Darren New wrote:
>> It's on a web page produced by a political action organization. 
> It's on a web page produced by "political action organization"??
> It's on a web page produced by THE F'ING CONGRESS OF THE USA!

Apologies. Being undercaffinated, it didn't occur to me you might not 
know how the USA's tax system works.

This is a report from the people who *write* the tax laws, saying "this 
is what the people who *collect* the taxes told us they're collecting, 
which we should consider when we ammend next year's tax laws."

It's not a political action committee. It's the actual elected officials 
in charge of deciding on how much tax to collect from whom, saying 
"here's how it works out right now."

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Sherry Shaw wrote:
> Impossibly low.  I've been acquainted with too many people who make that 
> kind of money.  $364,657 is common-as-dirt doctor/lawyer income, not 
> filthy rich.

By the way, I think thinking fully 1% of the population should be 
"filthy rich" is a bad idea. I also think that this is typical selection 
bias.

How many patients do you think that doctor sees? Let's be generous, and 
say four a day, for 200 days a year. That's 800 patients, presumedly few 
who are themselves doctors.

How many health insurance adjusters are there for each doctor?

Walk into the big grocery store nearby. Look around. How many people 
shopping there do you think are making $400K a year?

Watch a movie. Look at the credits. How many people in the 5 minute 
scroll of names do you think are making as much money as the names in 
the first 30 seconds of the scroll?

It's not that you know lots of doctors. It's that you ignore all the 
poor people who you pass every day.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> Look how many of the comments are only blaming the government. Is everyone
> else completely without blame?

Generally, it takes a government with the ability to print its own money 
and to take away yours against your will to *really* screw up an 
economy.  Otherwise, you just get particular sectors having trouble.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4803ab8e$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
> > Look how many of the comments are only blaming the government. Is
everyone
> > else completely without blame?
>
> Generally, it takes a government with the ability to print its own money
> and to take away yours against your will to *really* screw up an
> economy.

Like Zimbabwe...

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:49:59 +0200, "Gail Shaw"
> <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> 
>> Look how many of the comments are only blaming the government. Is everyone
>> else completely without blame?
> 
> Governments are an easy target and it is healthier than blaming
> minority groups.
You mean that in western societies we have a silent majority of civil 
servants?

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:48038975$1@news.povray.org...


> It's not that you know lots of doctors. It's that you ignore all the poor 
> people who you pass every day.

     That was a low call.

      ~Steve~


>
> -- 
>   Darren New /

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sherry Shaw wrote:
>> Impossibly low.  I've been acquainted with too many people who make 
>> that kind of money.  $364,657 is common-as-dirt doctor/lawyer income, 
>> not filthy rich.
> 
> By the way, I think thinking fully 1% of the population should be 
> "filthy rich" is a bad idea. I also think that this is typical selection 
> bias.
> 
> How many patients do you think that doctor sees? Let's be generous, and 
> say four a day, for 200 days a year. That's 800 patients, presumedly few 
> who are themselves doctors.
> 
> How many health insurance adjusters are there for each doctor?
> 
> Walk into the big grocery store nearby. Look around. How many people 
> shopping there do you think are making $400K a year?
There might be a selection bias here too. If I go to a grocery nearby I 
most probably won't see any filthy rich person. They don't live here. 
Then again I know some places where I wouldn't expect less than 90% rich 
people (the other 10% being their servants).
But that might have been your point too.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:41:29 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:49:59 +0200, "Gail Shaw"
>> <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Look how many of the comments are only blaming the government. Is everyone
>>> else completely without blame?
>> 
>> Governments are an easy target and it is healthier than blaming
>> minority groups.
>You mean that in western societies we have a silent majority of civil 
>servants?

What part of the Netherlands do you live in, again? ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:37:51 +0200, "Gail Shaw"
<initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:

>
>Like Zimbabwe...

Like Zimbabwe, indeed.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:47:11 +0100, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:

>
>"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
>news:48038975$1@news.povray.org...
>
>
>> It's not that you know lots of doctors. It's that you ignore all the poor 
>> people who you pass every day.
>
>     That was a low call.
>

Fighting talk, where I come from. Worse than putting your empty beer
glass, upside down on the table.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message