And that works for every one providing they pay
them off every month.

I believe this country would be a lot better off if our kids were
required to take and pass simple finance classes before graduating.
Or you must pass a basic understanding of finance charges and their
real impact before qualifying for a credit card, controlled by a 3rd
party.

What you guys do, besides paying off your own credit card debt every
month, is grossly overestimate the intelligence of the progressive
fostered middle class who has most of the credit card debt in this
country.

Amen. Have had to rescue a few people from their mistakes in this
regard, including myself. I hadn't read all of the fine print of the
"free" loan by a Citibank CC. Free, if you paid it off within a certain
period. They forgot to tell me (or I didn't comprehend the language)
that payments first went to any unpaid balance, before the statement
reflected that balance. Ended with interest charged on the first
statement after that. Luckily I could tell them that I paid off the
total "loan" that instant and to go shove the whole shebang.

It helps to have reserve funds, but I fully understand that not everyone
has them, or can maintain them. I just heard I'll have to spend a few to
trim a tree that is dropping rotting branches. Darn DPW oaks ... I
guess that happens with 80 year-old trees ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 10/12/2011 12:05 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:48:28 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On 12 Oct 2011 11:55:54 GMT, wrote:

"Ed wrote in
:


wrote in message
...
A brilliant innovator and marketer. Changed the way we work with
computers.

However, Apples have stolen family-wage jobs here to be made in
foreign factories that cruelly exploit their employees and ruin the
environment, with the expectation that the poor folks here will still
forever buy the Apples with their last dimes, all to enrich some
shareholders who apparently believe these bad practices will never
affect them.

I'm pretty conflicted about Mr. Jobs.

I own no Apple products. As for Jobs and jobs, I'd guess he is no
better or worse than any other computer/electronics maker. What
portable phone is made in the US or Canada? Try to find a toaster not
made in China. Yet we buy because it is such a good value. Is it?

The Pogo rule seems to apply inmost cases. "we have met the enemy and
it is us:

Pretty soon the US$ will have devalued sufficiently so that manufacturing
here will become profitable again (it is already for cars and some other
things). Now whether this new-found wealth will flow to workers or
investors/rich people will be the next question ...

What's your best guess, Han? Why should things change regarding
wealth?


IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent buy
more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there? How
do the poor buy more?)

There are exceptions to this answer but the poor buy more by earning
more. The poor will remain poor as long as they are given things that
they did not earn. The poor have no business trying to keep up with the
Jones. For those that don't know how to earn and are capable, they need
to learn how.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 10/12/2011 9:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:

We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the
loopholes and preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher effective
rates. Both corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes have been
going up, as have state and local as well as sales taxes. That has
put more and more of the burden on lower wage earners, while higher
wage earners and those not relying on earned income have gotten a
break. It's time to put more purchasing power in the hands of lower
income people.

And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.

The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all!
How is that fair?

I'm with you on eliminating loopholes. There are two goals of the tax
system as it is currently implemented:
1. To raise revenue.
2. To foster (or suppress) social activity.



IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount
of taxes. THIS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO IMPLEMENT AND THERE COULD
BE SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT DAMN FEW. Every one means a family of 5 pays 5
times what a single person pays. You might be surprised to learn that
it is doable with the understanding that it would take several years
to fully implement.

Would that be fair? Absolutely. Why should you pay more taxes than
your neighbor when he gets the same benefits as you. Why shouldn't he
pays as much in taxes since he gets the same benefits as you?


A fact, a great number of voters do not pay taxes and expect the
government to take care of them. One political party uses these
voters to keep them in office. Take away the freebies and make
everyone pay their fair share and see what happen with government. No
more playing favorites. Every one will expect the government to trim
down and act responsibly because that will lower everyone's taxes. If
you don't pay taxes you really don't care whether the government is
going farther into debt or not.
We need to get the government back to doing what it was intended to
do, defend out country and maintain the infrastructure.

Sounds good, but what you are asking for is a national sales tax. And
then we'd have to up the wages of lower earning people somehow so they
can pay those taxes. And what are you going to do with people who like
to revel in luxury versus the frugal ones? Levy a luxury tax on luxury
items? In the way the Europeans have different scales of VAT for
different classes of merchandise? Remember that over there VAT goes up
to at least 20% for certain things. (VAT is always included in the sale
price).


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 10/13/2011 7:19 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 10/13/2011 7:10 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/12/2011 2:05 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On 10/12/2011 11:16 AM, Han wrote:

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent will
lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

That works ... as long as you don't do it with credit (cards) that
further enslaves them by legal usury!

Mea culpa ... but that process chaps my rosy red.

I'm lucky, and, perhaps, not dumb, in that I always pay off all CCs each
month.


As do I, actually my credit cards, as do probably yours do, actually pay
me to use them. And that works for every one providing they pay them off
every month.

I believe this country would be a lot better off if our kids were
required to take and pass simple finance classes before graduating. Or
you must pass a basic understanding of finance charges and their real
impact before qualifying for a credit card, controlled by a 3rd party.

What you guys do, besides paying off your own credit card debt every
month, is grossly overestimate the intelligence of the progressive
fostered middle class who has most of the credit card debt in this country.


Precicely and why I believe it should be taught in schools what the real
cost of financing is.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
news
Snip



IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent
will lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd love
it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to
corporations and really rich people who can afford to stash it
abroad.


Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? Probably
not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the hand
that feeds us.

I am paying my fair share of taxes, as far as I can tell. I support in
various ways those around me. I have also offered (maybe in words that
were too obscure) my Akeda dovetail jig for any reasonable price, since
I didn't like it.

Corporations are structured in different ways. Some loose money, some
make a profit. Seems difficult to me to structure them so as to always
equitably remunerate ALL who contribute to the profit (if any). Look at
the car manufacturers. Because of the excessively adversary positions
between workers, management and investors everyone has lost lately. But
how do you make things really equitable??

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid