Stephen wrote:
> 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? ;)
Zaandam, just north west of amsterdam, why?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:13:16 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>Zaandam, just north west of amsterdam, why?

It seemed such a Dutch reply. (No bad thing :)
I am working in Sluiskil, Zeeland just now, for my sins :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
>> Me, I think I know very few people who make >$250K
> And you work in IT?

Yes. Relatively speaking, I know personally not that many whose AGI is 
more than $250K.  One out of 100 of the people I know? Yeah, that's 
about right.

-- 
   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

Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:14:01 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> wrote:
> 
>> yeah, I 
>> can see where you might think being wealthy is a privilege.
> 
> Come the revolution, comrade :)
> 
> Seriously tho' thinking like that is so … yesterday.

Thinking that it's actually *right* for the mob to tear the rich people 
apart instead of simply mob violence? Yeah, that *is* so yesterday.

I subscribe to the "if it needs to be done, don't try to justify it with 
morality" school. If the rich need to be beat up, don't try and get God 
or Right or History to justify you. Just go do it.

-- 
   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

Stephen wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:13:16 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
> wrote:
> 
>> Zaandam, just north west of amsterdam, why?
> 
> It seemed such a Dutch reply. (No bad thing :)
Huh, ok.
> I am working in Sluiskil, Zeeland just now, for my sins :)
Shall I do another one?
I know there are differences in legislation between the Netherlands and 
Belgium which makes Zeeuws Vlaanderen a good place for a certain type of 
  business. I hope you are not referring to that kind of sin.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:4803c958$1@news.povray.org...
> St. 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.
>
> Perhaps I phrased it wrong. It's that you're not conciously counting all 
> the people who aren't making $400K that you pass each day, because they're 
> not exceptional in your mind. (That's what "selection bias" means, in some 
> sense.)

     You're not making sense. In one sentence they're 'poor people', and in 
another, those very same 'poor people' earn less than £175,000pa. Wish I had 
175 grand lying around, I could then classify myself as 'poor' too. Wait... 
I don't earn 11% of that...   :o/


    ~Steve~


>
> -- 
>   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:
> Now, I know very little about the economic situation in the US, other that
> what I read, so I may be waaaay off base but...
> Look how many of the comments are only blaming the government. Is everyone
> else completely without blame?

I blame the people.

Here's one comment I loved:

"The middle class is to blame for for middle class woes. Middle class 
America has been living lifestyle that exceeds their income for far too 
long.

It’s hard for me to feel sorry for people living in McMansions, with 
plasma tv’s and driving luxury cars and SUVs. I think before the 
governemnt starts giving out more handouts, middle class America needs 
to tighten their belts, live sensibly, and yes, maybe even cancel cable 
TV before sending out a lynch mob on the GOP and big oil."

I work in a bank.  I see people's finances.  And what I see scares me.

Now, to be clear, I'm not a pessimistic believer in the apocalypse, 
waiting for doom around every corner.  I don't believe this country, or 
any other, has to "fall", "be destroyed", or anything else.  I think 
widespread poverty, unemployment, and other ills *can* happen, but that 
they are, in many cases, preventable.  Especially in those areas where 
education is readily available.

The other day, I was talking to someone about saving money.  They tried 
the usual objects, "Oh, it's hard, I don't make very much, blah blah 
blah".  Of *course* they think it's hard, they've never done it! 
Anyway, I was telling this person that first, it's possible, and second, 
it's important that they make sacrifices to save money.  One of the 
other tellers butted in, agreeing with the customer that it wasn't 
reasonable to expect them to save money!  I practically wanted to rip 
her throat out for being so stupid, and undermining everything I was saying.

As long as society in general doesn't value thriftiness(1), sacrifice, 
or saving, then society in general will have all kinds of problems.  I'm 
not going to have those problems(2), because I'm not going to *let* 
myself have them.

(1) Thrifty != cheap.  I fully believe in investing money wisely, and 
spending it when you're getting good value for it.  I do *not* believe 
in choosing the cheapest option just because it's the cheapest.

(2) This is not to say I won't have problems.  However, I'm not going to 
have to worry about my financial future, or my ability to live.  I am 
completely in control of those things, and I know enough to take care of 
myself.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Except the government. They get money because they shoot you if you 
> don't give it to them.

Governments are just protection rackets with good PR ;)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> http://www.house.gov/jec/news/news2006/pr109-94.pdf

Now, *this* is interesting.

"At least part of the increase in taxes paid by the higher percentiles 
may be related to higher capital gains realizations following the 
reduction of the capital gains tax rate in 2003."

In other words, *reducing* the capital gains tax (a move many criticized 
Bush for, saying it was a "tax break for the rich"), resulted in them 
paying *more* in taxes.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:480425f1@news.povray.org...
>
> I work in a bank.  I see people's finances.  And what I see scares me.

Likewise, though I'm not a teller.

> The other day, I was talking to someone about saving money.  They tried
> the usual objects, "Oh, it's hard, I don't make very much, blah blah
> blah".  Of *course* they think it's hard, they've never done it!
> Anyway, I was telling this person that first, it's possible, and second,
> it's important that they make sacrifices to save money.  One of the
> other tellers butted in, agreeing with the customer that it wasn't
> reasonable to expect them to save money!  I practically wanted to rip
> her throat out for being so stupid, and undermining everything I was
saying.

That's just stupid. Bank employees are supposed to give good financial
advice. So, if it's not reasonable to expect them to save, what happens when
they're out of a job for just a month?

> As long as society in general doesn't value thriftiness(1), sacrifice,
> or saving, then society in general will have all kinds of problems.  I'm
> not going to have those problems(2), because I'm not going to *let*
> myself have them.

Agreed. I've got somewhere around 8 months salary saved up, not counting
some long term investments. It's nice to have, because it gives me a cushion
should anything happen, and it lets me take risks (like the upcoming job
move) without worrying if I'll be able to pay the home loan off.

A few years ago, I was unemployed for almost 6 months. Wasn't easy, but I
didn't have to go into debt.

I know some people that complain about being underpaid and broke at the end
of the month, but they go out to expensive restaurants regularly and 'own' a
car worth about half of what my house is. For some reason, I feel little
sympathy.

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
>>>> 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.
>> Perhaps I phrased it wrong. It's that you're not conciously counting all 
>> the people who aren't making $400K that you pass each day, because they're 
>> not exceptional in your mind. (That's what "selection bias" means, in some 
>> sense.)
> 
>      You're not making sense.

That's because you're taking the conversation completely out of context.

In this context, if you actually look, "poor" is the 98th percentile and 
lower. "Poor" as opposed to "filthy rich."  "Poor" as in "I know lots of 
people making more than $328K a year, so there couldn't possibly be 99% 
of the country making less than that."

-- 
   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

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 05:11:22 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>> It seemed such a Dutch reply. (No bad thing :)
>Huh, ok.

Some humour does not travel :)

>> I am working in Sluiskil, Zeeland just now, for my sins :)
>Shall I do another one?

No, I have enough of my own :)

>I know there are differences in legislation between the Netherlands and 
>Belgium which makes Zeeuws Vlaanderen a good place for a certain type of 
>  business. I hope you are not referring to that kind of sin.

LOL No (If I understand you, although I have been to Terneuzen where
there is a large tourist industry for that sort of thing :). I am
working for a chemical and fertiliser company.
I had not heard "Zeeuws Vlaanderen" before but now know where you
mean.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:06:24 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>
>Yes. Relatively speaking, I know personally not that many whose AGI is 
>more than $250K.  One out of 100 of the people I know? Yeah, that's 
>about right.

Well OK 250k USD even at today's rate is a bit high, although 200k USD
would be not unusual for IT consultants in the UK (at least in SAP).
But then our cost of living is high.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:08:11 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:


>Thinking that it's actually *right* for the mob to tear the rich people 
>apart instead of simply mob violence? Yeah, that *is* so yesterday.
>

I forgot that "Come the revolution" is probably not a common phrase in
the US :)
Of course it is not right to condone mob violence and I personally
don't. I was just feeling "Bolshy" 

>I subscribe to the "if it needs to be done, don't try to justify it with 
>morality" school. If the rich need to be beat up, don't try and get God 
>or Right or History to justify you. Just go do it.

Well I don't agree with that approach at all, at all.  
Although a little bit of pragmatism never comes amiss. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:27:46 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> Nota Bene. With the real figures the bottom 50% pay between 7% and 12%  
>> on their taxable income whereas the top 50% pay between 12% and 28%,
>
> You're missing the AMT there, which goes 29% to 36% this year, I think.

For 2004 I've got the AGI and returns broken down by wages, the taxable  
income for each and the total tax generated from that income.

So for those in 2004 earning <$2,000 we have 300,578 returns making up  
0.2926% of all returns with a taxable amount of $12,5052,000 of which  
$9,080,000 is tax (7.2610%) totaling 0.0010% of all tax collected.

The highest percentage is those earning between $1,500,000 and $2,000,000;  
45,055 returns; $69,937,281,000 gross taxable; $19,605,837,000 in tax  
(28.0335%) and 2.2503% of total tax collected.

> Anyway, here's another question to ponder: How much of the government  
> services do people making >$200K consume?

Amusingly when I first read this thread that was a point I was going to  
make - why should those who don't use the services be forced to contribute  
to them. Okay assume that if you have the money then you'll pay to go  
private and not use any public services; that means by definition the only  
ones using them will be those who can't afford to pay for private (i.e.  
the poor). So you hit a problem - you either don't take enough money to  
run such services properly or you take so much that you leave the people  
destitute.

Of course it might open up new business, if a private health clinic offers  
treatment per annum for less then the government is taking away from you  
then more people opt out of this public service; except such businesses  
can opt to be picky on who they take.

So the healthy and unhealthy rich get fantastic treatment, the healthy  
poor get some treatment and the unhealthy poor are essentially left to  
fend for themselves and possibly turn to mugging the healthy poor (the  
rich having too much security). Oo don't forget trickle-down :-P

> So what *is* the excuse for taking more, other than "the rich people  
> don't get hurt enough to actually fight back with violence."

No that's pretty much it. There was an amusing Bremner, Bird, and Fortune  
sketch on TV not long ago discussing the loss of our 10% bracket and how  
one of the advisors (from Goldman Sachs) had no notion of loosing any  
chunk of their income -

"Well now you're wrong there, [advisor] had £1.2 million stolen from her  
by her personal assistant"
"And how did she react?"
"Well she didn't notice for a couple of years"
[audience laughter]

Likewise we've had some Times columnists shoot herself in the foot by  
declaring that the maximum £230 that could be lost was "relatively small"  
and then got blitzed by people pointing out that those loosing said amount  
were only earning £200 a week which makes it pretty fookin' relatively  
large.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:49:57 +0100, Chambers  
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:

> Gail Shaw wrote:
>> Now, I know very little about the economic situation in the US, other  
>> that
>> what I read, so I may be waaaay off base but...
>> Look how many of the comments are only blaming the government. Is  
>> everyone
>> else completely without blame?
>
> I blame the people.
>
> Here's one comment I loved:
>
> "The middle class is to blame for for middle class woes. Middle class  
> America has been living lifestyle that exceeds their income for far too  
> long.
>
> It’s hard for me to feel sorry for people living in McMansions, with  
> plasma tv’s and driving luxury cars and SUVs. I think before the  
> governemnt starts giving out more handouts, middle class America needs  
> to tighten their belts, live sensibly, and yes, maybe even cancel cable  
> TV before sending out a lynch mob on the GOP and big oil."
>
> The other day, I was talking to someone about saving money.  They tried  
> the usual objects, "Oh, it's hard, I don't make very much, blah blah  
> blah".  Of *course* they think it's hard, they've never done it! Anyway,  
> I was telling this person that first, it's possible, and second, it's  
> important that they make sacrifices to save money.  One of the other  
> tellers butted in, agreeing with the customer that it wasn't reasonable  
> to expect them to save money!  I practically wanted to rip her throat  
> out for being so stupid, and undermining everything I was saying.

Ah now see you're being a good member of society and she's being a good  
member of the bank; remember it's debt that makes the world go around. You  
should be encouraging people to live beyond their means by taking out ever  
increasing loans; that's how bonuses are awarded.

> As long as society in general doesn't value thriftiness(1), sacrifice,  
> or saving, then society in general will have all kinds of problems.  I'm  
> not going to have those problems(2), because I'm not going to *let*  
> myself have them.

Well no we seeing what happens when banks stop wanting to lend out money  
and people are begin to want to save and not move houses, buy that new car  
etc. The economy starts to grind to a halt.

> (2) This is not to say I won't have problems.  However, I'm not going to  
> have to worry about my financial future, or my ability to live.  I am  
> completely in control of those things, and I know enough to take care of  
> myself.

Then in economic terms you're a plug stopping the flow of money, how  
selfish of you :-P

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:57:53 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> 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.
>
> Huh. I think you're mistaken, but OK.
>
> So go and find more reputable numbers than the IRS. When the IRS says  
> "99%th percentile is $364K", and Sherry Shaw says "my gut feelin' is  
> a-tellin' me that's too low, and besides, my gout says it's a gonna  
> rain", I'll take the IRS's word for it.

To back you up for 2004, 0.6544% of returns earn more then $500,000 and  
2.9371% earn more then $200,000; so that top 1% point has to lie in the  
$200k-$500k bracket.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:48043cc2$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>> Perhaps I phrased it wrong. It's that you're not conciously counting all 
>>> the people who aren't making $400K that you pass each day, because 
>>> they're not exceptional in your mind. (That's what "selection bias" 
>>> means, in some sense.)
>>
>>      You're not making sense.
>
> That's because you're taking the conversation completely out of context.
>
> In this context, if you actually look, "poor" is the 98th percentile and 
> lower. "Poor" as opposed to "filthy rich."  "Poor" as in "I know lots of 
> people making more than $328K a year, so there couldn't possibly be 99% of 
> the country making less than that."

       OIC. Are you sure?

         ~Steve~


>
> -- 
>   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

Phil Cook wrote:
> $19,605,837,000 in tax (28.0335%) and 2.2503% of total tax collected.

Yes, I misremembered the rules here. 28% is the "normal" high end of the 
AMT, but it can go up to 35% in some cases apparently, due to some rule 
or other not being quite phased out or some such nonsense.

-- 
   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

Phil Cook wrote:
> Then in economic terms you're a plug stopping the flow of money, how 
> selfish of you :-P

Fine by me; I'll plug up the economy, let everyone else go bankrupt, and 
then buy all their stock with my hardearned savings :)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> 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.

I don't currently know any doctors.  I can't afford to know any doctors. 
  I did spend a number of years doing people's taxes.

--Sherry Shaw


-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> I had not heard "Zeeuws Vlaanderen" before but now know where you
> mean.

Interesting it *is* the name of the area you are in.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:22:22 +0100, Chambers  
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> Then in economic terms you're a plug stopping the flow of money, how  
>> selfish of you :-P
>
> Fine by me; I'll plug up the economy, let everyone else go bankrupt, and  
> then buy all their stock with my hardearned savings :)

Congratulations you are now the proud owner of worthless stock, have lost  
all your money, and now have to get a loan and go into debt; [sniff] what  
a fine upstanding citizen you've become.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:57:44 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>
>> I had not heard "Zeeuws Vlaanderen" before but now know where you
>> mean.
>
>Interesting it *is* the name of the area you are in.

So it is :) but everyone speaks English to me and Babel fish
translates it to Zeeuws Flanders. I did find a Dutch dictionary that
told me it was Zeeland. I think I need a history lesson :)
BTW I am working from home and only go to the Netherlands for face to
face meetings and to actually work on the system. 
I'll tell you one thing Sluiskil is not an easy place to reach by
public transport.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:13:26 -0500, Sherry Shaw <ten### [at] aolcom>
wrote:

>
>I don't currently know any doctors.  I can't afford to know any doctors. 

When my wife was a student she shared an apartment with five other
girls, four of them graduated as doctors. One of them was so rich that
she did not know how to make tea. She once put sprouts in the kettle
at the same time thinking she was taking a short cut. The stories
about Trudy are legend :)

>  I did spend a number of years doing people's taxes.

How the other half (1%) live. :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:57:44 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> I had not heard "Zeeuws Vlaanderen" before but now know where you
>>> mean.
>> Interesting it *is* the name of the area you are in.
> 
> So it is :) but everyone speaks English to me and Babel fish
> translates it to Zeeuws Flanders. I did find a Dutch dictionary that
> told me it was Zeeland. I think I need a history lesson :)
Zee means sea and the name Zeeland is the origin of the later discovered 
new version of it. You know, that island on the other side of the 
worldwith lots of birds and no original mammals other than a bat.
Zeeuws is sort of the possessive of zee, in the context of Zeeland, like 
e.g. scottish is for Scotland. It should normally have been Zee's but I 
guess they added the 'w' sound to make it more pronounceable (for the 
Dutch that is). Of the history of it I know little, so I can't help you 
there.

> BTW I am working from home and only go to the Netherlands for face to
> face meetings and to actually work on the system. 
> I'll tell you one thing Sluiskil is not an easy place to reach by
> public transport.
> 
Yes I can imagine. Probably more easily reached from Belgium than from 
the Netherlands.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:32:13 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:57:44 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
>> wrote:
 
>> So it is :) but everyone speaks English to me and Babel fish
>> translates it to Zeeuws Flanders. I did find a Dutch dictionary that
>> told me it was Zeeland. I think I need a history lesson :)
>Zee means sea and the name Zeeland is the origin of the later discovered 
>new version of it. You know, that island on the other side of the 
>worldwith lots of birds and no original mammals other than a bat.
>Zeeuws is sort of the possessive of zee, in the context of Zeeland, like 
>e.g. scottish is for Scotland. It should normally have been Zee's but I 
>guess they added the 'w' sound to make it more pronounceable (for the 
>Dutch that is). Of the history of it I know little, so I can't help you 
>there.

Thank you kind sir. :)
FWIW [not directed at you] and since you mention it there is another
possessive for Scotland and that is "Scotch" which is only applied to
inanimate objects such as Scotch Whisky or Scotch broth etc. I wish
someone would tell the English this :)

>> BTW I am working from home and only go to the Netherlands for face to
>> face meetings and to actually work on the system. 
>> I'll tell you one thing Sluiskil is not an easy place to reach by
>> public transport.
>> 
>Yes I can imagine. Probably more easily reached from Belgium than from 
>the Netherlands.
That is what I do. I get the Eurostar to Brussels then to Gent from
there a taxi. 21st Century? 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

>> Yes I can imagine. Probably more easily reached from Belgium than from 
>> the Netherlands.
> That is what I do. I get the Eurostar to Brussels then to Gent from
> there a taxi. 21st Century? 
I checked it. It should take 4 hours 15 minutes from my home town (e.g. 
3:45 from schiphol).
All public transport, a lot of changes, most 5-10 minutes wait in 
between. The problem is, I guess, that although the netherlands do have 
  a good public transport system, Sluiskil is not in the netherlands as 
such, nor is it in belgium (I think we have no Zeeuwen in this group, so 
that is probably save to say here).

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:22:22 +0100, Chambers 
> <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:
> 
>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>> Then in economic terms you're a plug stopping the flow of money, how 
>>> selfish of you :-P
>>
>> Fine by me; I'll plug up the economy, let everyone else go bankrupt, 
>> and then buy all their stock with my hardearned savings :)
> 
> Congratulations you are now the proud owner of worthless stock, have 
> lost all your money, and now have to get a loan and go into debt; 
> [sniff] what a fine upstanding citizen you've become.
> 

Au contraire, I am now the sole proprietor of several profitable 
businesses, ones which are suffering more due to public perception of 
wealth than due to any inherent problems in their business plans.

I may now proceed with my plans of world domination! Muwahaha!

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:06:21 +0100, Chambers  
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:22:22 +0100, Chambers  
>> <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>>> Then in economic terms you're a plug stopping the flow of money, how  
>>>> selfish of you :-P
>>>
>>> Fine by me; I'll plug up the economy, let everyone else go bankrupt,  
>>> and then buy all their stock with my hardearned savings :)
>>  Congratulations you are now the proud owner of worthless stock, have  
>> lost all your money, and now have to get a loan and go into debt;  
>> [sniff] what a fine upstanding citizen you've become.
>
> Au contraire, I am now the sole proprietor of several profitable  
> businesses, ones which are suffering more due to public perception of  
> wealth than due to any inherent problems in their business plans.

Like Northern Rock and Bear Stearns ;-)

> I may now proceed with my plans of world domination! Muwahaha!

Pah the financial route's for sissys, give me a good old fashioned Death  
Ray anytime.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
>> I may now proceed with my plans of world domination! Muwahaha!
> 
> Pah the financial route's for sissys, give me a good old fashioned Death 
> Ray anytime.

Sure, I've got a spare one lying around here somewhere...

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:00:01 +0100, Chambers  
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>>> I may now proceed with my plans of world domination! Muwahaha!
>>  Pah the financial route's for sissys, give me a good old fashioned  
>> Death Ray anytime.
>
> Sure, I've got a spare one lying around here somewhere...

Oo how much do you want for it, or do you want to swap for a prototype  
time machine (only works one way and at one speed) or a wormhole generator  
(Planck size only)?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 

>> 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!
> 

 From the NTU site to which you linked:

"Since it was founded over 35 years ago, the National Taxpayers Union's 
Number One job has been helping to protect every single American's right 
to keep what they've earned....We are a nonprofit, non-partisan citizen 
group whose members work every day for lower taxes and smaller 
government at all levels."

"Since its founding in 1977, NTUF has actively engaged in the policy 
formation process at the academic, judicial, and political levels."

--Sherry Shaw


-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> I.e., not that you're "ignoring them" as unworthy, but that you're 
> "ignoring them" when counting the percentage of people who make lots of 
> money. You obviously interact more with people who make lots of money - 
> that's how they make it.
> 

Rich people don't associate with the likes of me.  I don't mind a bit.

> Me, I think I know very few people who make >$250K who don't have 
> millions and millions of dollars.  (I know a fair number of people who 
> have millions and millions of dollars, tho.)
> 

Whoa, how could anyone ever have guessed that?

--Sherry Shaw


-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> 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.

For the last couple or three decades, it's been getting easier and 
easier to identify the far-right-wing elements here, without ever 
bringing up politics:  They're incredibly rude, and they think that's OK.

--Sherry Shaw


-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

Sherry Shaw wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 
> 
>>> 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!
>>
> 
>  From the NTU site to which you linked:

So you're going to ignore the numbers that say the same thing that come 
from the congress and the IRS?


See, read what I wrote:
Blah blah blah, Congress and IRS says in 2004 it was like this, blah 
blah, other people *claim* it's even worse later.  (That's what the word 
"apparently" means, you see. It *appears* that way.)

So if you don't like arguing about the NTU while having no actual facts 
of your own, why not argue with the Congress and the IRS while having no 
facts of your own?

-- 
   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:
> I don't currently know any doctors.  I can't afford to know any doctors. 
>  I did spend a number of years doing people's taxes.

So, based on the numbers you saw while doing peoples taxes, you figure 
most of the country makes a lot of money?  Did you consider the 
selection bias that people who are *not* making a lot of money don't 
come to you to have their taxes done?

Indeed, you'd see only rich people if *only* the top 1% of earners had 
to pay any income tax at all?

-- 
   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:
> Darren New wrote:
>>
>> I.e., not that you're "ignoring them" as unworthy, but that you're 
>> "ignoring them" when counting the percentage of people who make lots 
>> of money. You obviously interact more with people who make lots of 
>> money - that's how they make it.
>>
> 
> Rich people don't associate with the likes of me.  I don't mind a bit.

Well, it's good to know that makes you more of an expert than the IRS on 
how many rich people are paying taxes. Thanks for playing.

(Geez, is it me, or has everyone in the last couple weeks been playing 
the Creationism Logic Game here? "It's hard for me to believe that rich 
people pay a lot of tax in spite of the evidence presented, therefore 
I'll argue it must not be true without providing any evidence of my 
own."  "It's hard for me to believe some people use non-relational data 
storage in spite of being provided with a list of both reasons and 
users, so I'll claim it's true without any evidence to counter it.")

>> Me, I think I know very few people who make >$250K who don't have 
>> millions and millions of dollars.  (I know a fair number of people who 
>> have millions and millions of dollars, tho.)
> 
> Whoa, how could anyone ever have guessed that?

Unfortunately, I'm not one of them. And unfortunately they're not giving 
me any of their money any more.

But I apologize if I've actually insulted you.  It wasn't my intention 
to do so.

-- 
   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

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:00:23 -0500, Sherry Shaw <ten### [at] aolcom>
wrote:

>For the last couple or three decades, it's been getting easier and 
>easier to identify the far-right-wing elements here, without ever 
>bringing up politics:  They're incredibly rude, and they think that's OK.
>

Oh! So that's where our upper classes went. You got them :)

Seriously they are always like that. When our Mrs T was in power it
was the same over here. When there is a far right government in power
more crawl out of the woodwork than you would imagine was possible.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:480b6cff$1@news.povray.org...

> "It's hard for me to believe some people use non-relational data
> storage in spite of being provided with a list of both reasons and
> users, so I'll claim it's true without any evidence to counter it.")

Where's that one? I seem to have somehow missed it...

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> Where's that one? I seem to have somehow missed it...

In the p.o-t.fan.haskell.bork.bork.bork group.

-- 
   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:480c28be$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
> > Where's that one? I seem to have somehow missed it...
>
> In the p.o-t.fan.haskell.bork.bork.bork group.

Ok....
Didn't even realise more off topic newsgroups existed.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:480c28be$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
> > Where's that one? I seem to have somehow missed it...
>
> In the p.o-t.fan.haskell.bork.bork.bork group.

Ouch.... Nice case of willful cluelessness.
I'd offer you a hand, but you seem to be having fun...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

You still don't get it, do you?  I never said rich people don't pay 
taxes.  I never said rich people don't pay enough taxes.  I never said 
rich people don't pay *absolutely* more taxes than poor people.  I said 
it was appropriate for rich people to pay *relatively* more taxes than 
poor people because they get *relatively* more benefit.

> 
> But I apologize if I've actually insulted you.  It wasn't my intention 
> to do so.
> 

Oh, give me a break.

--Sherry Shaw


-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> 
> Seriously they are always like that. When our Mrs T was in power it
> was the same over here. When there is a far right government in power
> more crawl out of the woodwork than you would imagine was possible.

Heavy sigh.  I'm hoping that things may start to look up around 
November.  At least, I'm hoping to hope.  Or something like that.

The really bewildering part is where he lumps me in with him and his 
rich buddies in sneering at the poor.  I guess maybe that princely $7500 
in student loans that I'm living on for a year at a time has made me 
uppity.  ;)

--Sherry Shaw


-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

Sherry Shaw wrote:
> The really bewildering part is where he lumps me in with him and his 
> rich buddies in sneering at the poor. 

I have to assume you're talking about me. So I'll also have to assume 
that unless you can point out where I actually used the word "sneering", 
now you're just full of yourself, or illiterate, or both.

It's bewildering because it takes a lot of suspension of disbelief to 
play the victim here. So much that you've turned it into a nonsensical 
fiction.

-- 
   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:
> it was appropriate for rich people to pay *relatively* more taxes than 
> poor people because they get *relatively* more benefit.

Well, first, you argued "wealth is a privilege, not a right", which you 
clarified as "your point, whole point, and nothing but your point." I 
disagreed, explained why, and you provided neither support nor 
counterarguments to my ideas, which I was actually looking forward to.

Second, they *do* pay "relatively" more taxes, both as an absolute 
number and as a percentage of their income. I'm not sure how you could 
prepare taxes professionally and not know that people who make more 
money are in a higher tax bracket.

Third, I never argued that rich people shouldn't pay more taxes than 
poor people both absolutely and relatively. I merely pointed out that 
they do, which you dismissed because you either didn't bother to open 
both links I provided or because you did open both links I provided but 
found it difficult to argue that the numbers coming from the IRS to the 
House of Representatives weren't issued to prove some point.

> Oh, give me a break.

No, because you're being an ass now.  Seriously.  I just gave you two, 
and you're still being insulting.

-- 
   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

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:11:54 -0500, Sherry Shaw <ten### [at] aolcom>
wrote:

>
>Heavy sigh.  I'm hoping that things may start to look up around 
>November.  At least, I'm hoping to hope.  Or something like that.

So do I.

>The really bewildering part is where he lumps me in with him and his 
>rich buddies in sneering at the poor.  

I don't think that he meant to I think that it was a Freudian Slip.

>I guess maybe that princely $7500 
>in student loans that I'm living on for a year at a time has made me 
>uppity.  ;)

Don't you know that there are whole villages in Africa that would love
to have so much to live on? :)

It doesn't seem a lot to live on in America. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> ...both absolutely and relatively. I merely pointed out that 
> they do, which you dismissed...
> 

I did not dismiss it.  I said it was *appropriate* that they do so.

One of your links worked.  That was the page that contained the table to 
which you apparently referred.  The other link was nonfunctional.

I suggest that you re-read your posts, paying special attention to tone.

I have no more time for this discussion.

--Sherry Shaw


-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

Sherry Shaw wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>
>> ...both absolutely and relatively. I merely pointed out that they do, 
>> which you dismissed...
>>
> 
> I did not dismiss it.  I said it was *appropriate* that they do so.

OK. So I'm still not sure what your point is, but I guess you don't care.

> One of your links worked.  That was the page that contained the table to 
> which you apparently referred.  The other link was nonfunctional.

I dunno. Works for me, continues to work for me. Of course, it points to 
a PDF, so if your PDF software is screwed, maybe it doesn't work for 
you.  Of course, simply saying "that link didn't work for me" rather 
than ranting on as if I didn't provide any authoritative links at all 
would have probably worked out better. And then asking repeatedly for 
clarification of what's already in that first document, instead of 
saying "I can't read that first document."

> I suggest that you re-read your posts, paying special attention to tone.

And I suggest you re-read yours, paying special attention to blatent 
insults.

> I have no more time for this discussion.

A shame. I was kind of curious what your point may have been, given that 
you seemed to be complaining and most people don't complain about things 
that are working they way they think they should.  I mean, why "rant" if 
what you're ranting about is "wealthy people should pay a lot of tax, 
and they do!"

-- 
   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