Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:26:26 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500,
wrote:

On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@
4ax.com:

Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
emergency instead of 3?

That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)

OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up
by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump.

I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want
(within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a
huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close
to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste
time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook
and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of
insurance, and so on.

Puckdropper

Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll
agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle
in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education"

"Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is
never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by
default wasted.\

What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education"
without wasting money on the "education system"

Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School
Boards, etc, are a large money waster.


Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government
should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education
should be abolished.

It should be downsized - both at federal and state/province level -
as should the local school boards. Put the money into schools,
teachers, books and resources, not Tajma Hall board headquarters.
  #43   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:59:27 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:26:26 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500,
wrote:

On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@
4ax.com:

Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
emergency instead of 3?

That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)

OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up
by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump.

I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want
(within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a
huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close
to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste
time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook
and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of
insurance, and so on.

Puckdropper
Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll
agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle
in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education"

"Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is
never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by
default wasted.\

What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education"
without wasting money on the "education system"

Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School
Boards, etc, are a large money waster.


Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government
should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education
should be abolished.

It should be downsized - both at federal and state/province level -
as should the local school boards. Put the money into schools,
teachers, books and resources, not Tajma Hall board headquarters.


There is already plenty of money in the schools. More than the
results justify, certainly.
  #44   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On 1/16/2017 6:14 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:19:11 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/15/2017 10:50 PM,
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:27:42 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:


snipped to make some pussies happy, here.

Housing costs? Some of the new'ish homes that people could barely
afford to begin with need new roofs, fences and values are probably up
25% from pre crash days. We have a unique situation here.

25%? That's nothing. My house is up almost 100%, if the estimates
(and tax assessments) are to be believed. And, yes, my taxes have
doubled in that five years. That increase in __T_ is small compared
to PI_I.



Well 25% is nothing but you said you were paying .5% tax IIRC. So if
your home is valued at 200K now , it was 100k your tax went up a
thousand dollars?


Double those numbers but, yes.


We pay 3% and have had an increase of 25% to say only $250k., so 3% of
50K is 50% more, $1500 than your increase and that has been in the last
3 years.


What's the tax (T) increase as a percentage of PITI?

And these numbers are may be skewed.

But
Below is fact.


A home owner in our neighborhood that has a home valued at $250K pays
$7500 per year in property taxes. And many of those homes are $300k
plus. A 25 percent vlaue increase on a tax that is 3% is quite a chunk.


As a percentage of the Principle + Interest + Tax + Insurance costs?
It's only the tax part that's increasing.

OK, a 30-year mortgage on 250K, at 4%, is roughly $14K per year
(assuming no PMI). Add the tax ($7500), and insurance ($2K) and the
total is $23.5K. If the value of the home goes up 25%, the taxes
increase to $9375, or a little under $2K. This portion of owning the
house has gone up around 8.5%, surely less than a rental during the
same time (not only their taxes are going up but their value). If the
owner can't absorb this increase, over 3(?) years, they're in way over
their heads, even without tax increases. They'd probably be in worse
shape without the home.


That is what I have been trying to say, in over their heads because of
the guaranteed loans and as you mentioned "if" any were on an AGM to
qualify the situation of the house payments got worse.

You were hinting $400K on your home and 5 years ago it was half on
taxes. If you are paying .5 percent on property taxes, I see a $1000
increase in annual taxes over the past 5 years.

Now consider home values here went up a little between 3~6 years ago
but. BUT in the last 3 years they have gone up 30% playing catsup.
there is a 10% limit per year but if they do not use the full 10% they
can carry it over and add to the following year/s.

So our house was around $165K 5 years ago and now it is at $217K
That increase has changed out tax liability from $4950 to $6510 per
year. That is over $1500 on a home about half the value of yours.
Homes in your range that are in our neighborhoods are looking in the
neighborhood of a $3000 increase in annual taxes, triple your increase.

Given many of these residents were guaranteed a loan and many were way
in over their heads and clueless about what they were getting into,
they bought the pie in the sky with tax payments of approximately
$12,000 per year on top of P&I.

And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of
the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender.

And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly
when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a
lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any
of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft.


  #45   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:57:23 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:22:57 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:07:04 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/15/2017 10:46 PM,
wrote:



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


In theory it works that way. Unfortunately, too many people don't
understand it. When the come around every 10 years (now 5) I hear people
complain that once revalued their tax will go up. The town finance
committee seems willing to make that come true. It is a money grab with
an increased budget.


My point was that it doesn't work like that here. It's the tax rate
that's "fixed", not the budgets.

The "mil rate" is fixed - which means you pay the same per thousand
dollars of "assessed value" as the next guy.


Right. It's that way here. In Vermont the mil rate wasn't fixed and
changed with the budget. IOW, here property values drive the tax
paid, thus the budget (mil rate is fixed). In Vermont, it's the
budget that drives the mil rate, thus the taxes paid. It's a big
difference.


  #46   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:27:06 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/16/2017 6:14 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:19:11 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/15/2017 10:50 PM,
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:27:42 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:


snipped to make some pussies happy, here.

Housing costs? Some of the new'ish homes that people could barely
afford to begin with need new roofs, fences and values are probably up
25% from pre crash days. We have a unique situation here.

25%? That's nothing. My house is up almost 100%, if the estimates
(and tax assessments) are to be believed. And, yes, my taxes have
doubled in that five years. That increase in __T_ is small compared
to PI_I.



Well 25% is nothing but you said you were paying .5% tax IIRC. So if
your home is valued at 200K now , it was 100k your tax went up a
thousand dollars?


Double those numbers but, yes.


We pay 3% and have had an increase of 25% to say only $250k., so 3% of
50K is 50% more, $1500 than your increase and that has been in the last
3 years.


What's the tax (T) increase as a percentage of PITI?

And these numbers are may be skewed.

But
Below is fact.


A home owner in our neighborhood that has a home valued at $250K pays
$7500 per year in property taxes. And many of those homes are $300k
plus. A 25 percent vlaue increase on a tax that is 3% is quite a chunk.


As a percentage of the Principle + Interest + Tax + Insurance costs?
It's only the tax part that's increasing.

OK, a 30-year mortgage on 250K, at 4%, is roughly $14K per year
(assuming no PMI). Add the tax ($7500), and insurance ($2K) and the
total is $23.5K. If the value of the home goes up 25%, the taxes
increase to $9375, or a little under $2K. This portion of owning the
house has gone up around 8.5%, surely less than a rental during the
same time (not only their taxes are going up but their value). If the
owner can't absorb this increase, over 3(?) years, they're in way over
their heads, even without tax increases. They'd probably be in worse
shape without the home.


That is what I have been trying to say, in over their heads because of
the guaranteed loans and as you mentioned "if" any were on an AGM to
qualify the situation of the house payments got worse.


But it's only 8.5% over three years. They'd surely be worse off
without the house.

You were hinting $400K on your home and 5 years ago it was half on
taxes. If you are paying .5 percent on property taxes, I see a $1000
increase in annual taxes over the past 5 years.


Sorry, our current house is about 1%. Our previous house had about a
..5% tax rate.

Now consider home values here went up a little between 3~6 years ago
but. BUT in the last 3 years they have gone up 30% playing catsup.
there is a 10% limit per year but if they do not use the full 10% they
can carry it over and add to the following year/s.


The home values here dropped in half during that time (the original
sale on my house was ~$360K.

So our house was around $165K 5 years ago and now it is at $217K
That increase has changed out tax liability from $4950 to $6510 per
year. That is over $1500 on a home about half the value of yours.
Homes in your range that are in our neighborhoods are looking in the
neighborhood of a $3000 increase in annual taxes, triple your increase.


But, using your previous examples, the diffrence is 8.5% over three
years. Not much.

Given many of these residents were guaranteed a loan and many were way
in over their heads and clueless about what they were getting into,
they bought the pie in the sky with tax payments of approximately
$12,000 per year on top of P&I.


What do you mean "guaranteed a loan"?

And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of
the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender.

And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly
when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a
lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any
of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft.

  #47   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On 1/16/2017 7:41 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:27:06 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/16/2017 6:14 PM,
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:19:11 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/15/2017 10:50 PM,
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:27:42 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

snipped to make some pussies happy, here.

Housing costs? Some of the new'ish homes that people could barely
afford to begin with need new roofs, fences and values are probably up
25% from pre crash days. We have a unique situation here.

25%? That's nothing. My house is up almost 100%, if the estimates
(and tax assessments) are to be believed. And, yes, my taxes have
doubled in that five years. That increase in __T_ is small compared
to PI_I.



Well 25% is nothing but you said you were paying .5% tax IIRC. So if
your home is valued at 200K now , it was 100k your tax went up a
thousand dollars?

Double those numbers but, yes.


We pay 3% and have had an increase of 25% to say only $250k., so 3% of
50K is 50% more, $1500 than your increase and that has been in the last
3 years.

What's the tax (T) increase as a percentage of PITI?

And these numbers are may be skewed.

But
Below is fact.


A home owner in our neighborhood that has a home valued at $250K pays
$7500 per year in property taxes. And many of those homes are $300k
plus. A 25 percent vlaue increase on a tax that is 3% is quite a chunk.

As a percentage of the Principle + Interest + Tax + Insurance costs?
It's only the tax part that's increasing.

OK, a 30-year mortgage on 250K, at 4%, is roughly $14K per year
(assuming no PMI). Add the tax ($7500), and insurance ($2K) and the
total is $23.5K. If the value of the home goes up 25%, the taxes
increase to $9375, or a little under $2K. This portion of owning the
house has gone up around 8.5%, surely less than a rental during the
same time (not only their taxes are going up but their value). If the
owner can't absorb this increase, over 3(?) years, they're in way over
their heads, even without tax increases. They'd probably be in worse
shape without the home.


That is what I have been trying to say, in over their heads because of
the guaranteed loans and as you mentioned "if" any were on an AGM to
qualify the situation of the house payments got worse.


But it's only 8.5% over three years. They'd surely be worse off
without the house.


They wold be better off in a home that they can afford.


You were hinting $400K on your home and 5 years ago it was half on
taxes. If you are paying .5 percent on property taxes, I see a $1000
increase in annual taxes over the past 5 years.


Sorry, our current house is about 1%. Our previous house had about a
.5% tax rate.


Still your tax rate is 1/3 of ours and less than that on some of the
newer neighborhoods.




Now consider home values here went up a little between 3~6 years ago
but. BUT in the last 3 years they have gone up 30% playing catsup.
there is a 10% limit per year but if they do not use the full 10% they
can carry it over and add to the following year/s.


The home values here dropped in half during that time (the original
sale on my house was ~$360K.

So our house was around $165K 5 years ago and now it is at $217K
That increase has changed out tax liability from $4950 to $6510 per
year. That is over $1500 on a home about half the value of yours.
Homes in your range that are in our neighborhoods are looking in the
neighborhood of a $3000 increase in annual taxes, triple your increase.


But, using your previous examples, the diffrence is 8.5% over three
years. Not much.


It is a hell of a lot if 8.5% is a large number to begin with and your
pay has not gone up.


Given many of these residents were guaranteed a loan and many were way
in over their heads and clueless about what they were getting into,
they bought the pie in the sky with tax payments of approximately
$12,000 per year on top of P&I.


What do you mean "guaranteed a loan"?


Fanie May, CountryWide? or something like that. These lenders had
government guaranteed money to give out loans to any one. A great
number of these people would not qualify for these loans today, with the
same income.




And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of
the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender.

And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly
when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a
lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any
of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft.


  #48   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:52:39 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/16/2017 7:41 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:27:06 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/16/2017 6:14 PM,
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:19:11 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/15/2017 10:50 PM,
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:27:42 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

snipped to make some pussies happy, here.

Housing costs? Some of the new'ish homes that people could barely
afford to begin with need new roofs, fences and values are probably up
25% from pre crash days. We have a unique situation here.

25%? That's nothing. My house is up almost 100%, if the estimates
(and tax assessments) are to be believed. And, yes, my taxes have
doubled in that five years. That increase in __T_ is small compared
to PI_I.



Well 25% is nothing but you said you were paying .5% tax IIRC. So if
your home is valued at 200K now , it was 100k your tax went up a
thousand dollars?

Double those numbers but, yes.


We pay 3% and have had an increase of 25% to say only $250k., so 3% of
50K is 50% more, $1500 than your increase and that has been in the last
3 years.

What's the tax (T) increase as a percentage of PITI?

And these numbers are may be skewed.

But
Below is fact.


A home owner in our neighborhood that has a home valued at $250K pays
$7500 per year in property taxes. And many of those homes are $300k
plus. A 25 percent vlaue increase on a tax that is 3% is quite a chunk.

As a percentage of the Principle + Interest + Tax + Insurance costs?
It's only the tax part that's increasing.

OK, a 30-year mortgage on 250K, at 4%, is roughly $14K per year
(assuming no PMI). Add the tax ($7500), and insurance ($2K) and the
total is $23.5K. If the value of the home goes up 25%, the taxes
increase to $9375, or a little under $2K. This portion of owning the
house has gone up around 8.5%, surely less than a rental during the
same time (not only their taxes are going up but their value). If the
owner can't absorb this increase, over 3(?) years, they're in way over
their heads, even without tax increases. They'd probably be in worse
shape without the home.

That is what I have been trying to say, in over their heads because of
the guaranteed loans and as you mentioned "if" any were on an AGM to
qualify the situation of the house payments got worse.


But it's only 8.5% over three years. They'd surely be worse off
without the house.


They wold be better off in a home that they can afford.


They might be better of living (and working) elsewhere but that's not
the issue.


You were hinting $400K on your home and 5 years ago it was half on
taxes. If you are paying .5 percent on property taxes, I see a $1000
increase in annual taxes over the past 5 years.


Sorry, our current house is about 1%. Our previous house had about a
.5% tax rate.


Still your tax rate is 1/3 of ours and less than that on some of the
newer neighborhoods.


The tax rate shouldn't have anything to do with the neighborhood. The
point isn't the tax rate, or even the taxes paid, rather the
_increase_ in the cost of owning the home. I don't see how a 3%/year
increase could bankrupt anyone.


Now consider home values here went up a little between 3~6 years ago
but. BUT in the last 3 years they have gone up 30% playing catsup.
there is a 10% limit per year but if they do not use the full 10% they
can carry it over and add to the following year/s.


The home values here dropped in half during that time (the original
sale on my house was ~$360K.

So our house was around $165K 5 years ago and now it is at $217K
That increase has changed out tax liability from $4950 to $6510 per
year. That is over $1500 on a home about half the value of yours.
Homes in your range that are in our neighborhoods are looking in the
neighborhood of a $3000 increase in annual taxes, triple your increase.


But, using your previous examples, the diffrence is 8.5% over three
years. Not much.


It is a hell of a lot if 8.5% is a large number to begin with and your
pay has not gone up.


Deliver pizzas one night a week. Drive an Uber. Why aren't you
ragging on their food budget?

Given many of these residents were guaranteed a loan and many were way
in over their heads and clueless about what they were getting into,
they bought the pie in the sky with tax payments of approximately
$12,000 per year on top of P&I.


What do you mean "guaranteed a loan"?


Fanie May, CountryWide? or something like that. These lenders had
government guaranteed money to give out loans to any one. A great
number of these people would not qualify for these loans today, with the
same income.


Oh, I thought you meant that the borrowers were somehow guaranteed a
loan. The loans are guaranteed but there are still standards for the
underwriting of those loans. One of those is that the PITI, plus all
other credit, can't be above something like 30% of income.

If they're going bankrupt, the problem isn't the taxes on their home.

And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of
the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender.

And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly
when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a
lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any
of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft.


There are still developments here advertising "starting in the $140s".
They're all postage stamp lots but they look to be in that size range.
There are also many "starting in the $400s" (and, of course, higher
but they don't advertise the same way).
  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:23:32 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:59:27 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:26:26 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500,
wrote:

On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@
4ax.com:

Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
emergency instead of 3?

That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)

OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up
by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump.

I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want
(within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a
huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close
to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste
time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook
and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of
insurance, and so on.

Puckdropper
Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll
agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle
in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education"

"Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is
never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by
default wasted.\

What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education"
without wasting money on the "education system"

Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School
Boards, etc, are a large money waster.

Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government
should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education
should be abolished.

It should be downsized - both at federal and state/province level -
as should the local school boards. Put the money into schools,
teachers, books and resources, not Tajma Hall board headquarters.


There is already plenty of money in the schools. More than the
results justify, certainly.

Mabee in some.. Not in the local school where I taught - and it was
a pretty good school. In a good area.

Perhaps it is different in the USa - where the results DO appear to be
a bit poorer - but the teachers are paid less, etc etc etc.
  #50   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:27:06 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrot

SNIPP

So our house was around $165K 5 years ago and now it is at $217K
That increase has changed out tax liability from $4950 to $6510 per
year. That is over $1500 on a home about half the value of yours.
Homes in your range that are in our neighborhoods are looking in the
neighborhood of a $3000 increase in annual taxes, triple your increase.


Your taxes are double mine on 3.4 the house value.

Given many of these residents were guaranteed a loan and many were way
in over their heads and clueless about what they were getting into,
they bought the pie in the sky with tax payments of approximately
$12,000 per year on top of P&I.

And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of
the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender.

And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly
when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a
lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any
of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft.




  #51   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:28:17 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:57:23 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:22:57 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:07:04 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/15/2017 10:46 PM,
wrote:



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


In theory it works that way. Unfortunately, too many people don't
understand it. When the come around every 10 years (now 5) I hear people
complain that once revalued their tax will go up. The town finance
committee seems willing to make that come true. It is a money grab with
an increased budget.

My point was that it doesn't work like that here. It's the tax rate
that's "fixed", not the budgets.

The "mil rate" is fixed - which means you pay the same per thousand
dollars of "assessed value" as the next guy.


Right. It's that way here. In Vermont the mil rate wasn't fixed and
changed with the budget. IOW, here property values drive the tax
paid, thus the budget (mil rate is fixed). In Vermont, it's the
budget that drives the mil rate, thus the taxes paid. It's a big
difference.

The mil rate changes from year to year, but is fixed for the region
for the year.
  #52   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:51:57 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:23:32 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:59:27 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:26:26 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500,
wrote:

On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@
4ax.com:

Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
emergency instead of 3?

That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)

OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up
by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump.

I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want
(within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a
huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close
to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste
time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook
and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of
insurance, and so on.

Puckdropper
Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll
agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle
in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education"

"Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is
never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by
default wasted.\

What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education"
without wasting money on the "education system"

Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School
Boards, etc, are a large money waster.

Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government
should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education
should be abolished.
It should be downsized - both at federal and state/province level -
as should the local school boards. Put the money into schools,
teachers, books and resources, not Tajma Hall board headquarters.


There is already plenty of money in the schools. More than the
results justify, certainly.

Mabee in some.. Not in the local school where I taught - and it was
a pretty good school. In a good area.


The US average is $12K. NYC schools cost well over $20K per student
and it looks like West Texas isn't any less.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-how-per-pupil-spending-compares-across-us.html

You're not going to convince me that the results (by any measure you
want to use, besides "participation trophies") justify the costs.

Perhaps it is different in the USa - where the results DO appear to be
a bit poorer - but the teachers are paid less, etc etc etc.


Less?????

$100K salary isn't rare, absolute job security, and 100% retirement
after 30 years, isn't pocket change. There is _no_corelation between
teacher pay and student performance. Of course, administration costs
don't help anyone, except administrators.
  #53   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:55:06 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:28:17 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:57:23 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:22:57 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:07:04 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/15/2017 10:46 PM,
wrote:



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


In theory it works that way. Unfortunately, too many people don't
understand it. When the come around every 10 years (now 5) I hear people
complain that once revalued their tax will go up. The town finance
committee seems willing to make that come true. It is a money grab with
an increased budget.

My point was that it doesn't work like that here. It's the tax rate
that's "fixed", not the budgets.
The "mil rate" is fixed - which means you pay the same per thousand
dollars of "assessed value" as the next guy.


Right. It's that way here. In Vermont the mil rate wasn't fixed and
changed with the budget. IOW, here property values drive the tax
paid, thus the budget (mil rate is fixed). In Vermont, it's the
budget that drives the mil rate, thus the taxes paid. It's a big
difference.


The mil rate changes from year to year, but is fixed for the region
for the year.


Now you have me confused. If the mil rate changes from year to year,
you're more like Vermont. That makes more sense than having budgets
controlled by real estate values (as it is here).

By "region", do you mean across many taxing entities? Cities pay the
same as towns, pay the same as unincorporated areas? Schools aren't
localy controlled? Roads, fire, and police aren't locally controlled?
  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



I love those videos

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

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

I vote for "not cheap".


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

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

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

Correct

Buying and affording are very different animals.

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

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

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

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


Think about the housing mortgage crisis 9 years ago.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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


Not to the point.


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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


Move to where?


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


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




  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

In article r3pq7cp4ud0qj5p9fpg5g23bmruthj39tu@
4ax.com, says...

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500,
wrote:

On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@
4ax.com:

Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
emergency instead of 3?

That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)

OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up
by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump.

I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want
(within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a
huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close
to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste
time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook
and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of
insurance, and so on.

Puckdropper

Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll
agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle
in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education"

"Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is
never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by
default wasted.\

What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education"
without wasting money on the "education system"

Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School
Boards, etc, are a large money waster.


Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government
should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education
should be abolished.


If the locals weren't totally mucking it up I
would agree with you. But they are and have
been for as long as I can remember.









































  #56   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On 1/16/2017 8:23 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:52:39 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/16/2017 7:41 PM,
wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:27:06 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/16/2017 6:14 PM,
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:19:11 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/15/2017 10:50 PM,
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:27:42 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

snipped to make some pussies happy, here.

Housing costs? Some of the new'ish homes that people could barely
afford to begin with need new roofs, fences and values are probably up
25% from pre crash days. We have a unique situation here.

25%? That's nothing. My house is up almost 100%, if the estimates
(and tax assessments) are to be believed. And, yes, my taxes have
doubled in that five years. That increase in __T_ is small compared
to PI_I.



Well 25% is nothing but you said you were paying .5% tax IIRC. So if
your home is valued at 200K now , it was 100k your tax went up a
thousand dollars?

Double those numbers but, yes.


We pay 3% and have had an increase of 25% to say only $250k., so 3% of
50K is 50% more, $1500 than your increase and that has been in the last
3 years.

What's the tax (T) increase as a percentage of PITI?

And these numbers are may be skewed.

But
Below is fact.


A home owner in our neighborhood that has a home valued at $250K pays
$7500 per year in property taxes. And many of those homes are $300k
plus. A 25 percent vlaue increase on a tax that is 3% is quite a chunk.

As a percentage of the Principle + Interest + Tax + Insurance costs?
It's only the tax part that's increasing.

OK, a 30-year mortgage on 250K, at 4%, is roughly $14K per year
(assuming no PMI). Add the tax ($7500), and insurance ($2K) and the
total is $23.5K. If the value of the home goes up 25%, the taxes
increase to $9375, or a little under $2K. This portion of owning the
house has gone up around 8.5%, surely less than a rental during the
same time (not only their taxes are going up but their value). If the
owner can't absorb this increase, over 3(?) years, they're in way over
their heads, even without tax increases. They'd probably be in worse
shape without the home.

That is what I have been trying to say, in over their heads because of
the guaranteed loans and as you mentioned "if" any were on an AGM to
qualify the situation of the house payments got worse.

But it's only 8.5% over three years. They'd surely be worse off
without the house.


They wold be better off in a home that they can afford.


They might be better of living (and working) elsewhere but that's not
the issue.


You were hinting $400K on your home and 5 years ago it was half on
taxes. If you are paying .5 percent on property taxes, I see a $1000
increase in annual taxes over the past 5 years.

Sorry, our current house is about 1%. Our previous house had about a
.5% tax rate.


Still your tax rate is 1/3 of ours and less than that on some of the
newer neighborhoods.


The tax rate shouldn't have anything to do with the neighborhood. The
point isn't the tax rate, or even the taxes paid, rather the
_increase_ in the cost of owning the home. I don't see how a 3%/year
increase could bankrupt anyone.


Now consider home values here went up a little between 3~6 years ago
but. BUT in the last 3 years they have gone up 30% playing catsup.
there is a 10% limit per year but if they do not use the full 10% they
can carry it over and add to the following year/s.

The home values here dropped in half during that time (the original
sale on my house was ~$360K.

So our house was around $165K 5 years ago and now it is at $217K
That increase has changed out tax liability from $4950 to $6510 per
year. That is over $1500 on a home about half the value of yours.
Homes in your range that are in our neighborhoods are looking in the
neighborhood of a $3000 increase in annual taxes, triple your increase.

But, using your previous examples, the diffrence is 8.5% over three
years. Not much.


Explain that to those that are loosing their homes. Do you understand
the concept of living from paycheck to paycheck. Typically means if you
are living on the edge.




It is a hell of a lot if 8.5% is a large number to begin with and your
pay has not gone up.


Deliver pizzas one night a week. Drive an Uber. Why aren't you
ragging on their food budget?


You are preaching to the choir.




Given many of these residents were guaranteed a loan and many were way
in over their heads and clueless about what they were getting into,
they bought the pie in the sky with tax payments of approximately
$12,000 per year on top of P&I.

What do you mean "guaranteed a loan"?


Fanie May, CountryWide? or something like that. These lenders had
government guaranteed money to give out loans to any one. A great
number of these people would not qualify for these loans today, with the
same income.


Oh, I thought you meant that the borrowers were somehow guaranteed a
loan. The loans are guaranteed but there are still standards for the
underwriting of those loans.


Yes but there was tremendous amount of looking the other way and
suggesting what to put on the application.


One of those is that the PITI, plus all
other credit, can't be above something like 30% of income.

If they're going bankrupt, the problem isn't the taxes on their home.


I beg to differ, if you do not have a hundred dollars to spare each
month a $1200 tax increase puts you over the edge.


And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of
the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender.

And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly
when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a
lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any
of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft.


There are still developments here advertising "starting in the $140s".
They're all postage stamp lots but they look to be in that size range.
There are also many "starting in the $400s" (and, of course, higher
but they don't advertise the same way).


Well moving from a $300K home to a $150K home is beneath these people.

Ultimately I am not saying that there is not a way to prevent all of
this but some people will live in a home until their savings runs out
and are foreclosed on. They have an image to uphold and no money sense.



  #58   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:12:00 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:51:57 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:23:32 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:59:27 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:26:26 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500,
wrote:

On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@
4ax.com:

Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
emergency instead of 3?

That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)

OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up
by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump.

I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want
(within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a
huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close
to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste
time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook
and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of
insurance, and so on.

Puckdropper
Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll
agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle
in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education"

"Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is
never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by
default wasted.\

What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education"
without wasting money on the "education system"

Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School
Boards, etc, are a large money waster.

Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government
should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education
should be abolished.
It should be downsized - both at federal and state/province level -
as should the local school boards. Put the money into schools,
teachers, books and resources, not Tajma Hall board headquarters.

There is already plenty of money in the schools. More than the
results justify, certainly.

Mabee in some.. Not in the local school where I taught - and it was
a pretty good school. In a good area.


The US average is $12K. NYC schools cost well over $20K per student
and it looks like West Texas isn't any less.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-how-per-pupil-spending-compares-across-us.html

You're not going to convince me that the results (by any measure you
want to use, besides "participation trophies") justify the costs.

Perhaps it is different in the USa - where the results DO appear to be
a bit poorer - but the teachers are paid less, etc etc etc.


Less?????

$100K salary isn't rare, absolute job security, and 100% retirement
after 30 years, isn't pocket change. There is _no_corelation between
teacher pay and student performance. Of course, administration costs
don't help anyone, except administrators.

I was talking to a teacher, a policeman, and a firefighter in
Flkorida about 15 or so years ago, and they were all paid so poorly
they had to work second jobs to make ends meet - less than $40,000 for
each of the three. That's what I based my comment on.

A good teacher with a lot of experience who really does their job in
an inner city school might be worth on the high side of $100,000, but
an idler in a decent school? I agree with you - no way.
There ARE a lot of teachers who should be retired (or fired) but
there are also quite a few MORE who are there for the love of teaching
- passing on knowlege to the kids - who would teach for half their
salary if they didn't have to put up with the politics and bull****
from the ministry and board level.

  #59   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:16:37 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:55:06 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:28:17 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:57:23 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:22:57 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:07:04 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/15/2017 10:46 PM,
wrote:



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


In theory it works that way. Unfortunately, too many people don't
understand it. When the come around every 10 years (now 5) I hear people
complain that once revalued their tax will go up. The town finance
committee seems willing to make that come true. It is a money grab with
an increased budget.

My point was that it doesn't work like that here. It's the tax rate
that's "fixed", not the budgets.
The "mil rate" is fixed - which means you pay the same per thousand
dollars of "assessed value" as the next guy.

Right. It's that way here. In Vermont the mil rate wasn't fixed and
changed with the budget. IOW, here property values drive the tax
paid, thus the budget (mil rate is fixed). In Vermont, it's the
budget that drives the mil rate, thus the taxes paid. It's a big
difference.


The mil rate changes from year to year, but is fixed for the region
for the year.


Now you have me confused. If the mil rate changes from year to year,
you're more like Vermont. That makes more sense than having budgets
controlled by real estate values (as it is here).

By "region", do you mean across many taxing entities? Cities pay the
same as towns, pay the same as unincorporated areas? Schools aren't
localy controlled? Roads, fire, and police aren't locally controlled?



Up here we have "regional government" In our region it is two level -
in some it is single level. A lot of the costs are shared throughout
the region (school, hospitals, water, sewers, transit, main roads,
etc) while other services are handled by the local second level -
township or city. All the former small towns are now part of a larger
entity. There is a regional component to our taxes, as well as a local
component. In my case, the City of Waterloo, but there is also the
township of Woolwich, the city of Cambridge, the township of
Wellesley, the Township of Wilmot, etc. The budget is set by council
after much deliberation, balancing the "wish list" against the revenue
available from the current assessment without raising the mil rate by
an unacceptable level.
We've owned this house for 25 years, and our taxes have gone from
roughly $800 to $3200 (while the value of the house has gone from
$67000 to somewhere around $380,000) The taxes have not increased as
fast as the value of the property - for sure.

The property prices are going up like a rocket right now as we are
only 100km (60 miles) from Toronto - where the average cost of a
detatched home has reached about 1.2 million. In the whole region
there were only 111 active listings the third week of december - down
from a normal 300+, and there are bidding wars on just about anything.
Not at all out of the ordinary for a house to go $40,000 over asking
price with several Torontonians fighting over it. Making it pretty
hard for locals to buy a house....
There is only a limitted amount of development land available as most
good farmland is now protected.. There are some half acre lots with
nice 1960's bungalows that would have sold 5 years ago for $500,000 or
so selling for upwards of $600,000 to be bulldozed for the lot - to
build a monster house (McMansion) worth close to $,2,000,000 - or
more.. In other cases, the lot is devided and TWO monsters are built.
It's called intensification and infilling.
  #60   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

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



Move to where?


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


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



I can tell you I couldn't affoird to sell my house and rent here - If
I got $380,000 for my house (definitely on the high side - 3 years ago
it was valued at about $328, but things are going crazy) I could, at
today's prices, rent a nice apartment (2 bedroom) or half decent half
a house for about 18 years. and I'd have my taxes ($3000 a year) left
over.


  #63   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:34:43 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/16/2017 8:23 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:52:39 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

satisfying whiners

But, using your previous examples, the diffrence is 8.5% over three
years. Not much.


Explain that to those that are loosing their homes. Do you understand
the concept of living from paycheck to paycheck. Typically means if you
are living on the edge.


Sure, I do but I'm not buying your story. If people are losing their
homes, there is something else going on besides an 8.5% increase in
their monthly housing cost. The utilities are fixed cost, too?



It is a hell of a lot if 8.5% is a large number to begin with and your
pay has not gone up.


Deliver pizzas one night a week. Drive an Uber. Why aren't you
ragging on their food budget?


You are preaching to the choir.


No, I don't get into other's business. They're adults. Sink or swim,
it's the same to me.

...

Fanie May, CountryWide? or something like that. These lenders had
government guaranteed money to give out loans to any one. A great
number of these people would not qualify for these loans today, with the
same income.


Oh, I thought you meant that the borrowers were somehow guaranteed a
loan. The loans are guaranteed but there are still standards for the
underwriting of those loans.


Yes but there was tremendous amount of looking the other way and
suggesting what to put on the application.


There is no "looking the other way" anymore, if there ever was. A
credit report tells just about everything about what's owed. No-doc
loans are a thing of the past.

One of those is that the PITI, plus all
other credit, can't be above something like 30% of income.

If they're going bankrupt, the problem isn't the taxes on their home.


I beg to differ, if you do not have a hundred dollars to spare each
month a $1200 tax increase puts you over the edge.


I repeat. There is something else going on that they're not telling
you. Check for a boat in the driveway?


And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of
the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender.

And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly
when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a
lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any
of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft.


There are still developments here advertising "starting in the $140s".
They're all postage stamp lots but they look to be in that size range.
There are also many "starting in the $400s" (and, of course, higher
but they don't advertise the same way).


Well moving from a $300K home to a $150K home is beneath these people.

Ultimately I am not saying that there is not a way to prevent all of
this but some people will live in a home until their savings runs out
and are foreclosed on. They have an image to uphold and no money sense.


I don't think this is nearly as common as it was ten years ago. Money
is still pretty loose but not *that* loose.
  #64   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



I love those videos

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

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

I vote for "not cheap".


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

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

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

Correct

Buying and affording are very different animals.

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

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

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

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


Think about the housing mortgage crisis 9 years ago.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


Not to the point.


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


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

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

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


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


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


God only wants 10%.

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


Save the argument for Hillary.

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

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

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


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

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

Move to where?


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


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


If one has no job *here*, it doesn't much matter what the rent is
*there*. There is where the job is.
  #65   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:46:00 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:12:00 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:51:57 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:23:32 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:59:27 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:26:26 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500,
wrote:

On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@
4ax.com:

Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
emergency instead of 3?

That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)

OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up
by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump.

I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want
(within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a
huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close
to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste
time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook
and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of
insurance, and so on.

Puckdropper
Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll
agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle
in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education"

"Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is
never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by
default wasted.\

What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education"
without wasting money on the "education system"

Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School
Boards, etc, are a large money waster.

Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government
should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education
should be abolished.
It should be downsized - both at federal and state/province level -
as should the local school boards. Put the money into schools,
teachers, books and resources, not Tajma Hall board headquarters.

There is already plenty of money in the schools. More than the
results justify, certainly.
Mabee in some.. Not in the local school where I taught - and it was
a pretty good school. In a good area.


The US average is $12K. NYC schools cost well over $20K per student
and it looks like West Texas isn't any less.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-how-per-pupil-spending-compares-across-us.html

You're not going to convince me that the results (by any measure you
want to use, besides "participation trophies") justify the costs.

Perhaps it is different in the USa - where the results DO appear to be
a bit poorer - but the teachers are paid less, etc etc etc.


Less?????

$100K salary isn't rare, absolute job security, and 100% retirement
after 30 years, isn't pocket change. There is _no_corelation between
teacher pay and student performance. Of course, administration costs
don't help anyone, except administrators.

I was talking to a teacher, a policeman, and a firefighter in
Flkorida about 15 or so years ago, and they were all paid so poorly
they had to work second jobs to make ends meet - less than $40,000 for
each of the three. That's what I based my comment on.

A good teacher with a lot of experience who really does their job in
an inner city school might be worth on the high side of $100,000, but
an idler in a decent school? I agree with you - no way.


But there is no difference. They all get paid the same.

There ARE a lot of teachers who should be retired (or fired) but
there are also quite a few MORE who are there for the love of teaching
- passing on knowlege to the kids - who would teach for half their
salary if they didn't have to put up with the politics and bull****
from the ministry and board level.


So get rid of the slackers, and everyone in the way. Drain the swamp,
as it were.



  #66   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:24:40 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article r3pq7cp4ud0qj5p9fpg5g23bmruthj39tu@
4ax.com, says...

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500,
wrote:

On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@
4ax.com:

Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
emergency instead of 3?

That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)

OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up
by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump.

I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want
(within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a
huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close
to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste
time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook
and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of
insurance, and so on.

Puckdropper
Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll
agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle
in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education"

"Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is
never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by
default wasted.\

What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education"
without wasting money on the "education system"

Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School
Boards, etc, are a large money waster.


Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government
should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education
should be abolished.


If the locals weren't totally mucking it up I
would agree with you. But they are and have
been for as long as I can remember.

It's been since forever that locals have been in control.


  #67   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:02:21 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:34:43 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/16/2017 8:23 PM,
wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:52:39 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

satisfying whiners

But, using your previous examples, the diffrence is 8.5% over three
years. Not much.


Explain that to those that are loosing their homes. Do you understand
the concept of living from paycheck to paycheck. Typically means if you
are living on the edge.


Sure, I do but I'm not buying your story. If people are losing their
homes, there is something else going on besides an 8.5% increase in
their monthly housing cost. The utilities are fixed cost, too?



It is a hell of a lot if 8.5% is a large number to begin with and your
pay has not gone up.

Deliver pizzas one night a week. Drive an Uber. Why aren't you
ragging on their food budget?


You are preaching to the choir.


No, I don't get into other's business. They're adults. Sink or swim,
it's the same to me.

...

Fanie May, CountryWide? or something like that. These lenders had
government guaranteed money to give out loans to any one. A great
number of these people would not qualify for these loans today, with the
same income.

Oh, I thought you meant that the borrowers were somehow guaranteed a
loan. The loans are guaranteed but there are still standards for the
underwriting of those loans.


Yes but there was tremendous amount of looking the other way and
suggesting what to put on the application.


There is no "looking the other way" anymore, if there ever was. A
credit report tells just about everything about what's owed. No-doc
loans are a thing of the past.

One of those is that the PITI, plus all
other credit, can't be above something like 30% of income.

If they're going bankrupt, the problem isn't the taxes on their home.


I beg to differ, if you do not have a hundred dollars to spare each
month a $1200 tax increase puts you over the edge.


I repeat. There is something else going on that they're not telling
you. Check for a boat in the driveway?

Or a gambling problem, or too many Cigaraettes, or booze, or a
mistress,, Lots of "money holes"

And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of
the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender.

And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly
when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a
lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any
of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft.

There are still developments here advertising "starting in the $140s".
They're all postage stamp lots but they look to be in that size range.
There are also many "starting in the $400s" (and, of course, higher
but they don't advertise the same way).


Well moving from a $300K home to a $150K home is beneath these people.

Ultimately I am not saying that there is not a way to prevent all of
this but some people will live in a home until their savings runs out
and are foreclosed on. They have an image to uphold and no money sense.


I don't think this is nearly as common as it was ten years ago. Money
is still pretty loose but not *that* loose.


  #69   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

In article 10os7cdppola5c7a9q07u0kbk4t1ns6r72@
4ax.com, says...

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:24:40 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article r3pq7cp4ud0qj5p9fpg5g23bmruthj39tu@
4ax.com,
says...

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500,
wrote:

On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@
4ax.com:

Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
emergency instead of 3?

That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)

OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up
by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump.

I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want
(within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a
huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close
to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste
time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook
and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of
insurance, and so on.

Puckdropper
Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll
agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle
in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education"

"Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is
never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by
default wasted.\

What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education"
without wasting money on the "education system"

Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School
Boards, etc, are a large money waster.

Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government
should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education
should be abolished.


If the locals weren't totally mucking it up I
would agree with you. But they are and have
been for as long as I can remember.

It's been since forever that locals have been in control.


In what world?

  #71   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:07:30 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 10os7cdppola5c7a9q07u0kbk4t1ns6r72@
4ax.com, says...

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:24:40 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article r3pq7cp4ud0qj5p9fpg5g23bmruthj39tu@
4ax.com,
says...

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500,
wrote:

On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@
4ax.com:

Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a
fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower
the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents?
Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive,
instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an
emergency instead of 3?

That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of
course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and
corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions)

OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up
by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump.

I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want
(within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a
huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close
to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste
time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook
and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of
insurance, and so on.

Puckdropper
Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll
agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle
in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education"

"Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is
never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by
default wasted.\

What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education"
without wasting money on the "education system"

Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School
Boards, etc, are a large money waster.

Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government
should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education
should be abolished.

If the locals weren't totally mucking it up I
would agree with you. But they are and have
been for as long as I can remember.

It's been since forever that locals have been in control.


In what world?


I live on planet Earth. Which universe do you live in?
  #75   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:47:48 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:36:07 -0500,
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:47:51 GMT,
(Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:33:41 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:12:01 -0500,
wrote:
snip
$100K salary isn't rare, absolute job security, and 100% retirement
after 30 years, isn't pocket change. There is _no_corelation between
teacher pay and student performance. Of course, administration costs
don't help anyone, except administrators.
I was talking to a teacher, a policeman, and a firefighter in
Flkorida about 15 or so years ago, and they were all paid so poorly
they had to work second jobs to make ends meet - less than $40,000 for
each of the three. That's what I based my comment on.

A good teacher with a lot of experience who really does their job in
an inner city school might be worth on the high side of $100,000, but
an idler in a decent school? I agree with you - no way.

But there is no difference. They all get paid the same.

Not everywhere.

They do in the US.

No, they don't.


Bull****. They're paid by senioity, not performance. *EVERYWHERE* in
the US.

But they are not all paid the same for the same seniority - it varies
significantyly from district to district or at least state to state.


That's not the point. The incentives are all wrong. The education
system is fatally broken.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NAFTA On Steroids And In Stealth Mode jon_banquer[_2_] Metalworking 0 May 17th 15 02:30 AM
Put Your Business On Steroids !! InternetRetiredGroup Home Ownership 0 May 10th 07 12:21 AM
Furnace Filters on Steroids Robert Gammon Home Repair 17 September 28th 06 11:21 PM
RE Furnace Filters on Steroids Robert Gammon Home Repair 0 September 28th 06 04:24 PM
Felder Greg Millen Woodworking 4 April 9th 04 07:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"