Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
I don't know about that. I think through this list itself, you could outsell Nancy Pelosi... -Original Message- From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rev. Stewart Marshall Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 6:04 PM To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM 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 PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 sum seems to be about average when somebody in the news writes a book. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 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 sum seems to be about average when somebody in the news writes a book. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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/ ** *
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 PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 that loaf of bread costs then. Never mind. You don't get it. Yes, non-believers usually don't. Don't forget to avert thine eyes! * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 tax them. To try to give them a free ride would make serfs of people of regular means. Have you thought about what goes into all of these government services (federal, state and local)? Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- 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 a Modern business? 2. It is Government that provides police protections and other infrastructure required by all of us. This statement seems to imply that all infrastructure that is required comes from government. That is demonstrably no so to anyone who has used a telephone or been served by a volunteer fire company for instance. In any event, we must be careful not to conflate required with desired. 3. If corporations pay less, then the rest of us must pay for it, or subsidize them. 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 cease business. Matthew On Aug 20, 2008, at 2:21 PM, Snyder, Mark (IT CIV) wrote: 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 for it, or subsidize them. I am not willing to cover the tax obligations of others, especially large corporations. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 able to set any agenda. With too many ideologues on both sides, compromise has not been a possibility. The problem is voting by party. We would all be better off voting for moderates who are not stupid or corrupt. If that were possible. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 cease business. You miss the cause of the problem. In recent years a very small segment of the population has been skimming off $Billions of corporate profits. In effect the profits that would have been taxed to provide for the common good have been diverted into private hands. - The disgraced CEO of Countrywide financial paid himself $48M in 2006. - Ditto Bear Stearns $40M. - CVS drugstores $26M - Exxon Mobile $27M - ATT $25M - Verizon $26M - Qwest $18M etc. etc. 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 ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 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 cease business. You miss the cause of the problem. In recent years a very small segment of the population has been skimming off $Billions of corporate profits. In effect the profits that would have been taxed to provide for the common good have been diverted into private hands. - The disgraced CEO of Countrywide financial paid himself $48M in 2006. - Ditto Bear Stearns $40M. - CVS drugstores $26M - Exxon Mobile $27M - ATT $25M - Verizon $26M - Qwest $18M etc. etc. 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 ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 insult us by bring out such a straw man. Taxes are the price we pay for civilization. If you don't want to be civilized you should go buy your own island and move there. Just don't expect to get good broadband when you do. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 subsidy, the profits must be assumed to belong not to the corporation, but to the taxing authority - they state. Matthew On Aug 21, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote: 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 insult us by bring out such a straw man. Taxes are the price we pay for civilization. If you don't want to be civilized you should go buy your own island and move there. Just don't expect to get good broadband when you do. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 that includes you. Tom Piwowar wrote: 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 management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] [Fwd: Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...]
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: http://www.smartmoney.com/invisiblehand/index.cfm?story=20080125-corporate-tax-rate There have been numerous news articles showing exactly what share of the GDP or gross earnings of corporations actually gets paid in taxes. IOW, you've apparently fallen for a con game by corporations on taxation. Now if tax loopholes were closed, US corporations might have a point but most loopholes benefit large corporations. S corporations and closely held corporations have numerous opportunities to escape taxation. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 gold bars he has stored in the basement, but forgetting about a whole house? Wow! * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 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 gold bars he has stored in the basement, but forgetting about a whole house? Wow! * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 subsidy, the profits must be assumed to belong not to the corporation, but to the taxing authority - they state. You say A subsidy is when you give something that is yours by right to another party to encourage action by that party. My American Heritage Dictionary says: Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest. So I would say that you have peverted the meaning of subsidy to suit your own purposes. Monetary assistance can take many forms. You can give somebody money, or you can give them a discount, or you can give them an exemption from a tax that other people are obligated to pay, or probably many other ways. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 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 gold bars he has stored in the basement, but forgetting about a whole house? Wow! * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 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. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 subsidy, the profits must be assumed to belong not to the corporation, but to the taxing authority - they state. You're easily scared. It's a little confusing, but not so scary. Do you do your own business taxes? Profits are just that--revenue that remains after costs/expenses. Taxes are fees treated as expenses that are incurred to cover the cost of all the services that are provided by society so that the corporations/companies can do their business without undue distractions, competition expenses, or costs for infrastructure and public support services. Most corporations are regulated in one way or another, mostly to keep them from abusing the public, as they have done for hundreds of years [that's why they have renewable charters or licenses from states]. By giving a monopoly to a broadband provider, in effect they get a subsidy which is no different from the subsidies that we still give to the oil companies, just not usually much. OK don't call it a subsidy, call it a tax break, or a gift, or legally locking out potential competitors if there are any, so that the provider can make a bigger profit as an incentive to develop their network. That results in higher profits, or lower expenses than would exist without the legal monopoly--hence a SCARY subsidy. The rest is profits. I wonder how prices will change if we eliminate corporate taxes and replace them with a VAT [value-added tax], no exceptions. At first glance VAT looks like it would add a lot to prices for goods. Countries with VAT have higher prices, don't they? Not necessarily. I like shopping in Spain and France where many goods are cheaper than here, even with the currency fluctuation and VAT. It could work in the US, but will the prices remain pretty much the same? It appears that they could, if implemented carefully. Betty * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 today. Of course businesses exist to provide products and services at a profit, but without competition and subisidies, most tend to take advantage of that position at the expense of the customers. Betty, I would like to agree with you. But it takes investment to do this. I would like you to read these articles in the New York Times: Wherever private companies can provide quality broadband service at a reasonable price and make a profit it's fine. That's business. However, as you know, installing FIOS is expensive, and only cost-effective in areas of large populations. That's why we don't have FIOS around here, but my friends in Delaware and near DC have that choice. Broadband is no longer a luxury. It's becoming a necessity for businesses, and as a result, it's more available to the general public. Providers claim that it's too expensive to install broadband services everywhere, yet it's needed in small and medium-sized towns and cities, too. That's where the partnerships have developed--Allegany County, MD, and Lafayette, LA are examples. Private companies refused to go into Lafayette because it wasn't profitable [good reason], but turned around and sued [bad business] claiming unfair competition when the local governments decided to do it themselves. My friend John in Lafayette Parish says that their 100Mb service was partially funded by a program for schools. He also says that for locations that are more remote, they need a broadband version of the TVA to get started. Lafayette sold bonds to cover the cost. Laying fiber began in January. That town couldn't depend on private companies [Cox, Bell South] to get the broadband that businesses and residents needed. According to the Lafayette Pro Fiber group, Provo, Utah is experiencing the same kind of FUD as Lafayette, and may have both won and lost their fight to get a fiber network for its businesses and residents. 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. The NY Times blog link reads like it's a paid advertisement for cable. Read the comments below. I don't like cable, and hope that we will have more reliable choices. Verizon is OK for now. Perhaps a combination of fiber for higher population areas, and copper plus wireless for the last few miles will be a better solution. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 just about all corporations. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] [Fwd: Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...]
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 United States has the lowest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world. That's effectively subsidizing just about all corporations. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] [Fwd: Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...]
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 3rd world countries in that list, Ah, but how many ACTUALLY PAY that rate? Between tax deductions, tax credits and tax deferments, I'll wager the effective rate is lots lower. -- Roger Lovettsville, VA * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] OT: Re: [CGUYS] [Fwd: Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...]
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 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 United States has the lowest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world. That's effectively subsidizing just about all corporations. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] [Fwd: Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...]
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 countries is lowering their corporate tax rate, especially due to the point you raised; at 10 to 15%, there is far less incentive to play games in order to avoid it. And they are finding greater compliance and greater revenues. Roger D. Parish wrote: 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 3rd world countries in that list, Ah, but how many ACTUALLY PAY that rate? Between tax deductions, tax credits and tax deferments, I'll wager the effective rate is lots lower. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] [Fwd: Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...]
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. Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- 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, * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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? Matthew On Aug 20, 2008, at 8:40 AM, b_s-wilk wrote: The United States has the lowest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world. That's effectively subsidizing just about all corporations. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] [Fwd: Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...]
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 useful data somewhere, but don't base your argument on Wiki's table of nominal rates. The range covers all the crazy deductions. It maxes out at 35% and who knows how much some companies get paid by the government -200% doesn't seem unlikely. Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- 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, * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 for it, or subsidize them. I am not willing to cover the tax obligations of others, especially large corporations. Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- 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? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] [Fwd: Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...]
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 comparing tax liabilities of corporations from 1998-2005, about 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes [in 2005] were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts. Furthermore, this claim was repeated in numerous stories. After careful review of the AP's story, Tax Foundation economist Josh Barro found that the AP significantly overstated the number of large corporations not paying corporate taxes. The actual report reflects that, of the 1.26 million U.S. corporations with no 2005 tax liability, just 3,565 were large, says Barro. That's 0.28%, which is 90 times less than the figure reported by the AP. Policymakers and the public should not be deceived by this story that misrepresents the GAO report. On Aug 20, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Andy Gallant wrote: To add to the mix, here's some reading material from recent news: * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] [Fwd: Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...]
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: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/l20tax.html?_r=1oref=slogin Some of the ideas: Reduce the rate and eliminate loopholes. Many small businesses avoid corporate taxation by paying the owners higher salaries, which are in turn taxed at lower personal income rates. High rates drive businesses and jobs abroad where there are lower rates. Andy Gallant wrote: To add to the mix, here's some reading material from recent news: - from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/business/13tax.html?fta=y Two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005, according to a report released Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/government_accountability_office/index.html?inline=nyt-org, the investigative arm of Congress. - from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102324.html About two-thirds of corporations operating in the United States did not pay taxes annually from 1998 to 2005, according to a new report scheduled to be made public today from the U.S. Government Accountability Office http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Government+Accountability+Office?tid=informline. A GAO link is http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-08-957. The title of the report is Tax Administration: Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations, 1998-2005, GAO-08-957 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf July 24, 2008. -Andy Roger D. Parish wrote: 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 3rd world countries in that list, Ah, but how many ACTUALLY PAY that rate? Between tax deductions, tax credits and tax deferments, I'll wager the effective rate is lots lower. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 a Modern business? 2. It is Government that provides police protections and other infrastructure required by all of us. This statement seems to imply that all infrastructure that is required comes from government. That is demonstrably no so to anyone who has used a telephone or been served by a volunteer fire company for instance. In any event, we must be careful not to conflate required with desired. 3. If corporations pay less, then the rest of us must pay for it, or subsidize them. 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 cease business. Matthew On Aug 20, 2008, at 2:21 PM, Snyder, Mark (IT CIV) wrote: 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 for it, or subsidize them. I am not willing to cover the tax obligations of others, especially large corporations. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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, according to a recent NY Times article that I am too lazy to look up, a recent survey found that two thirds of american corporations pay no taxes at all, and it appears that many of them do this by reporting a disproportionate fraction of their worldwide expenses on their US tax returns. You may also want to look at what Paul Krugman will have to say on the matter. He gives the beginnings of his take (more will be forthcoming) in a recent blog entry, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/the-greek-menace/ in which he points out that the statutory minimum tax rate is seldom the actual tax rate and that we really shouldn't compare ourselves to exceptional countries. Countries such as Monaco, Luxembourg, Iran, United Arab Emirates, etc., that are in the wikipedia list are certainly ones that I would say probably aren't good items for comparison. On Aug 20, 2008, at 1:45 PM, COMPUTERGUYS-L automatic digest system wrote: Subject: Re: What we actually get for our money... 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 just about all corporations. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 their corporate tax rates and they find that they are actually bringing in more revenue with a more realistic rate. As for the agency which stated the 2/3 corps not paying taxes, they made no effort to analyze why that may be. One explanation posited elsewhere is that most US corporations are small businesses and many of these have little or no profits. And, to repeat, many of these with profits, pass their profits to their owners as salaries, so the government receives its taxes as personal income tax (at 27-28%) instead of as corporate tax at 35%. 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. And to repeat a previous post, this is all immaterial, as corporations don't pay taxes; they pass their tax obligation through to their customers in the pricing of their products. David K Watson wrote: So it's doesn't really settle the matter. On the contrary side, according to a recent NY Times article that I am too lazy to look up, a recent survey found that two thirds of american corporations pay no taxes at all, and it appears that many of them do this by reporting a disproportionate fraction of their worldwide expenses on their US tax returns. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 different idea of what the United States needs to do. I say that I have no political agenda. I'm in the business of selling superior products to those I can reach at competitive prices. I'm willing to take risks to accomplish this. I'm not writing social agendas or even worrying about what foreign companies do. I don't operate based on what's desirable or ideal. I have to operate in the real world. It serves my interest to deploy a fiber network. That's what I'm doing. As far as small and medium towns our testbed for this was Keller, Texas. Not exactly New York City. We can do this anywhere we have fiber deployed. It may take a few minutes. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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, and CIA's LSD experiments, and open air testing of atomic bombs in St. George, Utah. I also remember General Westmoreland lying about Viet Nam. However, the government also funded medical research to wipe out polio, and to develop and distribute influenza vaccine to people who need it. Government money also sent astronauts to the moon and the space lab, and sent two robots to Mars on a 90-day exploratory geological mission in 2003 that is still ongoing nearly 5 years later. 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 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 today. Of course businesses exist to provide products and services at a profit, but without competition and subisidies, most tend to take advantage of that position at the expense of the customers. Betty 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 is rarely seen in nature, since as you approach such a fact-free vacuum, subjects usually implode. We must have both slept through different history classes. Where you awake when the instructor went over J. Edger Hoover spying on Martin Luther King and thousands of others he suspected of being unpatriotic? Congress holding hearings and smearing the reputation of anyone suspected of having communist leanings, whether it were true or not? The CIA experimenting with LSD on soldiers without their knowledge or consent? The Tuskegee syphilis experiment, where govt. scientists allowed black men unknowingly infected with the disease go untreated to see how the disease progressed? Conducting open-air biological experiments over populated areas and within public facilities? A president lying about ships being attacked in SE Asian gulfs, the US Military dumping thousands of gallons of Agent Orange in Viet Nam knowing the health effects, etc, etc. No thanks. I don't need your brand of good things. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 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 today. Man. That's some military-grade RDF. I see you still haven't connected the dots as to why there is no significant competition in broadband in the first place. Oh well. The above is completely speculative and without any grounding in fact. *Couldn't* have been done without federal funding and *wasn't* done are 2 different things. To suggest that nothing BIG can't be done without guvmint money is a view divorced from reality. And to conveniently forget to mention that a good deal of what you list was done in the interest of countering the Soviets during the cold war is shifty at best. The military-industrial complex, which I doubt you are a terrific fan of, is at the core of all of that. Many very big things are done, every day, without a drop of guvmint funds. You simply choose to ignore them, as you do the massive waste that occurs as a result of constituent fluffing, something slimy old pols such as Robert Byrd and Ted Steven like to brag about to the folks back home. I suppose the Fed-driven housing bubble was a good thing too. It's the child-like views about government you display is as to why our country is trillions of dollars in debt, and are deeply indebted to powers that I would rather not have so much leverage over us, such as China and Saudi Arabia. You show no criteria for discriminating between easily justifiable funding, such as epidemic control and infectious disease research (you know, the kind where they _don't_ kill you on purpose), and throwing tax money willy-nilly at privately-owned broadband oligopolies because your youtube videos are choppy. As long as one can make the most tenuous of arguments that it will add to our economic security, you'd throw the treasury doors wide open. What *wouldn't* you fund? Wait! I know. Subsidized timber for church pews. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 today. Of course businesses exist to provide products and services at a profit, but without competition and subisidies, most tend to take advantage of that position at the expense of the customers. Betty, I would like to agree with you. But it takes investment to do this. I would like you to read these articles in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/technology/19fios.html?_r=2ref=businessoref=sloginoref=slogin. This one is pretty pessimistic but it has a lot of truth in it. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/a-bear-speaks-why-verizons-pricey-fios-bet-wont-pay-off/index.html?ref=technology I think more successful than expected says it all. I am not a financial analyst but I know how to bet on whether the toast falls on the floor butter side up or butter side down. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 butter side up or butter side down. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 accumulated from the monopoly [also funded by the Brits and the French govts]. Federally funded NASA launched the satellites for ATT. Those early satellites were the foundation of phone, radio, TV, Internet communications--supported with federal investment. Unix was developed in Bell Labs. UC Berkeley received funds from DARPA to develop its version of BSD Unix in the federally funded Computer Systems Research Group. The cold war gave the feds another excuse to funnel funds to universities and private companies to develop and implement new technology. Ancient history? Feds have allowed local monopolies in broadband development and service; that allowed the companies to get a decent return on investment--unfortunately they have turned around and gouged their customers instead of passing on the federal portion to their customers. Getting immunity from prosecution in the latest FISA bill will also save $billions in legal costs. That's another handout from the government, but not nearly as useful to the public as past federal support. 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. Betty What a wonderfully warm and fuzzy Rotary Club speech. After reading that we should be locking the doors on the labs and standing over the scientists with cattle prods and menacing looks. Work smarter *and* harder! Damn it, we're nationally and economically insecure! There aren't any stupid questions *or* answers! And for the love of god, whatever you do, don't stop shoveling the money in the door! Too bad none of it is even the slightest bit relevant to the topic at hand. Broadband subsidy plans don't involve RD, unless the politicos can come up with a way to stuff the bill with almost credible sounding language to torque up the pork-slinging to their constituents and major donors. No, they're just out-and-out cash deals, not too unlike the Plexiglas cylinders on game shows where they blow the money up into the air for the contestants to grab as much of as they can before the fan turns off. Oh, and thanks to the remarkable foresight displayed above, we now have an expensive broadband oligopoly, and if you're really lucky, a nominally competitive market. Thank god you have the answer to this problem: more of the same, only bigger. Much, much bigger; it's the Ted Stevens plan. Political solutions to non-political, perceived problems. Yeah, that works every time. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 home, I just want high speed. Is that dedicated 20 megabit from Qwest vs. as high as 25 megabit from Cox? Does that put Cox in the position of having to manage traffic so that you can get even a small sliver of that 25 megabits? How many independent 25 megabit channels fit on one strand of RG6 coax? A quick Google says that max frequency for coax is about 1 GHz. So 25 gozinta 1,000 about 40 times. Does that mean 40 channels? How much of this has to be reserved for TV and other services? What is Cox really selling? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 different history classes. Where you awake when the instructor went over J. Edger Hoover spying on Martin Luther King and thousands of others he suspected of being unpatriotic? Congress holding hearings and smearing the reputation of anyone suspected of having communist leanings, whether it were true or not? The CIA experimenting with LSD on soldiers without their knowledge or consent? The Tuskegee syphilis experiment, where govt. scientists allowed black men unknowingly infected with the disease go untreated to see how the disease progressed? Conducting open-air biological experiments over populated areas and within public facilities? A president lying about ships being attacked in SE Asian gulfs, the US Military dumping thousands of gallons of Agent Orange in Viet Nam knowing the health effects, etc, etc. No thanks. I don't need your brand of good things. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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. That's better than the full-page ads Cox is running around here claiming they offer fiber, when their system is really copper. Now if only we had enough competition to get reasonable prices for these wonders. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 home, I just want high speed. Mike On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. That's better than the full-page ads Cox is running around here claiming they offer fiber, when their system is really copper. Now if only we had enough competition to get reasonable prices for these wonders. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 *wireless* tech is sure to follow. Isn't FIOS the one bright spot in the broadband landscape? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 neighborhood, near Tysons's Corner, VA, for a while now. Dunno what they are doing, but these are windowed vans, sort of the family type, blue and white, with Wimax lettering on them. They actually seem as though they are lost a lot of the time, turning around in people's driveways quite often as if they are trying to find something or other. Maybe they are from out of the area, and are, indeed, lost. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 isn't going to help us do this. We are doing this on our own. That is how America is supposed to work. If you don't want our products you don't have to buy them, you'll get the same reliable utility service you always have had if you opt out of our fiber network. But we think our product is superior and we want to show you and tell you how good it is. We're betting that you'll really like our new optical network. End of commercial. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 without said population having the income or desire to become connected. Is Verizon going to rush out and put FIOS into neighborhoods based primarily upon population density? If so, then the poorest areas would be the first to get served. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 reaps the benefits of their very substantial investment. Unfortunately, for too many of our friends, qualities such as risk and reward, investment and a return on it, are a distant second to gimmee, gimmee, gimmee, as if high-speed internet access is a national birthright. Most of the municipal wi-fi systems around the country, that were supposed to be oh-so-cheap to implement and have people fighting to get in line to get it, are languishing from low-ball cost projections, over-optimistic revenue estimates, low enrollment, mismanagement, idiotic partnerships, poor engineering and plain old city guvmint corruption. By any reasonable standard, these projects are abject failures. With all of these modern-day examples, you'd think people would get the memo about the futility of betting other people's money on for-profit ventures. Markets are very good at allocating the resources needed for products and services, when they're actually allowed to have competitors within it. Better yet, investors and businesses are only betting their own money, at least in the non-T. Bone Pickens world. When Verizon has to ask for permission from the powers that be to provide this service to areas that are locked up by monopolized systems, (think *most* of the country) thanks to local guvmints and sweetheart deals cut decades ago, it's no wonder high-speed internet access is in the state that's it's in. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 certainly is critical, but wasn't Bell/ATT/TPC granted the ability to impose a surcharge to get things moving on the ability to have high-speed networking? -- Take care | This clown speaks for himself, his job doesn't Wayne D. | supply this, at least not directly Science is a collection of successful recipes * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 looks like we are sitting at under 4 million at this time. http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2006/05/12/telcos-lay-billion-goose-egg On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Eric S. Sande [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 systems up and running within a designated time, and in return, they got help from the government, as has been necessary for huge projects like this, and they have profited well, just not on their own. High quality communications backbone and capability is essential for economic advancement of businesses in this country. Economic and scientific parity, or better yet, superiority are important for the well-being of the American people, but most important, advanced communications is the foundation of national security through economic security. If the libertarians among you believe that the government can't do a good job at promoting science and communications, you have a very short memory, or you slept through history and current events classes. We're lucky that the people in government 50 years ago, and until the 80s when science budgets were beginning to be attacked [thank goodness for Al Gore's support of legislation to fund the Internet], understood that technological superiority and innovation are not proprietary. Supporting techology and scientific research benefits both businesses and the people. It can't be done without public-private partnerships. Public investment is good for all of us. Megacorps are only bearing the difference in cost between their budgeted investment and the funding from the government through tax breaks and grants. The US has fallen behind by a lot. Land area and population aren't relevant. Determination, investment and a serious plan for economic advancement are. Betty 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 reaps the benefits of their very substantial investment. Unfortunately, for too many of our friends, qualities such as risk and reward, investment and a return on it, are a distant second to gimmee, gimmee, gimmee, as if high-speed internet access is a national birthright. Most of the municipal wi-fi systems around the country, that were supposed to be oh-so-cheap to implement and have people fighting to get in line to get it, are languishing from low-ball cost projections, over-optimistic revenue estimates, low enrollment, mismanagement, idiotic partnerships, poor engineering and plain old city guvmint corruption. By any reasonable standard, these projects are abject failures. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 it might not be available to all? Qwest counts me as having fiber available until I actually make the call and suddenly it's not. Either way, I think it can be agreed that the telcos, all of them, have not even come close to delivering what we paid for. That's the rub, they've been paid. And no I'm not blaming your personally for the woes :p Mike On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Eric S. Sande [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. I'm not sure you're looking at current numbers, the article was over two years old. Try this: http://telcotv-view.blogspot.com/2008/07/verizon-fios-tv-growth-slows-in-2q08.html * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 speak for Verizon. You'll have to ask our public relations department about that, but they won't be able to say anything about Qwest. I'm in this strictly because I know how this technology works and what it takes to deploy it over a large footprint. I'm not an engineer by training but I am by necessity. As a telco manager I have to produce results in the context of the personnel and technology at my disposal. I know there are a lot of frustrated prople out there who want my products. I know I can't deliver as fast as they want me to. But I'm trying, Mike, I'm really trying. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 complicated and convoluted even to those of us who were in telecom over the entire period. Basically those left standing as of right now are ATT, Qwest and Verizon as far as local providers. Alcatel-Lucent owns Bell Labs and what was Western Electric (Now Lucent). Nortel (Canadian) and Siemens (German) are also providers of choice as far as central office switches. Edge equipment in Verizon at least comes mostly from Alcatel-Lucent, Cisco, Canoga Perkins, and Westell. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 depressing. The report puts the US in 15th place when it comes to national broadband speeds, and indicates that improvements are coming very slowly. Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/6fmvcx Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 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 puts the US in 15th place when it comes to national broadband speeds, and indicates that improvements are coming very slowly. Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/6fmvcx * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 then gos on to disparage the report. Ars Technica suggests that the study is biased because the data was collected by communication workers (Instead of who? Cloistered nuns?) Ars Technica then claims that people are simply uninterested in getting better broadband. (Perhaps they got that from John McCain?) Very, very odd for a tech zine. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 expensive for what you get. 3.) Our population is aging! This means a number of folks just don't care about Internet speed (What is that thing anyway?) I have a portion of my churches membership that either are not connected or limited use of connection. 4.) Income is still one of the biggest barriers for high speed Internet. Low income usually means little or no Internet. These are just some of my own observations. (The south tends to be tech adverse) Stewart 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. Ars Technica suggests that the study is biased because the data was collected by communication workers (Instead of who? Cloistered nuns?) Ars Technica then claims that people are simply uninterested in getting better broadband. (Perhaps they got that from John McCain?) Very, very odd for a tech zine. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 puts the US in 15th place when it comes to national broadband speeds, and indicates that improvements are coming very slowly. Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/6fmvcx My friend sent me an email from a free WiFi hotspot in Paris yesterday, with his iPhone. The city is covered with free public hotspots. Broadband is cheap compared to the US. €29,90 per month for 8Mbps Internet and phone. Add €10 for TV. I'd be happy to pay that here for 8Mbps service, which I think was around €20-25/mo for Internet alone. ZDNet Australia has the US listed in 2008 as 23rd behind Latvia, Greece, Hong Kong, Romania, Macau. Pretty pathetic. Most of the countries ahead of the US don't have fiber optic networks either. The high speeds are on copper. Higher speeds can be found on fiber, but it's cheaper to install more switches in some cases than to install an entire fiber network. Americans are such sheeple. They don't demand better, more affordable service; they just pay whatever the providers tell them to pay. Pretty pathetic. I got a phone call from Comcast yesterday asking if I wanted to get fast broadband. I told her to call me when I could get 20Mb service for $30, and did they have that yet. She hung up. Didn't even want to talk. Shame on her. I think I might sell my stock. Betty * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 with Japan's current level of service, Ars Technica then gos on to disparage the report. They sort of disparaged the report by making sure that the reader understood that there could be some bias involved, but then admitted that their own evaluations basically supported the conclusions of the communications workers. In fact, it is quite well known that we have been getting the butt end of the broadband deal for a long time. Ars Technica suggests that the study is biased because the data was collected by communication workers (Instead of who? Cloistered nuns?) Ars Technica then claims that people are simply uninterested in getting better broadband. (Perhaps they got that from John McCain?) Very, very odd for a tech zine. I think that they may mean that people are simply uninterested in getting better broadband because the public assumes that anything that is significantly better than what is currently available will be too costly to afford. Without more and better competition, that is absolutely true. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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. There's a handy chart at the end of this article: http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=115 I think the CWA did a great job with the data collection but not necessarily the data interpretation. Median is a slippery statistic at best, and I believe we can't assume that the other countries cited aren't including governmental and large institutional users in their speed reports. CWA almost certainly is not. My team mostly provisions optical carrier applications and believe me when I say there's no shortage of demand at the Gbps level for these products. I have the technology to do it, and if you are willing to cover my costs I will gladly do it. But I choose not to operate at a loss. I am all ready putting my butt on the line with FiOS, I expect to retire before I see positive ROI on that venture, but if I build it they will come. I get no government handouts to do this, I am a businessman first and I am willing to take calculated risks but I will not give away the store because a country the size of Montana (Japan) or Virginia (ROK) can deploy faster--even if they really can. They have, you see, a denser infrastructure than I do. As usual, my opinion only. However, feel free to continue to hold my feet to the fire on this issue, my compamy is going balls to the wall on this. 100 years, by the way, is pure unadulterated ignorance on Ars Technica's part. The person who wrote the article likely does not know what they are talkong about... * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 California and on average much denser. If all I had to do was give everyone in California broadband and I had government funding they'd all be smoking along on GigE. If you want me to hook up a formerly second world country like, say Georgia, that's about the size of West Virginia, well it was a couple of weeks ago, I can do that too. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What we actually get for our money...
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 government funding they'd all be smoking along on GigE. If you want me to hook up a formerly second world country like, say Georgia, that's about the size of West Virginia, well it was a couple of weeks ago, I can do that too. Tsk, tsk Eric. Never let inconvenient things like facts get in the way of a hysterical inferiority complex by proxy. We need our national pride! Who cares about gold medals, we need high(er)-speed internet! Now pipe down and belly up to the tax-filled trough like a good, little megacorp. Maybe you need some of the good 'ol American gumption of T. Bone Pickens. Now, there's a patriot who knows how to stick it to the little guy while he laughs all the way to the bank and back. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_08/014238.php * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
