Rest iN peace, Mr. Jobs

On 12 Oct 2011 19:14:34 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 12 Oct 2011 16:16:49 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Seems to me that if the US can produce more cheaply, the US will do
>>>more of the earning, less of the buying from other countries. Sort of
>>>the reveerse of the flight of manufacturing and services to East Asia?
>>> Or isn't it that simple?
>>
>> I don't think it is. In reducing the cost of U.S.-made goods, the cost
>> of labor and bennies will almost certainly have to come down...unless
>> you can figure out how to limit the profits made by stockholders and
>> wages of CEOs and other upper mangle^H^H^Hagement.
>
>Remember that the dollar is worth far less than it once was?. 1 € costs
>now about US$1.32, but earlier it was almost $1.50. At the high point of
>the $ vs € it was $0.82 or so. So between high and low there is almost a
>2-fold difference. The more $ "they" can get for a €, the cheaper our
>goods are to them, and vice versa. And that was without finagling wages
>or benefits. We would be even richer as a nation if the resulting wealth
>was spread out more evenly, not going to corporations and really rich
>people who can afford to stash it abroad.

And what are your ideas to allow us to achieve either of those goals?
Are you talking "redistribution of wealth" here?

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer

On 10/13/2011 4:25 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>>
>> IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount
>> of taxes. THIS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO IMPLEMENT AND THERE COULD
>> BE SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT DAMN FEW. Every one means a family of 5 pays 5
>> times what a single person pays. You might be surprised to learn that
>> it is doable with the understanding that it would take several years
>> to fully implement.
>>
>> Would that be fair? Absolutely. Why should you pay more taxes than
>> your neighbor when he gets the same benefits as you. Why shouldn't he
>> pays as much in taxes since he gets the same benefits as you?
>>
>
> Sounds like you're an advocate for my "Fair-Fair Tax" plan. I sent the
> outlines to Senator McGovern back when he, as a presidental candidate,
> advocated sending everybody $1000. At that time, our population was about
> 250 million and our national budget was about $250 billion.
>
> That works out to a tax of $1000/per person. Send it in.
>
> Ah, but what about the person who doesn't HAVE $1000?
>
> They could contribute unit of blood platelets (at $100) each month for ten
> months and have their taxes for the year paid (I call this my Tax Withdrawal
> Plan).
>
> Sure, you might say, but what about the teen-age mother with four children?
> She can't contribute five units of blood platelets and we're certainly not
> going to drain toddlers! (that would be cruel). She can contribute a kidney
> and get a $25,000 credit, enough for her and her brood for five years
> (longer if she contributes blood platelets too). At the end of five years,
> perhaps a cornea or half a liver. By the time ten years have passed, her
> offspring would be on their own and having their own tax issues.
>
>
Add the possibility of donating community service for those that cannot
afford to pay their taxes.

On 10/13/2011 05:40 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 9:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>> We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the loopholes
>>> and preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher effective rates.
>>> Both corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes have been going up,
>>> as have state and local as well as sales taxes. That has put more
>>> and more of the burden on lower wage earners, while higher wage
>>> earners and those not relying on earned income have gotten a break.
>>> It's time to put more purchasing power in the hands of lower income
>>> people.
>>>
>>> And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.
>>
>> The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all!
>> How is
>> that fair?
>>
>> I'm with you on eliminating loopholes. There are two goals of the tax
>> system
>> as it is currently implemented:
>> 1. To raise revenue.
>> 2. To foster (or suppress) social activity.
>>
>
>
> IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount of
> taxes. THIS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO IMPLEMENT AND THERE COULD BE
> SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT DAMN FEW. Every one means a family of 5 pays 5 times
> what a single person pays. You might be surprised to learn that it is
> doable with the understanding that it would take several years to fully
> implement.
>
> Would that be fair? Absolutely. Why should you pay more taxes than your
> neighbor when he gets the same benefits as you. Why shouldn't he pays as
> much in taxes since he gets the same benefits as you?
>
>
> A fact, a great number of voters do not pay taxes and expect the
> government to take care of them. One political party uses these voters
> to keep them in office. Take away the freebies and make everyone pay
> their fair share and see what happen with government. No more playing
> favorites. Every one will expect the government to trim down and act
> responsibly because that will lower everyone's taxes. If you don't pay
> taxes you really don't care whether the government is going farther into
> debt or not.
> We need to get the government back to doing what it was intended to do,
> defend out country and maintain the infrastructure.

Limit Federal voter eligibility to active military, vets and those who
pay income tax. As Obama says "you have to have some skin in the game".


--
"A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to
blame somebody else." -John Burroughs

On 10/13/2011 6:22 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 9:33 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>
>>> But can anyone truly say that any person is worth more than a million
>>> dollars a year? I certainly don't think so.
>>
>> What's "worth" got to do with anything? Some HAVE more than a million
>> because others willingly GAVE it to them.
>>
>> Oh, there are exceptions, but in the main the wealthy earned their
>> fortunes.
>>
>>
>
> Those that earned their wealth, how much harder than you did they work
> to earn that amount?
>
>
> Lets say you work 40 hours a week and earn $100,000 per year.
>
> Do you think that on average that some one that makes $1,000,000 per
> year has worked 10 times harder than you?
>
Not harder, but he may have done things that earned his company ten
times as much profit as the work you did.

On 10/13/2011 6:40 AM, Leon wrote:
>
> IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount of
> taxes.
> Every one means a family of 5 pays 5 times what a single person pays.

You're contradicting yourself. What you're actually saying is that a
single woman with no children would pay X dollars while a single women
with one child would pay 2X dollars, and the child would pay 0 dollars.
That's three people, each paying three very different amounts.
For everyone to pay the exact amount, a 40 year old CEO making $2
million a year and a 3 month old orphan would each be required to pay
the same amount in taxes.

On 10/15/2011 6:13 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 10/14/2011 3:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 10/13/2011 6:40 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount of
>>> taxes.
>>> Every one means a family of 5 pays 5 times what a single person pays.
>>
>> You're contradicting yourself. What you're actually saying is that a
>> single woman with no children would pay X dollars while a single women
>> with one child would pay 2X dollars, and the child would pay 0 dollars.
>> That's three people, each paying three very different amounts.
>> For everyone to pay the exact amount, a 40 year old CEO making $2
>> million a year and a 3 month old orphan would each be required to pay
>> the same amount in taxes.
>
> No what I am actually saying is that a family of 5 pays 5 times what a
> single person pays. That was not that hard to understand was it?
>
>
> To simplify that for you, the single mom goes to the movies and pays $5.
>
> A mom and her child go to the movies and pays $10.
>
> You actually have to use a bit of "common" sense and think in a way a
> "reasonable" person would think.
>
>
> You finally get it on the last sentence of you overly stated paragraph.
>
> And to help you with that example, the same $2m CEO goes to the movies
> and pays the same amount as the orphan.
>
Actually, the 3 month old would get in free.

Leon wrote:
>
> IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount
> of taxes. THIS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO IMPLEMENT AND THERE COULD
> BE SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT DAMN FEW. Every one means a family of 5 pays 5
> times what a single person pays. You might be surprised to learn that
> it is doable with the understanding that it would take several years
> to fully implement.
>
> Would that be fair? Absolutely. Why should you pay more taxes than
> your neighbor when he gets the same benefits as you. Why shouldn't he
> pays as much in taxes since he gets the same benefits as you?
>

Sounds like you're an advocate for my "Fair-Fair Tax" plan. I sent the
outlines to Senator McGovern back when he, as a presidental candidate,
advocated sending everybody $1000. At that time, our population was about
250 million and our national budget was about $250 billion.

That works out to a tax of $1000/per person. Send it in.

Ah, but what about the person who doesn't HAVE $1000?

They could contribute unit of blood platelets (at $100) each month for ten
months and have their taxes for the year paid (I call this my Tax Withdrawal
Plan).

Sure, you might say, but what about the teen-age mother with four children?
She can't contribute five units of blood platelets and we're certainly not
going to drain toddlers! (that would be cruel). She can contribute a kidney
and get a $25,000 credit, enough for her and her brood for five years
(longer if she contributes blood platelets too). At the end of five years,
perhaps a cornea or half a liver. By the time ten years have passed, her
offspring would be on their own and having their own tax issues.

On 10/12/2011 9:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Han wrote:
>>
>> We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the loopholes
>> and preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher effective rates.
>> Both corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes have been going up,
>> as have state and local as well as sales taxes. That has put more
>> and more of the burden on lower wage earners, while higher wage
>> earners and those not relying on earned income have gotten a break.
>> It's time to put more purchasing power in the hands of lower income
>> people.
>>
>> And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.
>
> The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all! How is
> that fair?
>
> I'm with you on eliminating loopholes. There are two goals of the tax system
> as it is currently implemented:
> 1. To raise revenue.
> 2. To foster (or suppress) social activity.
>


IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount of
taxes. THIS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO IMPLEMENT AND THERE COULD BE
SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT DAMN FEW. Every one means a family of 5 pays 5
times what a single person pays. You might be surprised to learn that
it is doable with the understanding that it would take several years to
fully implement.

Would that be fair? Absolutely. Why should you pay more taxes than
your neighbor when he gets the same benefits as you. Why shouldn't he
pays as much in taxes since he gets the same benefits as you?


A fact, a great number of voters do not pay taxes and expect the
government to take care of them. One political party uses these voters
to keep them in office. Take away the freebies and make everyone pay
their fair share and see what happen with government. No more playing
favorites. Every one will expect the government to trim down and act
responsibly because that will lower everyone's taxes. If you don't pay
taxes you really don't care whether the government is going farther into
debt or not.
We need to get the government back to doing what it was intended to do,
defend out country and maintain the infrastructure.

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 10/13/2011 4:25 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> > Leon wrote:
> >>
> >> IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount
> >> of taxes. THIS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO IMPLEMENT AND THERE COULD
> >> BE SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT DAMN FEW. Every one means a family of 5 pays 5
> >> times what a single person pays. You might be surprised to learn that
> >> it is doable with the understanding that it would take several years
> >> to fully implement.
> >>
> >> Would that be fair? Absolutely. Why should you pay more taxes than
> >> your neighbor when he gets the same benefits as you. Why shouldn't he
> >> pays as much in taxes since he gets the same benefits as you?
> >>
> >
> > Sounds like you're an advocate for my "Fair-Fair Tax" plan. I sent the
> > outlines to Senator McGovern back when he, as a presidental candidate,
> > advocated sending everybody $1000. At that time, our population was about
> > 250 million and our national budget was about $250 billion.
> >
> > That works out to a tax of $1000/per person. Send it in.
> >
> > Ah, but what about the person who doesn't HAVE $1000?
> >
> > They could contribute unit of blood platelets (at $100) each month for ten
> > months and have their taxes for the year paid (I call this my Tax Withdrawal
> > Plan).
> >
> > Sure, you might say, but what about the teen-age mother with four children?
> > She can't contribute five units of blood platelets and we're certainly not
> > going to drain toddlers! (that would be cruel). She can contribute a kidney
> > and get a $25,000 credit, enough for her and her brood for five years
> > (longer if she contributes blood platelets too). At the end of five years,
> > perhaps a cornea or half a liver. By the time ten years have passed, her
> > offspring would be on their own and having their own tax issues.
> >
> >
> Add the possibility of donating community service for those that cannot
> afford to pay their taxes.

Oh, now you want slave labor.

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 10/14/2011 3:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> > On 10/13/2011 6:40 AM, Leon wrote:
> >>
> >> IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount of
> >> taxes.
> >> Every one means a family of 5 pays 5 times what a single person pays.
> >
> > You're contradicting yourself. What you're actually saying is that a
> > single woman with no children would pay X dollars while a single women
> > with one child would pay 2X dollars, and the child would pay 0 dollars.
> > That's three people, each paying three very different amounts.
> > For everyone to pay the exact amount, a 40 year old CEO making $2
> > million a year and a 3 month old orphan would each be required to pay
> > the same amount in taxes.
>
> No what I am actually saying is that a family of 5 pays 5 times what a
> single person pays. That was not that hard to understand was it?
>
>
> To simplify that for you, the single mom goes to the movies and pays $5.
>
> A mom and her child go to the movies and pays $10.
>
> You actually have to use a bit of "common" sense and think in a way a
> "reasonable" person would think.
>
>
> You finally get it on the last sentence of you overly stated paragraph.
>
> And to help you with that example, the same $2m CEO goes to the movies
> and pays the same amount as the orphan. Fair is fair. Right?

Except that there are not men with guns dragging either the CEO or the
orphan to the movies. Movies are elective, taxes are not.

On 10/13/2011 10:18 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:51:46 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Larry Jaques<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>> Snip
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>> IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
>>>>>>> buy more ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GOOD punchline.<g>
>>>>>> (On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
>>>>>> How do the poor buy more?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent will
>>>>> lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd love it!
>>>
>>> Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
>>> resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to corporations
>>> and really rich people who can afford to stash it abroad.
>>
>>
>> Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? Probably
>> not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
>> people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the hand that
>> feeds us.
>
> Right, but also note that those corporations don't pay tax anyway. It's a
> cost of doing business and necessarily gets passed onto the consumer. Might
> just as well put the tax there. It's more efficient, if nothing else.


Right! Corporations don't pay taxes its customers do.

On 10/13/2011 8:10 AM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 10/13/2011 05:40 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 10/12/2011 9:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the loopholes
>>>> and preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher effective rates.
>>>> Both corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes have been going up,
>>>> as have state and local as well as sales taxes. That has put more
>>>> and more of the burden on lower wage earners, while higher wage
>>>> earners and those not relying on earned income have gotten a break.
>>>> It's time to put more purchasing power in the hands of lower income
>>>> people.
>>>>
>>>> And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.
>>>
>>> The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all!
>>> How is
>>> that fair?
>>>
>>> I'm with you on eliminating loopholes. There are two goals of the tax
>>> system
>>> as it is currently implemented:
>>> 1. To raise revenue.
>>> 2. To foster (or suppress) social activity.
>>>
>>
>>
>> IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount of
>> taxes. THIS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO IMPLEMENT AND THERE COULD BE
>> SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT DAMN FEW. Every one means a family of 5 pays 5 times
>> what a single person pays. You might be surprised to learn that it is
>> doable with the understanding that it would take several years to fully
>> implement.
>>
>> Would that be fair? Absolutely. Why should you pay more taxes than your
>> neighbor when he gets the same benefits as you. Why shouldn't he pays as
>> much in taxes since he gets the same benefits as you?
>>
>>
>> A fact, a great number of voters do not pay taxes and expect the
>> government to take care of them. One political party uses these voters
>> to keep them in office. Take away the freebies and make everyone pay
>> their fair share and see what happen with government. No more playing
>> favorites. Every one will expect the government to trim down and act
>> responsibly because that will lower everyone's taxes. If you don't pay
>> taxes you really don't care whether the government is going farther into
>> debt or not.
>> We need to get the government back to doing what it was intended to do,
>> defend out country and maintain the infrastructure.
>
> Limit Federal voter eligibility to active military, vets and those who
> pay income tax. As Obama says "you have to have some skin in the game".

That would probably be a good start to my putting my plan in place.
Basically, if you have nothing to loose you don't care as much.

Larry W wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
> <...snipped...>
>> The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at
>> all! How is that fair?
> <...snipped...>
>
>
> I would say that the REAL inequity is that some of those 49% who pay
> no taxes are richer than you or me. As for the poor paying no taxes,
> certainly there is some abuse in the system at all income levels, but
> personally I have no problem, for instance, with a widowed single
> mother making minimum wage at Burger King not paying any income taxes.

I do.

Perhaps another program to supplement her income would be in order.

But giving people a pass on paying (even a slight amount) in taxes is
counter-productive. She could probably afford a dollar per week. That dollar
would give her a stake in federal expenditures and, hopefully, she would
help pester the congress-critters to reduce spending.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> But can anyone truly say that any person is worth more than a million
> dollars a year? I certainly don't think so.

What's "worth" got to do with anything? Some HAVE more than a million
because others willingly GAVE it to them.

Oh, there are exceptions, but in the main the wealthy earned their fortunes.

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 12 Oct 2011 19:14:34 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 12 Oct 2011 16:16:49 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>Seems to me that if the US can produce more cheaply, the US will do
>>>>more of the earning, less of the buying from other countries. Sort
>>>>of the reveerse of the flight of manufacturing and services to East
>>>>Asia?
>>>> Or isn't it that simple?
>>>
>>> I don't think it is. In reducing the cost of U.S.-made goods, the
>>> cost of labor and bennies will almost certainly have to come
>>> down...unless you can figure out how to limit the profits made by
>>> stockholders and wages of CEOs and other upper mangle^H^H^Hagement.
>>
>>Remember that the dollar is worth far less than it once was?. 1 €
>>costs now about US$1.32, but earlier it was almost $1.50. At the high
>>point of the $ vs € it was $0.82 or so. So between high and low there
>>is almost a 2-fold difference. The more $ "they" can get for a €, the
>>cheaper our goods are to them, and vice versa. And that was without
>>finagling wages or benefits. We would be even richer as a nation if
>>the resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to
>>corporations and really rich people who can afford to stash it abroad.
>
> And what are your ideas to allow us to achieve either of those goals?
> Are you talking "redistribution of wealth" here?

We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the loopholes and
preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher effective rates. Both
corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes have been going up, as have
state and local as well as sales taxes. That has put more and more of
the burden on lower wage earners, while higher wage earners and those not
relying on earned income have gotten a break. It's time to put more
purchasing power in the hands of lower income people.

And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>>
>> We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the loopholes
>> and preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher effective rates.
>> Both corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes have been going up,
>> as have state and local as well as sales taxes. That has put more
>> and more of the burden on lower wage earners, while higher wage
>> earners and those not relying on earned income have gotten a break.
>> It's time to put more purchasing power in the hands of lower income
>> people.
>>
>> And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.
>
> The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all!
> How is that fair?

Obviously that is NOT true. It only holds for federal income taxes, and
is in part due to the fact that we as society through our representatives
have created a tax code that gives credits for living. Employed people
pay payroll taxes (some of that paid by the employer), they pay state
taxes and sales taxes, and whether or not they own their homes, they pay
property and school taxes.

> I'm with you on eliminating loopholes. There are two goals of the tax
> system as it is currently implemented:
> 1. To raise revenue.
> 2. To foster (or suppress) social activity.

And to foster or suppress economic activities (this is important too).
We all directly or indirectly agreed to the system at some point. But
now the system has become burdensome by complexity and inequitable
because it created (intended AND unintended) loopholes and special
circumstances. Some of those were created by hanky panky. There should
be an independent nonpartisan committee that examines the "special
categories" and explains who and what the consequences are of each
special condition in the tax code.

> For example, we think that home ownership is a worthwhile thing, so we
> give a tax deduction for mortgage interest payments. We think smoking
> is bad, so we put a confiscatory tax on cigarettes.
>
> Only if you are willing to give up the social goals sometimes
> associated with taxation will you be able to make the tax system
> "fair."

Yes indeed!! The social and economic goals need to be reexamined over
time. Is this or that special condition still what we all want? Or
shuld home mortgage interest over a certain amount NOT be deductible
anymore? The AMT was a way to limit deductibility, but the asses didn't
put in a cost of living escalation clause, so now the AMT is applied to
people who aren't that wealthy. Is that right?

I'm sure you and I and others can keep going on ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 10/12/2011 9:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>> We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the
>>> loopholes and preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher effective
>>> rates. Both corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes have been
>>> going up, as have state and local as well as sales taxes. That has
>>> put more and more of the burden on lower wage earners, while higher
>>> wage earners and those not relying on earned income have gotten a
>>> break. It's time to put more purchasing power in the hands of lower
>>> income people.
>>>
>>> And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.
>>
>> The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all!
>> How is that fair?
>>
>> I'm with you on eliminating loopholes. There are two goals of the tax
>> system as it is currently implemented:
>> 1. To raise revenue.
>> 2. To foster (or suppress) social activity.
>>
>
>
> IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount
> of taxes. THIS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO IMPLEMENT AND THERE COULD
> BE SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT DAMN FEW. Every one means a family of 5 pays 5
> times what a single person pays. You might be surprised to learn that
> it is doable with the understanding that it would take several years
> to fully implement.
>
> Would that be fair? Absolutely. Why should you pay more taxes than
> your neighbor when he gets the same benefits as you. Why shouldn't he
> pays as much in taxes since he gets the same benefits as you?
>
>
> A fact, a great number of voters do not pay taxes and expect the
> government to take care of them. One political party uses these
> voters to keep them in office. Take away the freebies and make
> everyone pay their fair share and see what happen with government. No
> more playing favorites. Every one will expect the government to trim
> down and act responsibly because that will lower everyone's taxes. If
> you don't pay taxes you really don't care whether the government is
> going farther into debt or not.
> We need to get the government back to doing what it was intended to
> do, defend out country and maintain the infrastructure.

Sounds good, but what you are asking for is a national sales tax. And
then we'd have to up the wages of lower earning people somehow so they
can pay those taxes. And what are you going to do with people who like
to revel in luxury versus the frugal ones? Levy a luxury tax on luxury
items? In the way the Europeans have different scales of VAT for
different classes of merchandise? Remember that over there VAT goes up
to at least 20% for certain things. (VAT is always included in the sale
price).


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the
>>>> loopholes and preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher
>>>> effective rates. Both corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes
>>>> have been going up, as have state and local as well as sales taxes.
>>>> That has put more and more of the burden on lower wage earners,
>>>> while higher wage earners and those not relying on earned income
>>>> have gotten a break. It's time to put more purchasing power in the
>>>> hands of lower income people.
>>>>
>>>> And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.
>>>
>>> The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at
>>> all! How is that fair?
>>
>> Obviously that is NOT true. It only holds for federal income taxes,
>> and is in part due to the fact that we as society through our
>> representatives have created a tax code that gives credits for
>> living. Employed people pay payroll taxes (some of that paid by the
>> employer), they pay state taxes and sales taxes, and whether or not
>> they own their homes, they pay property and school taxes.
>
> I stand corrected due to an omission. Let me re-phrase.
>
> "The REAL inequity is that 49% of the populaton pays NO income taxes
> at all! How is that fair? (In fact, a goodly proportion get money FROM
> the federal government in the form of 'earned income tax credits'. How
> is THAT fair?) Buncha freeloaders, you ask me."

That doesn't change anything. Those people who "freeload" on federal
income taxes still pay all those other taxes. If you really want all
taxes to go per person, rather than be adjusted for total income, you
really would have to raise the incomes at the lower end by 2 or 3 fold.
Unless you want violent revolution.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Leon wrote:
>>
>> IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount
>> of taxes. THIS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO IMPLEMENT AND THERE COULD
>> BE SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT DAMN FEW. Every one means a family of 5 pays
>> 5 times what a single person pays. You might be surprised to learn
>> that it is doable with the understanding that it would take several
>> years to fully implement.
>>
>> Would that be fair? Absolutely. Why should you pay more taxes than
>> your neighbor when he gets the same benefits as you. Why shouldn't
>> he pays as much in taxes since he gets the same benefits as you?
>>
>
> Sounds like you're an advocate for my "Fair-Fair Tax" plan. I sent the
> outlines to Senator McGovern back when he, as a presidental candidate,
> advocated sending everybody $1000. At that time, our population was
> about 250 million and our national budget was about $250 billion.
>
> That works out to a tax of $1000/per person. Send it in.
>
> Ah, but what about the person who doesn't HAVE $1000?
>
> They could contribute unit of blood platelets (at $100) each month for
> ten months and have their taxes for the year paid (I call this my Tax
> Withdrawal Plan).
>
> Sure, you might say, but what about the teen-age mother with four
> children? She can't contribute five units of blood platelets and we're
> certainly not going to drain toddlers! (that would be cruel). She can
> contribute a kidney and get a $25,000 credit, enough for her and her
> brood for five years (longer if she contributes blood platelets too).
> At the end of five years, perhaps a cornea or half a liver. By the
> time ten years have passed, her offspring would be on their own and
> having their own tax issues.

That sort of thing was done years ago. (I'm not exactly sure of the
details). They were testing antimalarial drugs, and used prisoners as
"volunteers". I think they were promised reduced sentences or so. Some
of those prisoners were black. Blacks have a disproportionally high
incidence of G6PDH deficiency, and got very sick or died from one or
another of those drugs. Like those people who had syphilis, and they
really wanted to document the progress of the disease. So they treated
them with placebo. I had to memorize all those atrocities for our "human
use" submissions for our research. I'm busily trying to forget most of
that. Oh yes, this was in the USA, not Nazi Germany.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Raise the incomes at the lower end"???
>
> Do you mean increase the minimum wage? Heck, many making the minimum
> wage aren't worth that much. Raising the minimum wage would result,
> mostly, in a spike in unemployment.

Maybewe could agree on that, but if you increase taxes on people who are
already having trouble coping in this economy, then where are they going to
get the money to pay the increased taxes?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 10/12/2011 9:33 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>
>> But can anyone truly say that any person is worth more than a million
>> dollars a year? I certainly don't think so.
>
> What's "worth" got to do with anything? Some HAVE more than a million
> because others willingly GAVE it to them.
>
> Oh, there are exceptions, but in the main the wealthy earned their fortunes.
>
>

Those that earned their wealth, how much harder than you did they work
to earn that amount?


Lets say you work 40 hours a week and earn $100,000 per year.

Do you think that on average that some one that makes $1,000,000 per
year has worked 10 times harder than you?

For the most part the wealthy beyond need just happened to be in the
right place at the right time, so to speak.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:51:46 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
>> Larry Jaques<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>Snip
>
>
>>
>>>>>> IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
>>>>>> buy more ...
>>>>>
>>>>> GOOD punchline.<g>
>>>>> (On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
>>>>> How do the poor buy more?)
>>>>
>>>> Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent will
>>>> lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).
>>>
>>> Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd love it!
>>
>> Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
>> resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to corporations
>> and really rich people who can afford to stash it abroad.
>
>
>Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? Probably
>not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
>people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the hand that
>feeds us.

Right, but also note that those corporations don't pay tax anyway. It's a
cost of doing business and necessarily gets passed onto the consumer. Might
just as well put the tax there. It's more efficient, if nothing else.

Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>> We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the
>>> loopholes and preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher
>>> effective rates. Both corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes
>>> have been going up, as have state and local as well as sales taxes.
>>> That has put more and more of the burden on lower wage earners,
>>> while higher wage earners and those not relying on earned income
>>> have gotten a break. It's time to put more purchasing power in the
>>> hands of lower income people.
>>>
>>> And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.
>>
>> The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all!
>> How is that fair?
>
> Obviously that is NOT true. It only holds for federal income taxes,
> and is in part due to the fact that we as society through our
> representatives have created a tax code that gives credits for
> living. Employed people pay payroll taxes (some of that paid by the
> employer), they pay state taxes and sales taxes, and whether or not
> they own their homes, they pay property and school taxes.

I stand corrected due to an omission. Let me re-phrase.

"The REAL inequity is that 49% of the populaton pays NO income taxes at all!
How is that fair? (In fact, a goodly proportion get money FROM the federal
government in the form of 'earned income tax credits'. How is THAT fair?)
Buncha freeloaders, you ask me."

On 10/13/2011 4:55 PM, Han wrote:
> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the
>>>>> loopholes and preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher
>>>>> effective rates. Both corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes
>>>>> have been going up, as have state and local as well as sales taxes.
>>>>> That has put more and more of the burden on lower wage earners,
>>>>> while higher wage earners and those not relying on earned income
>>>>> have gotten a break. It's time to put more purchasing power in the
>>>>> hands of lower income people.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.
>>>>
>>>> The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at
>>>> all! How is that fair?
>>>
>>> Obviously that is NOT true. It only holds for federal income taxes,
>>> and is in part due to the fact that we as society through our
>>> representatives have created a tax code that gives credits for
>>> living. Employed people pay payroll taxes (some of that paid by the
>>> employer), they pay state taxes and sales taxes, and whether or not
>>> they own their homes, they pay property and school taxes.
>>
>> I stand corrected due to an omission. Let me re-phrase.
>>
>> "The REAL inequity is that 49% of the populaton pays NO income taxes
>> at all! How is that fair? (In fact, a goodly proportion get money FROM
>> the federal government in the form of 'earned income tax credits'. How
>> is THAT fair?) Buncha freeloaders, you ask me."
>
> That doesn't change anything. Those people who "freeload" on federal
> income taxes still pay all those other taxes. If you really want all
> taxes to go per person, rather than be adjusted for total income, you
> really would have to raise the incomes at the lower end by 2 or 3 fold.
> Unless you want violent revolution.
>

Any change would have to be "gradual". Those that are paying no federal
taxes would begin to pay federal taxes, small amounts that would
increase over the years. Hopefully when they have to start paying the
government and not milking the government they will look for the
government to also be more responsible. There are exceptions but many
abuse the system.

I could be completely off here but I really believe that many officials
get elected over and over again because of the promises of what the
government can do for the voters. I fell that one segment of voters
are strictly looking for the elected to give hand outs.

EVENTUALLY quit giving hand outs and make every one contribute and I
feel the government will improve. But then all governments are corrupt
and always will be. Sigh!

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:42:07 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

> We would be even richer as a nation if the resulting wealth
>>was spread out more evenly, not going to corporations and really rich
>>people who can afford to stash it abroad.
>
> And what are your ideas to allow us to achieve either of those goals?
> Are you talking "redistribution of wealth" here?

Ever since we stopped living as small groups of hunter-gatherers, the
problem of accumulation of excess goods has been with us. The toughest
or smartest guys, with the least ethics, glommed onto everything they
could and left little for the masses. The advent of technology
accelerated the process.

I don't know that there is a solution, since human nature tries to find a
way around any restrictions.

Income inequality did seem to be less in the '50s when marginal income
tax rates could go up into the confiscatory range, but that may have been
a coincidence.

But can anyone truly say that any person is worth more than a million
dollars a year? I certainly don't think so.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:33:15 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

> Oh, there are exceptions, but in the main the wealthy earned their
> fortunes.

But how? There's quote that goes something like "There's no fortune
whose origin would stand examination in daylight."


--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:37:57 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

> The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all!
> How is that fair?

There's that BS non-statistic again. The real number is 14% who paid
neither federal income tax or payroll tax. A far cry from 50%. And many
of that 14% paid sales and other taxes. It's hard to live in any
developed country today and not pay taxes of some sort or nother.

In 2009, there were 51% who paid no federal income tax because of some
temporary recession-fighting measures that have since expired. That's
been seized upon and twisted into the 50% chant.

[ my spell checker informed me that "seized" is another exception to the
"i before e" rule :-) ]

An article in todays paper gave numbers for Warren Buffet's tax numbers
for 2009. He paid only 17.4% of his taxable income in federal taxes
because a lot of it was capital gains. That's less than most folks who
make $100,000 or so, about 600 times less than Buffet. It is to his
credit that he at least points this out.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

In article <[email protected]>,
HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
<...snipped...>
>The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all! How is
>that fair?
<...snipped...>


I would say that the REAL inequity is that some of those 49% who pay
no taxes are richer than you or me. As for the poor paying no taxes,
certainly there is some abuse in the system at all income levels, but
personally I have no problem, for instance, with a widowed single
mother making minimum wage at Burger King not paying any income taxes.


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:40:13 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

> I apologize for my shorthand. Please allow me to rephrase and perhaps
> you'll have a cogent comment on the new rendition: "The REAL inequity is
> that 49% of the wage-earning population pays NO income taxes at all!

Oh, I think I can come up with something :-). Like your figure is still
wrong - it was approximately true for one year only (2009) as I stated.

OTOH, with the "greying" of the population, I would expect the number who
owe no federal income tax to go up. For example, since our SS benefits
are not taxable, our "taxable" income last year was well below the 21K
threshold that would require me to file a return. Guess I'm just another
freeloader.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:37:57 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all!
>> How is that fair?
>
> There's that BS non-statistic again. The real number is 14% who paid
> neither federal income tax or payroll tax. A far cry from 50%. And
> many of that 14% paid sales and other taxes. It's hard to live in any
> developed country today and not pay taxes of some sort or nother.

I apologize for my shorthand. Please allow me to rephrase and perhaps you'll
have a cogent comment on the new rendition: "The REAL inequity is that 49%
of the wage-earning population pays NO income taxes at all! In fact, many
get a check from the government, the "earned income tax credit", for holding
a job instead of paying income taxes on that job. Buncha free-loaders, you
ask me."

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 23:21:36 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
(Larry W) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
><...snipped...>
>>The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all! How is
>>that fair?
><...snipped...>
>
>
>I would say that the REAL inequity is that some of those 49% who pay
>no taxes are richer than you or me.

Define "richer". If you mean money in the bank, well, we don't tax wealth
(shh, don't tell BHO). We also don't tax income on certain municipal bonds,
because holding them is deemed to be a good thing. If you want to tax them,
fine, but understand that many more municipalities will go under as a result.
These things have consequences.

>As for the poor paying no taxes,
>certainly there is some abuse in the system at all income levels, but
>personally I have no problem, for instance, with a widowed single
>mother making minimum wage at Burger King not paying any income taxes.

I do. To be a full member of society, *everyone* should have skin in the
game.

Han wrote:
>
> We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the loopholes
> and preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher effective rates.
> Both corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes have been going up,
> as have state and local as well as sales taxes. That has put more
> and more of the burden on lower wage earners, while higher wage
> earners and those not relying on earned income have gotten a break.
> It's time to put more purchasing power in the hands of lower income
> people.
>
> And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.

The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all! How is
that fair?

I'm with you on eliminating loopholes. There are two goals of the tax system
as it is currently implemented:
1. To raise revenue.
2. To foster (or suppress) social activity.

For example, we think that home ownership is a worthwhile thing, so we give
a tax deduction for mortgage interest payments. We think smoking is bad, so
we put a confiscatory tax on cigarettes.

Only if you are willing to give up the social goals sometimes associated
with taxation will you be able to make the tax system "fair."

Han wrote:
>>
>> I stand corrected due to an omission. Let me re-phrase.
>>
>> "The REAL inequity is that 49% of the populaton pays NO income taxes
>> at all! How is that fair? (In fact, a goodly proportion get money
>> FROM the federal government in the form of 'earned income tax
>> credits'. How is THAT fair?) Buncha freeloaders, you ask me."
>
> That doesn't change anything. Those people who "freeload" on federal
> income taxes still pay all those other taxes. If you really want all
> taxes to go per person, rather than be adjusted for total income, you
> really would have to raise the incomes at the lower end by 2 or 3
> fold. Unless you want violent revolution.

"Raise the incomes at the lower end"???

Do you mean increase the minimum wage? Heck, many making the minimum wage
aren't worth that much. Raising the minimum wage would result, mostly, in a
spike in unemployment.

On 10/14/2011 3:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 10/13/2011 6:40 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>> IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount of
>> taxes.
>> Every one means a family of 5 pays 5 times what a single person pays.
>
> You're contradicting yourself. What you're actually saying is that a
> single woman with no children would pay X dollars while a single women
> with one child would pay 2X dollars, and the child would pay 0 dollars.
> That's three people, each paying three very different amounts.
> For everyone to pay the exact amount, a 40 year old CEO making $2
> million a year and a 3 month old orphan would each be required to pay
> the same amount in taxes.

No what I am actually saying is that a family of 5 pays 5 times what a
single person pays. That was not that hard to understand was it?


To simplify that for you, the single mom goes to the movies and pays $5.

A mom and her child go to the movies and pays $10.

You actually have to use a bit of "common" sense and think in a way a
"reasonable" person would think.


You finally get it on the last sentence of you overly stated paragraph.

And to help you with that example, the same $2m CEO goes to the movies
and pays the same amount as the orphan. Fair is fair. Right?

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:19:23 -0500, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:



>>Normally not as much as he does on the labor turning the rotors and very
>>often at a much lower price to the customer. This also keeps the
>>mechanic stay busy and happy. Normally the mechanic is going to sell/
>>suggest the repair method that benefits him the most with the same
>>repair outcome.
>
>Three of four times I've had brake jobs done, at least in the past couple of
>decades, the mechanic has suggested new rotors. The difference wasn't all
>that much, so that's the way I've gone. Before that ('70s & '80s), rotors
>were incredibly expensive, so had them turned.


What matters is what specific rotors we are talking about. Many new
cars have thinner, lighter rotors than was used in the past. They
don't have the meat on them to turn very much.

Rotors used to be very expensive too, now they are reasonably priced
compared to years ago.

So, turn or replace? Well that depends on other factors today.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:07:43 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:42:07 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> We would be even richer as a nation if the resulting wealth
>>>was spread out more evenly, not going to corporations and really rich
>>>people who can afford to stash it abroad.
>>
>> And what are your ideas to allow us to achieve either of those goals?
>> Are you talking "redistribution of wealth" here?
>
>Ever since we stopped living as small groups of hunter-gatherers, the
>problem of accumulation of excess goods has been with us. The toughest
>or smartest guys, with the least ethics, glommed onto everything they
>could and left little for the masses. The advent of technology
>accelerated the process.
>
>I don't know that there is a solution, since human nature tries to find a
>way around any restrictions.
>
>Income inequality did seem to be less in the '50s when marginal income
>tax rates could go up into the confiscatory range, but that may have been
>a coincidence.

I picked up a copy of a Tea Party book, Rasmussen's _Mad as Hell_, and
it appears we've been taking a dive since the second world war. And I
don't think it's just the tax rate adjustments, either.


>But can anyone truly say that any person is worth more than a million
>dollars a year? I certainly don't think so.

I don't, either, but we're not shareholders and we're not voting on
uber manglement compensation.

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:



> So it is safer to crash into something? Turning off the key for a
> few
> seconds is not going to be a problem.
--------------------------------
I'm a member of the "slip the trans into neutral" club.

I prefer to keep my options open.

Lew

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:02:03 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Leon wrote:
>> I don't think that the Japanese are a sleep at the wheel so much as
>> Hyundai has ramped up in quality. Yes Toyota has been in the news
>> about acceleration problems and crashes but really, too stupid to
>> turn the ignition off, slip the trans into neutral?
>------------------------------
>Turn off the ignition and lock up the steering wheel while the vehicle
>is still in motion?
>
>Don't think so.
>
>Lew

So it is safer to crash into something? Turning off the key for a few
seconds is not going to be a problem. One click does not lock the
wheel, it is the second position. Try it. I have.

On 10/17/2011 9:59 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:00:12 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/16/2011 4:44 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2011 3:34 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/16/2011 10:55 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 11:24:29 -0400, Ed Pawlowski<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:58:02 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Having many years experience working in an automotive dealership I
>>>>>>>>> tend
>>>>>>>>> to support the guys there. I typically go to the guy that has
>>>>>>>>> experience and has been there a while. We talk the talk so to speak
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> he knows that I know what needs to be done. I don't get over sold
>>>>>>>>> sot
>>>>>>>>> to speak.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are fortunate. Many people get sold a lot of unnecessary work
>>>>>>>> than is mainly needed to enhance the dealer's profits.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not to bash dealerships, the big chains and some independents are
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> as bad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's exactly why Searz lost their automotive department. They got
>>>>>>> caught in an extremely large sting and found that it wasn't just a few
>>>>>>> centers doing it. It was company-wide.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sears in Houston still has an operating automotive department and shop.
>>>>>> They repaired a flat for me recently.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but you do realize that Sears (S) went bankrupt, and after (the
>>>>> lawyers) divested their common shareholders of anything of value
>>>>> re-emerged and merged with the Kmart Holding Company in 2005 as the
>>>>> Sears Holding Company. There's a shining example of "capitalism" in the
>>>>> 21st century for you!<sacrasm intended>
>>>>
>>>> I am aware of that but the sign still says Sears and the shop never
>>>> closed.
>>>
>>> Yes, I was still thinking about efficiency and "unbridled capitalism".
>>> They didn't remove the Sears sign because it still had value. Whether
>>> the shop actually closed or not probably depends on who you ask...lol.
>>> I happen to notice that the name Borders Bookstore was still used by a
>>> different company that liquidated their assets even after Borders was
>>> defunct. I'm not trying to be a trouble-maker, honest! : )
>>
>> LOL Understood. My point, I believe that Larry dislikes Sears and
>> implied that the Sears automotive departments were all closed because of
>> business ethics. And yes they did run into trouble because of cheating
>> the customer. BUT because the local Sears automotive never closed most
>
> My closest Sears Auto Center _did_ close, and that was after CA stated
> that they were going to close them all, so I thought they had. I was
> mistaken. My hatred of Searz (for making me lose a literal gallon of
> blood and pound of flesh) had nothing to do with it. I had pretty much
> washed my (healed) hands of them by that time.
>
>
>> people are not aware of or did not care about the problems that Sears
>> were having or that it is basically a different company so to speak.
>> The old Sears past business practices basically did not affect a close
>> of the current Sears Automotive department and I would say a majority of
>> the current customers have forgotten about the problems and or change in
>> hands.
>
> It shows the growing indifference/torpor/ignorance of the American
> people today.<sigh>

That and in Houston a "very every one drives their own vehicle", city
with repairs shops on nearly every corner, Sears automotive was closer
to being one of the good guys compared to the little guy competition.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:00:12 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 10/16/2011 4:44 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2011 3:34 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/16/2011 10:55 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 11:24:29 -0400, Ed Pawlowski<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:58:02 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Having many years experience working in an automotive dealership I
>>>>>>>> tend
>>>>>>>> to support the guys there. I typically go to the guy that has
>>>>>>>> experience and has been there a while. We talk the talk so to speak
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> he knows that I know what needs to be done. I don't get over sold
>>>>>>>> sot
>>>>>>>> to speak.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are fortunate. Many people get sold a lot of unnecessary work
>>>>>>> than is mainly needed to enhance the dealer's profits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not to bash dealerships, the big chains and some independents are
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>> as bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's exactly why Searz lost their automotive department. They got
>>>>>> caught in an extremely large sting and found that it wasn't just a few
>>>>>> centers doing it. It was company-wide.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sears in Houston still has an operating automotive department and shop.
>>>>> They repaired a flat for me recently.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but you do realize that Sears (S) went bankrupt, and after (the
>>>> lawyers) divested their common shareholders of anything of value
>>>> re-emerged and merged with the Kmart Holding Company in 2005 as the
>>>> Sears Holding Company. There's a shining example of "capitalism" in the
>>>> 21st century for you! <sacrasm intended>
>>>
>>> I am aware of that but the sign still says Sears and the shop never
>>> closed.
>>
>> Yes, I was still thinking about efficiency and "unbridled capitalism".
>> They didn't remove the Sears sign because it still had value. Whether
>> the shop actually closed or not probably depends on who you ask...lol.
>> I happen to notice that the name Borders Bookstore was still used by a
>> different company that liquidated their assets even after Borders was
>> defunct. I'm not trying to be a trouble-maker, honest! : )
>
>LOL Understood. My point, I believe that Larry dislikes Sears and
>implied that the Sears automotive departments were all closed because of
>business ethics. And yes they did run into trouble because of cheating
>the customer. BUT because the local Sears automotive never closed most

My closest Sears Auto Center _did_ close, and that was after CA stated
that they were going to close them all, so I thought they had. I was
mistaken. My hatred of Searz (for making me lose a literal gallon of
blood and pound of flesh) had nothing to do with it. I had pretty much
washed my (healed) hands of them by that time.


>people are not aware of or did not care about the problems that Sears
>were having or that it is basically a different company so to speak.
>The old Sears past business practices basically did not affect a close
>of the current Sears Automotive department and I would say a majority of
>the current customers have forgotten about the problems and or change in
>hands.

It shows the growing indifference/torpor/ignorance of the American
people today. <sigh>

--
Good ideas alter the power balance in relationships, that is why
good ideas are always initially resisted. Good ideas come with a
heavy burden. Which is why so few people have them. So few people
can handle it.
-- Hugh Macleod

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:02:03 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Leon wrote:
>>> I don't think that the Japanese are a sleep at the wheel so much as
>>> Hyundai has ramped up in quality. Yes Toyota has been in the news
>>> about acceleration problems and crashes but really, too stupid to
>>> turn the ignition off, slip the trans into neutral?
>> ------------------------------
>> Turn off the ignition and lock up the steering wheel while the vehicle
>> is still in motion?
>>
>> Don't think so.
>>
>> Lew
>
> So it is safer to crash into something? Turning off the key for a few
> seconds is not going to be a problem. One click does not lock the
> wheel, it is the second position. Try it. I have.


The steering wheel on my '84 Buick Skylark would lock if it stalled.
That sort of bothered me...lol.

On 10/17/2011 9:40 PM, Bill wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:02:03 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> I don't think that the Japanese are a sleep at the wheel so much as
>>>> Hyundai has ramped up in quality. Yes Toyota has been in the news
>>>> about acceleration problems and crashes but really, too stupid to
>>>> turn the ignition off, slip the trans into neutral?
>>> ------------------------------
>>> Turn off the ignition and lock up the steering wheel while the vehicle
>>> is still in motion?
>>>
>>> Don't think so.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>
>> So it is safer to crash into something? Turning off the key for a few
>> seconds is not going to be a problem. One click does not lock the
>> wheel, it is the second position. Try it. I have.
>
>
> The steering wheel on my '84 Buick Skylark would lock if it stalled.
> That sort of bothered me...lol.

My dad had a 74 Regal, I do not recall his being any different that
those before or after. For the most part an engine stalling would not
lock the steering wheel unless there was something seriously altered or
wrong.

And or with out the engine running you had no power steering which made
the steering feel like it had locked up.

Now there was that stupid seat belt interlock system. You had to have
the seat belts buckled or the starter would not engage and it was so not
ready for public consumption that Buick had an over ride button on the
fire wall for the times that it did not work.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:06:38 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:



>> Mine are Korean.
>>
>
>I have been considering trying a Hyundai next time around. I think they
>are doing a repeat of what Honda and Toyota did 30 years ago.
>

Years ago, I used to snicker at people buying Hyundai. That was then,
this is now. I'm on my second Sonata. Both have been flawless,
better quality that any car I've ever owned.

Amazingly fast with the V-6. top speed is 137, but I've only been up
to 120.

On 10/17/2011 9:27 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:06:38 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Mine are Korean.
>>>
>>
>> I have been considering trying a Hyundai next time around. I think they
>> are doing a repeat of what Honda and Toyota did 30 years ago.
>>
>
> Years ago, I used to snicker at people buying Hyundai. That was then,
> this is now. I'm on my second Sonata. Both have been flawless,
> better quality that any car I've ever owned.

Hyundai was almost going to be part of my income so I did not laugh.
;~) My dealer was pretty disappointed when we did not receive that
franchise when Hyundai was initially introduced in 86~87. We had a
brand new dealership, not even occupied yet, and Hyundai was going to be
one of the lines we offered. We were 1/4 mile from the freeway frontage
road and that is why we lost the opportunity. One of the dealers that
got the franchise opened a store in a building that was a stand alone
retail pad in a strip center parking lot. The sales floor and shop was
not 10,000 qt feet and the new car lot shared with the other small
retail businesses on that frontage road corner lot.

Now I did laugh out loud at the Yugo!

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:44:55 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:19:23 -0500, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Normally not as much as he does on the labor turning the rotors and very
>>>often at a much lower price to the customer. This also keeps the
>>>mechanic stay busy and happy. Normally the mechanic is going to sell/
>>>suggest the repair method that benefits him the most with the same
>>>repair outcome.
>>
>>Three of four times I've had brake jobs done, at least in the past couple of
>>decades, the mechanic has suggested new rotors. The difference wasn't all
>>that much, so that's the way I've gone. Before that ('70s & '80s), rotors
>>were incredibly expensive, so had them turned.
>
>
>What matters is what specific rotors we are talking about. Many new
>cars have thinner, lighter rotors than was used in the past. They
>don't have the meat on them to turn very much.

Right. Chances are, if they're so bad they need turning, they can't be.

>Rotors used to be very expensive too, now they are reasonably priced
>compared to years ago.

Yep. $20-$30 each vs. $15-$20 each to turn. When they were $100, and up, it
made more sense.

>So, turn or replace? Well that depends on other factors today.

I think you've hit most of them.