Subject: Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
I doubt I could get that much for writing a book.
Stewart
At 12:00 PM 8/22/2008, you wrote:
I wasn't and I didn't disagree. That sum seems to be about average when
somebody in the news writes a book.
Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:[EMAIL
This was taken right off of his public disclosure form Tom don't be so snide!
Stewart
At 10:20 PM 8/21/2008, you wrote:
You should write a book too.
Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org
Ozark, AL SL 82
Public service should be in quotes...
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not only that but Obama's income with his wife for last year was
listed as 4.3 million not bad for a guy who has done public service
most of his life.
You should write a book too.
This was taken right off of his public disclosure form Tom don't be so snide!
I wasn't and I didn't disagree. That sum seems to be about average when
somebody in the news writes a book.
*
** List info, subscription
Unless yer Nancy Pelosi and you have a hard time selling 8 books. Well more
then that...but not much.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This was taken right off of his public disclosure form Tom don't be so
snide!
I wasn't and I didn't disagree. That
Pelosi wrote 8 books?!?!?
Larry
-Original Message-
From: Computer Guys Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mike
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 10:48 AM
To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
Unless yer Nancy
Pelosi wrote 8 books?!?!?
Wow. Not bad for a grandma.
*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
I doubt I could get that much for writing a book.
Stewart
At 12:00 PM 8/22/2008, you wrote:
I wasn't and I didn't disagree. That sum seems to be about average when
somebody in the news writes a book.
Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prince of Peace
The United States has the lowest corporate tax rates in the
industrialized world. That's effectively subsidizing just about all
corporations.
You are sadly mistaken if think that there is really any such thing as a
corporate tax. Go ahead, raise the corporate tax to 80%. Let us know how
much
I meant that corporations do not become feasible until government
matures enough to provide the infrastructure they depend on. Legal,
police, fire (some of my taxes go to volunteer fire dept.), roads and
laws to make trade possible. Since they are legal entities making
income, it is logical to
Don't blame the corporations. They play by the rules (and loopholes)
enacted by congress. And don't blame the GOP; the dems have had 2 years
of power and I've seen no effort on their part to fix this situation.
Not fair. With ultra slim majorities in the last few years, neither party
has been
All corporate income comes from the customer base (read the rest of
us), we pay all taxes, directly or indirectly. Corporations have two
choices over the long term - pass on all costs to their customers, and
taxation is a cost, or loose money until the capital investment is
gone and then
It's worse then you think if you are measuring this way..
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/28/business/fi-mozilo28
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All corporate income comes from the customer base (read the rest of
us), we pay all taxes, directly or
It's worse then you think if you are measuring this way..
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/28/business/fi-mozilo28
That is right, my figures did not include stock options, which often are
many times larger than the standard compensation.
I don't and can't imaging anyone who would.
But I guess that is okay if you are one of those be considers $5M/yr to
be a middle-class income.
*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
**
How do you conclude that corporate income belongs to the state via
taxation, and any reduction in the tax take is a subsidy?
The line income belongs to the state is nutty thinking and precludes
any rational discussion. Nobody but dead Marxist-Leninists ever takes
such an extreme position. You
That is why the original assertion is scary. The assertion was made
that profits not collected via taxation were a subsidy. A subsidy is
when you give something that is yours by right to another party to
encourage action by that party. For profits not claimed via taxation
to be a
I don't and can't imaging anyone who would.
But I guess that is okay if you are one of those be considers $5M/yr to
be a middle-class income.
Maybe someone running for high public office?
*
** List info, subscription
If you are referring to McCain, he was evading a question on income
wealth with an absurdly high number. You can't seriously believe he
thinks 5M a year is middle class.
Though he had the good sense to realize immediately, and say that his
joke would be taken seriously by his opponents. I guess
Not so. It is the highest in the industrialized world. See Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
The Problem with stating the rates are the highest is that while the
rates may be high, the actual amounts paid amount to among the lowest in
the world.
See for example:
If you are referring to McCain, he was evading a question on income
wealth with an absurdly high number. You can't seriously believe he
thinks 5M a year is middle class.
This is the guy who owns so many houses that he can't recall how many? I
could understand being a bit fuzzy about how many
A reporter apparently noted that technically he owns no houses...this was on
politico. All of them are owned by Cindy or members of the family.
Mike
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you are referring to McCain, he was evading a question on income
That is why the original assertion is scary. The assertion was made
that profits not collected via taxation were a subsidy. A subsidy is
when you give something that is yours by right to another party to
encourage action by that party. For profits not claimed via taxation
to be a
Also unfair. I'm sure he knows how many houses HE has, but not how many
his rich wife with all her trusts has. And lets not get into the rich
wives area; I'm sure Cindy, with her measly $100M would be considered
middle class by Theresa with her $1B.
Tom Piwowar wrote:
If you are referring to
Not only that but Obama's income with his wife for last year was
listed as 4.3 million not bad for a guy who has done public service
most of his life.
Stewart
At 09:01 PM 8/21/2008, you wrote:
Also unfair. I'm sure he knows how many houses HE has, but not how
many his rich wife with all her
That is why the original assertion is scary. The assertion was made
that profits not collected via taxation were a subsidy. A subsidy is
when you give something that is yours by right to another party to
encourage action by that party. For profits not claimed via
taxation to be a
Not only that but Obama's income with his wife for last year was
listed as 4.3 million not bad for a guy who has done public service
most of his life.
You should write a book too.
*
** List info, subscription management,
Same for the monopolies that exist in cable and telco broadband that allow them
to set rates based on whatever they can get away with instead of letting the
market determine rates with competition, or providing quality broadband service
[and choice] without gouging the customers, as it is
Not so. It is the highest in the industrialized world. See Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
and click on the Corporate column to sort
b_s-wilk wrote:
The United States has the lowest corporate tax rates in the
industrialized world. That's effectively subsidizing
Not so. It is the highest in the industrialized world. See Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
and click on the Corporate column to sort
Forgot to add; the US Corporate tax rate is 35%, higher than all but a
few 3rd world countries in that list,
b_s-wilk wrote:
The
At 11:56 AM -0400 8/20/08, Steve at Verizon wrote:
Not so. It is the highest in the industrialized world. See Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
and click on the Corporate column to sort
Forgot to add; the US Corporate tax rate is 35%, higher than all but
a few
Don't confuse the published corporate tax rate with the amount of
corporate income that ends up actually paid to the IRS - there are
thousands of loopholes that result in half the US corporations paying
no tax at all and the rest paying very little.
Mike
Steve at Verizon wrote:
Not so. It
True. I only challenged the statement on the tax rate. I also omitted
the fact that the corporate rate is actually higher, if they pass
profits to shareholders as dividends. You then get double taxing of
profits, 35% corporate, and then 15% on the dividends.
The point is, the trend in most
The US corporate tax rate was listed as a range of rates, not 35%.
Includes none of the many business deductions or exclusions. That chart
is a joke for the purposes it was dragged out for. There must be some
useful data somewhere, but don't base your argument on Wiki's table of
nominal rates.
This a really scary conclusion, regardless of the questionable
accuracy of the premise.
How do you conclude that corporate income belongs to the state via
taxation, and any reduction in the tax take is a subsidy?
As an aside, what data do you have to support the accuracy of the
premise?
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Snyder, Mark (IT CIV)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
The US corporate tax rate was listed as a range of rates, not 35%.
Includes none of the many business deductions or exclusions. That chart
is a joke for the purposes it was dragged out for. There must be some
Modern business (corporations, etc.) is possible because of modern
government. It is Government that provides police protections and other
infrastructure required by all of us. The only way for all of us to
have these is to pay for them. If corporations pay less, then the rest
of us must pay
And some more:
http://taxfoundation.org/press/show/23469.html
Washington, D.C., August 12, 2008 - An AP article today on the GAO's
new report on corporate tax liabilities contains a serious error that
undermines the story's thesis.
The AP reported that, according to the GAO study
In response to the NYT editorial which stated that the US corporate tax
rates are among the highest in the industrial world, yet taxes paid are
among the lowest, here are some very good letters to the editor today on
reasons for this:
You make several unsupported or undefined assumptions below:
1. Modern business depends on modern government. Please define these
terms? The limited liability corporation dates to at least the 16th
century, possibly before. When do you date the beginnings of modern
government? What is
The wikipedia article you quote says about its table,
This is a list of tax rates around the world. ... It is not intended
to represent the true tax burden to either the corporation or the
individual in the listed country.
So it's doesn't really settle the matter. On the contrary side,
One of the letters that you were too lazy to read, points out that if
you have a very high stated tax rate, then you will employ an army of
lawyers to comb through all available loopholes to lower your legal tax
obligation. Again, there is a trend among both Old Europe and New Europe
to lower
The United States needs to provide universal broadband access to keep up
with foreign competition. The challenge is to find the most cost
effective and affordable way to accomplish this. FIOS, VDSL, WiMax,
satellite, cable, public, private, partnerships, whatever does the job.
Everyone has a
Naiveté is the attitude that the government is bad or can't do things
right. It's neither all bad nor all good--depends on the people involved
in that government, the strengths of checks and balances, and open
media/press to report on it. Of course I remember fruitcake JEdgar
Hoover's spying,
The public-private partnerships that created satellite communications
were necessary advancements that couldn't have been done at the time
[or now] by private corporations. Same for Arpanet and the Internet. Same
for the monopolies that exist in cable and telco broadband that allow
them to
Same for the monopolies that exist in cable and telco broadband that allow
them to set rates based on whatever they can get away with instead of
letting the market determine rates with competition, or providing quality
broadband service [and choice] without gouging the customers, as it is
I believe that Murphy was the one who said the chances of the toast
falling on the floor butter side down is in inverse proportion to the
cost of the carpet.
Stewart
At 09:15 PM 8/19/2008, you wrote:
I am not a financial analyst but I know how to bet on whether the
toast falls on the floor
ATT made a lot of money because they were allowed to have a monopoly.
They used that money for some very good things like Bell Labs, a hotbed
of primary research that was applied to lots of good inventions, and for
Telstar. The Telstar satellites were developed with private ATT funds
that they
Some of their system is copper, some fiber...some fiber to the local box and
copper beyond, no fiber to the home. But then at least in my area, Qwest is
offering 20 megabit fiber to the home, while cox will get you over 25 on
their copper. At this point I don't care *how* whomever gets it to my
Good to see that you admit you were sleeping in class while the
government was doing good things for the public, instead of spying on
us.
The level of naiveté is rarely seen in nature, since as you approach such a
fact-free vacuum, subjects usually implode.
We must have both slept through
This article states the telcos, including verizon promised over 80 million
households would have fiber, it looks like we are sitting at under 4
million at this time.
Isn't FIOS the one bright spot in the broadband landscape? They actually
are offering the desired services to lots of people.
Some of their system is copper, some fiber...some fiber to the local box and
copper beyond, no fiber to the home. But then at least in my area, Qwest is
offering 20 megabit fiber to the home, while cox will get you over 25 on
their copper. At this point I don't care *how* whomever gets it to my
Since it requires a lot of expensive 'wiring', I doubt it. I know
*our* local phone company, Frontier, has no plans for fiber at all.
I'm much more excited about the pending rollout of Sprint's Wimax in
the DC (and Chicago) area (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/81062).
Better, faster
On Aug 17, 2008, at 1:11 PM, Tony B wrote:
I'm much more excited about the pending rollout of Sprint's Wimax in
the DC (and Chicago) area (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/81062).
Better, faster *wireless* tech is sure to follow.
Wimax vehicles have been seen creeping around my
Maybe you need some of the good 'ol American gumption of T. Bone Pickens.
I have no comment on his tactics.
I will be honest in saying that building out a fiber based network
is expensive.
The megacorp is bearing the cost. We expect ROI. That is basic
capitalism. We know the government
On Aug 16, 2008, at 12:14 AM, Eric S. Sande wrote:
All numbers are square kilometers, rounded up, total 436.025K.
A little bigger than California and on average much denser.
Yes, but how many of those who live in those areas are actually
connected? One can have a very dense population
The megacorp is bearing the cost. We expect ROI. That is basic
capitalism. We know the government isn't going to help us do this.
We are doing this on our own. That is how America is supposed
to work.
Sounds like a viable business plan to me. I hope Verizon is successful and
wildly
Eric S. Sande
ZDNet Australia has the US listed in 2008 as 23rd behind
Latvia, Greece, Hong Kong, Romania, Macau. Pretty pathetic.
Romania238K
Greece 132K
Latvia 65K
Hong Kong1K
Macau .025K
All numbers are square kilometers, rounded up, total
436.025K.
Density
The government, meaning us the taxpayers already has been helping with
ginormous tax incentives and rebates. Actually if helping means 'paying for
it through the nose' then we are good.
This article states the telcos, including verizon promised over 80 million
households would have fiber, it
The Internet and broadband both are the result of many years of our
government investing in science/technology RD, giving research and
implementation grants to university and private research labs while
providing huge tax breaks to the broadband providers. Those providers
promised to get their
Better numbers but still pathetic considering what we were promised and what
the telcos were given. This blog..is it counting as FIOS being available
the same way the government used to count broadband availability? If FIOS
is in one house in a zip code then the whole zip code has it even though
And no I'm not blaming your personally for the woes :p
Thanks, Mike, I appreciate that.
But I'm not agreeing by silence that anything was paid for or
not. I don't move in those circles. I actually am politically
not even close to connected with what's up with that, and
I certainly don't
The Internet and broadband both are the result of many years of our
government investing in science/technology RD...
Thank Bell Labs.
*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy,
Here here, I think they are now owned by Alcatel.
Stewart
At 10:08 PM 8/16/2008, you wrote:
The Internet and broadband both are the result of many years of our
government investing in science/technology RD...
Thank Bell Labs.
Here here, I think they are now owned by Alcatel.
I think it should be Hear, Hear but I'm not the spelling police.
Yeah, they're part of Alcatel-Lucent now.
Thereby hangs a tale, when the Bell System was broken up the
equipment and RD divisions got split off from the Baby Bells.
This is
From Ars Technica:
Report: US falling further behind on broadband speeds, reach
By John Timmer | Published: August 14, 2008 - 08:00PM CT
The latest measure of the state of the US broadband market is now
available and, like many other takes on the subject, the picture it
paints is a bit
Disgraceful. Maybe with their surplus, we can get Iraq to pay for some upgrades.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Steve Rigby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From Ars Technica:
Report: US falling further behind on broadband speeds, reach
By John Timmer | Published: August 14, 2008 - 08:00PM CT
Report: US falling further behind on broadband speeds, reach
By John Timmer | Published: August 14, 2008 - 08:00PM CT
What's going on at Ars Technica? After noting that at current rates of
increase it will take 100 years for the US to catch up with Japan's
current level of service, Ars Technica
at current rates of increase it will take 100 years
for the US to catch up with Japan's current level
of service
I don't know about 100 years, but it *is* a massive job to dig up and
replace all the Internet pipes. The one that comes into my house is still
terra cotta, for God's sake.
Tom a lot of things drive that observation.
1.) Many folks just don't know what is available out there in other countries.
2.) A certain portion of the population is still confined to
dial-up. (I have one in my congregation) the only other alternative
is satellite and that is very
1.) Many folks just don't know what is available out there in other
countries.
And the carriers want to make sure we never find out. In China they call
it the Great Firewall in the US they call it traffic shaping.
*
**
Report: US falling further behind on broadband speeds, reach By John
Timmer | Published: August 14, 2008 - 08:00PM CT
The latest measure of the state of the US broadband market is now
available and, like many other takes on the subject, the picture it
paints is a bit depressing. The report
On Aug 15, 2008, at 8:32 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
Report: US falling further behind on broadband speeds, reach
By John Timmer | Published: August 14, 2008 - 08:00PM CT
What's going on at Ars Technica? After noting that at current rates of
increase it will take 100 years for the US to catch up
What's going on at Ars Technica? After noting that at current rates of
increase it will take 100 years for the US to catch up with Japan's
current level of service, Ars Technica then gos on to disparage the
report...
The rates reported for Asia are roughly what we term DS3 (T3)
level speeds.
ZDNet Australia has the US listed in 2008 as 23rd behind Latvia, Greece,
Hong Kong, Romania, Macau. Pretty pathetic.
Romania238K
Greece 132K
Latvia 65K
Hong Kong1K
Macau .025K
All numbers are square kilometers, rounded up, total 436.025K.
A little bigger than
Romania238K
Greece 132K
Latvia 65K
Hong Kong1K
Macau .025K
All numbers are square kilometers, rounded up, total 436.025K.
A little bigger than California and on average much denser.
If all I had to do was give everyone in California broadband and
I had
76 matches
Mail list logo
