|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:03:15 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote: On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 7:00:56 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote: wsnell01 wrote: On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:49:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote: On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote: Quadibloc: However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and "Questar" are two words that do not go together. I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who can afford Questars. Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar.. It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car. Or no savings at all, but a subsistence diet and maybe a roof over your head. Maybe. In this scenario someone with a full time job would be moonlighting somewhere in order to raise extra cash. He would be trading some of his spare time for more money. It hardly seems fair to tax his hard work, correct? No, incorrect. Have you done this for extended periods. I worked 65 to 70 hour weeks for years. I paid taxes on the overtime. Why should I expect not to do this? You should not pay the tax because, comparatively, you end up with less spare time and a portion of your earnings and those who didn't work longer end up with more spare time and a portion of your earnings. But the quality of the work is hard to keep up when hours are so long. If someone is moonlighting the quality of work in his first job will suffer And so will his health. In many/most situations that will not be the case. YMMV. If a second job is not taxed the employer will be able to pay lower wages and nobody except that employer wins. I am suggesting that income should not be taxed, period. That's due to your naďveté. Income is the result of effort (of some sort) and effort requires that one use one's time. When you tax income you are stealing time from one person and giving it to someone else. Are you suggesting that people doing the same job as a first job should pay taxes and those doing a second job should not? What makes you think that!? And don't talk about the "fair tax" which would bankrupt your country and give the middle class money to the rich. Only the naive could think this a practical way to run an economy. Since you do not even understand the very basic ideas behind the fair tax you are not qualified to comment on it. That's your cowards get out clause because you don't have any answer to my criticisms. You have said little that is true about the fair tax. Educate yourself about it and you -might- be able to discuss it in an intelligent manner. In Europe the EC working time directive put an end to this and forced employers to give their workers decent hours and holidays. Even after the implementation in the UK I was working three twelve hour shifts on successive days and it was just bearable. Four twelve hour shifts was bad. Nobody managed five twelve hour shifts without difficulty. In WW2 my father was working twelve hour shifts in an aircraft factory and the deaths of younger workers from industrial accidents and sickness soared. If you were working overtime without difficulty then why should anyone else be kept from working longer hours if they desire? I didn't say I worked those hours without difficulty. I implied that tiredness due to long hours impairs efficiency. That affected me just like everyone else. It also affected my health like most of those working the same shifts. Then you alone are entitled to your earnings. But they still paid taxes. That they had to pay such taxes is a gross injustice. If they did not pay taxes that would be the injustice. I suspect you never worked those kind of hours for extended periods. The longest shift I ever worked was 36 hours. I remember leaving the lab but have no other memories until waking up the next morning 12 hours later. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
wrote:
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:03:15 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote: wsnell01 wrote: On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 7:00:56 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote: wsnell01 wrote: On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:49:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote: On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote: Quadibloc: However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and "Questar" are two words that do not go together. I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who can afford Questars. Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar. It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car. Or no savings at all, but a subsistence diet and maybe a roof over your head. Maybe. In this scenario someone with a full time job would be moonlighting somewhere in order to raise extra cash. He would be trading some of his spare time for more money. It hardly seems fair to tax his hard work, correct? No, incorrect. Have you done this for extended periods. I worked 65 to 70 hour weeks for years. I paid taxes on the overtime. Why should I expect not to do this? You should not pay the tax because, comparatively, you end up with less spare time and a portion of your earnings and those who didn't work longer end up with more spare time and a portion of your earnings. But the quality of the work is hard to keep up when hours are so long. If someone is moonlighting the quality of work in his first job will suffer And so will his health. In many/most situations that will not be the case. YMMV. If a second job is not taxed the employer will be able to pay lower wages and nobody except that employer wins. I am suggesting that income should not be taxed, period. That's due to your naďveté. Income is the result of effort (of some sort) and effort requires that one use one's time. When you tax income you are stealing time from one person and giving it to someone else. Are you suggesting that people doing the same job as a first job should pay taxes and those doing a second job should not? What makes you think that!? And don't talk about the "fair tax" which would bankrupt your country and give the middle class money to the rich. Only the naive could think this a practical way to run an economy. Since you do not even understand the very basic ideas behind the fair tax you are not qualified to comment on it. That's your cowards get out clause because you don't have any answer to my criticisms. You have said little that is true about the fair tax. Educate yourself about it and you -might- be able to discuss it in an intelligent manner. In Europe the EC working time directive put an end to this and forced employers to give their workers decent hours and holidays. Even after the implementation in the UK I was working three twelve hour shifts on successive days and it was just bearable. Four twelve hour shifts was bad. Nobody managed five twelve hour shifts without difficulty. In WW2 my father was working twelve hour shifts in an aircraft factory and the deaths of younger workers from industrial accidents and sickness soared. If you were working overtime without difficulty then why should anyone else be kept from working longer hours if they desire? I didn't say I worked those hours without difficulty. I implied that tiredness due to long hours impairs efficiency. That affected me just like everyone else. It also affected my health like most of those working the same shifts. Then you alone are entitled to your earnings. But they still paid taxes. That they had to pay such taxes is a gross injustice. If they did not pay taxes that would be the injustice. I suspect you never worked those kind of hours for extended periods. The longest shift I ever worked was 36 hours. I remember leaving the lab but have no other memories until waking up the next morning 12 hours later. So you would agree that any downsides to working ANY number of hours would lead a fair-minded person to conclude that the worker is fully entitled to ALL that he earns thereby? No! The work done by out of hours staff depends on the work of the daytime shift. Without them the quality of the out of hours service could not be maintained. Likewise all businesses depend on infrastructure rich is best provided through taxes. Freeloaders like you begrudge these payments and want to make the rich richer by impoverishing the rest of society. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 1:00:25 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote: On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:03:15 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote: wsnell01 wrote: On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 7:00:56 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote: wsnell01 wrote: On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:49:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote: On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote: Quadibloc: However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and "Questar" are two words that do not go together. I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who can afford Questars. Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar. It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car. Or no savings at all, but a subsistence diet and maybe a roof over your head. Maybe. In this scenario someone with a full time job would be moonlighting somewhere in order to raise extra cash. He would be trading some of his spare time for more money. It hardly seems fair to tax his hard work, correct? No, incorrect. Have you done this for extended periods. I worked 65 to 70 hour weeks for years. I paid taxes on the overtime. Why should I expect not to do this? You should not pay the tax because, comparatively, you end up with less spare time and a portion of your earnings and those who didn't work longer end up with more spare time and a portion of your earnings. But the quality of the work is hard to keep up when hours are so long. If someone is moonlighting the quality of work in his first job will suffer And so will his health. In many/most situations that will not be the case. YMMV. If a second job is not taxed the employer will be able to pay lower wages and nobody except that employer wins. I am suggesting that income should not be taxed, period. That's due to your naďveté. Income is the result of effort (of some sort) and effort requires that one use one's time. When you tax income you are stealing time from one person and giving it to someone else. Are you suggesting that people doing the same job as a first job should pay taxes and those doing a second job should not? What makes you think that!? And don't talk about the "fair tax" which would bankrupt your country and give the middle class money to the rich. Only the naive could think this a practical way to run an economy. Since you do not even understand the very basic ideas behind the fair tax you are not qualified to comment on it. That's your cowards get out clause because you don't have any answer to my criticisms. You have said little that is true about the fair tax. Educate yourself about it and you -might- be able to discuss it in an intelligent manner.. In Europe the EC working time directive put an end to this and forced employers to give their workers decent hours and holidays. Even after the implementation in the UK I was working three twelve hour shifts on successive days and it was just bearable. Four twelve hour shifts was bad. Nobody managed five twelve hour shifts without difficulty. In WW2 my father was working twelve hour shifts in an aircraft factory and the deaths of younger workers from industrial accidents and sickness soared. If you were working overtime without difficulty then why should anyone else be kept from working longer hours if they desire? I didn't say I worked those hours without difficulty. I implied that tiredness due to long hours impairs efficiency. That affected me just like everyone else. It also affected my health like most of those working the same shifts. Then you alone are entitled to your earnings. But they still paid taxes. That they had to pay such taxes is a gross injustice. If they did not pay taxes that would be the injustice. I suspect you never worked those kind of hours for extended periods. The longest shift I ever worked was 36 hours. I remember leaving the lab but have no other memories until waking up the next morning 12 hours later. So you would agree that any downsides to working ANY number of hours would lead a fair-minded person to conclude that the worker is fully entitled to ALL that he earns thereby? No! The work done by out of hours staff depends on the work of the daytime shift. No, each shift works for an agreed upon wage, so your statement is nonsense.. Without them the quality of the out of hours service could not be maintained. Many businesses are now 24/7/365 or haven't you heard? Likewise all businesses depend on infrastructure rich is best provided through taxes. Infrastructure should be paid for through consumption taxes and fees related to the item consumed. Freeloaders like you begrudge these payments and want to make the rich richer by impoverishing the rest of society. I pay taxes for things I use and for many things I will NEVER use, so don't go calling ME a "freeloader," you socialist freeloader. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 7:33:15 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 15 February 2016 12:35:10 UTC-5, wrote: On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:49:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote: On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote: Quadibloc: However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and "Questar" are two words that do not go together. I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who can afford Questars. Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar. It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car. Or no savings at all, but a subsistence diet and maybe a roof over your head. Maybe. In this scenario someone with a full time job would be moonlighting somewhere in order to raise extra cash. He would be trading some of his spare time for more money. It hardly seems fair to tax his hard work, correct? Not to a socialist. They tax everything and everyone except welfare BUMS.. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the overtime worker pays 10% of that additional income in taxes. That tax would be roughly the additional costs of the Duplex Questar with BB coatings. He would have to settle for the standard Questar with the MgF coatings. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 1:00:25 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote: wsnell01 wrote: On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:03:15 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote: wsnell01 wrote: On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 7:00:56 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote: wsnell01 wrote: On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:49:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote: On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote: Quadibloc: However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and "Questar" are two words that do not go together. I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who can afford Questars. Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar. It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car. Or no savings at all, but a subsistence diet and maybe a roof over your head. Maybe. In this scenario someone with a full time job would be moonlighting somewhere in order to raise extra cash. He would be trading some of his spare time for more money. It hardly seems fair to tax his hard work, correct? No, incorrect. Have you done this for extended periods. I worked 65 to 70 hour weeks for years. I paid taxes on the overtime. Why should I expect not to do this? You should not pay the tax because, comparatively, you end up with less spare time and a portion of your earnings and those who didn't work longer end up with more spare time and a portion of your earnings. But the quality of the work is hard to keep up when hours are so long. If someone is moonlighting the quality of work in his first job will suffer And so will his health. In many/most situations that will not be the case. YMMV. If a second job is not taxed the employer will be able to pay lower wages and nobody except that employer wins. I am suggesting that income should not be taxed, period. That's due to your naďveté. Income is the result of effort (of some sort) and effort requires that one use one's time. When you tax income you are stealing time from one person and giving it to someone else. Are you suggesting that people doing the same job as a first job should pay taxes and those doing a second job should not? What makes you think that!? And don't talk about the "fair tax" which would bankrupt your country and give the middle class money to the rich. Only the naive could think this a practical way to run an economy. Since you do not even understand the very basic ideas behind the fair tax you are not qualified to comment on it. That's your cowards get out clause because you don't have any answer to my criticisms. You have said little that is true about the fair tax. Educate yourself about it and you -might- be able to discuss it in an intelligent manner. In Europe the EC working time directive put an end to this and forced employers to give their workers decent hours and holidays. Even after the implementation in the UK I was working three twelve hour shifts on successive days and it was just bearable. Four twelve hour shifts was bad. Nobody managed five twelve hour shifts without difficulty. In WW2 my father was working twelve hour shifts in an aircraft factory and the deaths of younger workers from industrial accidents and sickness soared. If you were working overtime without difficulty then why should anyone else be kept from working longer hours if they desire? I didn't say I worked those hours without difficulty. I implied that tiredness due to long hours impairs efficiency. That affected me just like everyone else. It also affected my health like most of those working the same shifts. Then you alone are entitled to your earnings. But they still paid taxes. That they had to pay such taxes is a gross injustice. If they did not pay taxes that would be the injustice. I suspect you never worked those kind of hours for extended periods. The longest shift I ever worked was 36 hours. I remember leaving the lab but have no other memories until waking up the next morning 12 hours later. So you would agree that any downsides to working ANY number of hours would lead a fair-minded person to conclude that the worker is fully entitled to ALL that he earns thereby? No! The work done by out of hours staff depends on the work of the daytime shift. No, each shift works for an agreed upon wage, so your statement is nonsense. Without them the quality of the out of hours service could not be maintained. Many businesses are now 24/7/365 or haven't you heard? Likewise all businesses depend on infrastructure rich is best provided through taxes. Infrastructure should be paid for through consumption taxes and fees related to the item consumed. Freeloaders like you begrudge these payments and want to make the rich richer by impoverishing the rest of society. I pay taxes for things I use and for many things I will NEVER use, so don't go calling ME a "freeloader," you socialist freeloader. Do you work in a 24 hour business? How many of the deliveries are in the daytime, about 99%?. A 24 hour business, like healthcare which was my major employment for 40 - odd years depends on the day shifts. But those working the night shifts are paid more. If they paid no tax on the extra earnings the day shift would resent it. Some of those unable to work shifts but whose work is necessary for the night shifts even resent the extra hourly pay. I have never been paid any state benefits except for the basic state pension which everyone who has paid their contributions receives. I have never been unemployed and like most workers in the NHS I worked longer hours even without pay. In fact as a manager I was not entitled to any pay for working extra hours yet I worked about 1.5 hours extra per day and told my staff to call me anytime day or night if they had a problem. You pay taxes to keep your society running. Yet you begrudge those payments which don't benefit you. You also supported the Bush administration which promised before election to increase spending and cut taxes. Result: crash. You are a freeloader since you begrudge the taxes which keep your society running. I am not a freeloader |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 9:30:06 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
Do you work in a 24 hour business? How many of the deliveries are in the daytime, about 99%?. Delivery companies have workers sorting out and transporting boxes at all hours, even if deliveries are from 8-5. A 24 hour business, like healthcare which was my major employment for 40 - odd years depends on the day shifts. But those working the night shifts are paid more. Night-time work hours tend to be less desirable, so higher pay is needed to attract labor, AEBE. If they paid no tax on the extra earnings the day shift would resent it. You seem to be confused, as usual. Neither the day shift nor the night shift nor overtime workers should have to pay income taxes. Some of those unable to work shifts but whose work is necessary for the night shifts even resent the extra hourly pay. They should be grateful that they can work normal hours, during the day. I have never been paid any state benefits except for the basic state pension which everyone who has paid their contributions receives. Irrelevant. I have never been unemployed Irrelevant. and like most workers in the NHS I worked longer hours even without pay. That comes with the territory for salaried employees. In fact as a manager I was not entitled to any pay for working extra hours yet I worked about 1.5 hours extra per day and told my staff to call me anytime day or night if they had a problem. That comes with the territory for management jobs. (cue the violins) You pay taxes to keep your society running. Not really. The government can't run anything particularly well. Yet you begrudge those payments which don't benefit you. That would depend on who is benefiting, by how much and for what exact reason. You also supported the Bush administration which promised before election to increase spending and cut taxes. The "cut taxes" part was the correct move. The spending increases seem to cross party lines, but demonrats invariably come up with many more new and inventive ways to waste money. Result: crash. Incorrect. People driving SUVs and living in too-large houses caused the "crash." You are a freeloader since you begrudge the taxes which keep your society running. The excessive taxes are like grit in the machinery, a headwind to be endured. I am not a freeloader I am not a freeloader. You are a socialist which, by its very definition, is a freeloader. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 9:30:06 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote: Do you work in a 24 hour business? How many of the deliveries are in the daytime, about 99%?. Delivery companies have workers sorting out and transporting boxes at all hours, even if deliveries are from 8-5. A 24 hour business, like healthcare which was my major employment for 40 - odd years depends on the day shifts. But those working the night shifts are paid more. Night-time work hours tend to be less desirable, so higher pay is needed to attract labor, AEBE. If they paid no tax on the extra earnings the day shift would resent it. You seem to be confused, as usual. Neither the day shift nor the night shift nor overtime workers should have to pay income taxes. Some of those unable to work shifts but whose work is necessary for the night shifts even resent the extra hourly pay. They should be grateful that they can work normal hours, during the day. I have never been paid any state benefits except for the basic state pension which everyone who has paid their contributions receives. Irrelevant. I have never been unemployed Irrelevant. and like most workers in the NHS I worked longer hours even without pay. That comes with the territory for salaried employees. In fact as a manager I was not entitled to any pay for working extra hours yet I worked about 1.5 hours extra per day and told my staff to call me anytime day or night if they had a problem. That comes with the territory for management jobs. (cue the violins) You pay taxes to keep your society running. Not really. The government can't run anything particularly well. Yet you begrudge those payments which don't benefit you. That would depend on who is benefiting, by how much and for what exact reason. You also supported the Bush administration which promised before election to increase spending and cut taxes. The "cut taxes" part was the correct move. The spending increases seem to cross party lines, but demonrats invariably come up with many more new and inventive ways to waste money. Result: crash. Incorrect. People driving SUVs and living in too-large houses caused the "crash." You are a freeloader since you begrudge the taxes which keep your society running. The excessive taxes are like grit in the machinery, a headwind to be endured. I am not a freeloader I am not a freeloader. You are a socialist which, by its very definition, is a freeloader. You have a strange definition of irrelevance. You call me a freeloader. I point out that I have never received any government benefits and you then say that's irrelevant because I'm a socialist. I contribute to my society. You ignore the necessity of contributing to yours. Also, with a strange lack of perception you support a tax system which would result in you paying more and the rich paying a lot less. There has been considerable income redistribution since the 1970s. All of it from the poor and middle classes to the rich. Income tax should be able to reverse this but it's not high enough. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
Mike Collins wrote:
wrote: On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 1:00:25 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote: wsnell01 wrote: On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:03:15 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote: wsnell01 wrote: On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 7:00:56 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote: wsnell01 wrote: On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:49:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote: On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote: Quadibloc: However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and "Questar" are two words that do not go together. I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who can afford Questars. Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar. It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car. Or no savings at all, but a subsistence diet and maybe a roof over your head. Maybe. In this scenario someone with a full time job would be moonlighting somewhere in order to raise extra cash. He would be trading some of his spare time for more money. It hardly seems fair to tax his hard work, correct? No, incorrect. Have you done this for extended periods. I worked 65 to 70 hour weeks for years. I paid taxes on the overtime. Why should I expect not to do this? You should not pay the tax because, comparatively, you end up with less spare time and a portion of your earnings and those who didn't work longer end up with more spare time and a portion of your earnings. But the quality of the work is hard to keep up when hours are so long. If someone is moonlighting the quality of work in his first job will suffer And so will his health. In many/most situations that will not be the case. YMMV. If a second job is not taxed the employer will be able to pay lower wages and nobody except that employer wins. I am suggesting that income should not be taxed, period. That's due to your naďveté. Income is the result of effort (of some sort) and effort requires that one use one's time. When you tax income you are stealing time from one person and giving it to someone else. Are you suggesting that people doing the same job as a first job should pay taxes and those doing a second job should not? What makes you think that!? And don't talk about the "fair tax" which would bankrupt your country and give the middle class money to the rich. Only the naive could think this a practical way to run an economy. Since you do not even understand the very basic ideas behind the fair tax you are not qualified to comment on it. That's your cowards get out clause because you don't have any answer to my criticisms. You have said little that is true about the fair tax. Educate yourself about it and you -might- be able to discuss it in an intelligent manner. In Europe the EC working time directive put an end to this and forced employers to give their workers decent hours and holidays. Even after the implementation in the UK I was working three twelve hour shifts on successive days and it was just bearable. Four twelve hour shifts was bad. Nobody managed five twelve hour shifts without difficulty. In WW2 my father was working twelve hour shifts in an aircraft factory and the deaths of younger workers from industrial accidents and sickness soared. If you were working overtime without difficulty then why should anyone else be kept from working longer hours if they desire? I didn't say I worked those hours without difficulty. I implied that tiredness due to long hours impairs efficiency. That affected me just like everyone else. It also affected my health like most of those working the same shifts. Then you alone are entitled to your earnings. But they still paid taxes. That they had to pay such taxes is a gross injustice. If they did not pay taxes that would be the injustice. I suspect you never worked those kind of hours for extended periods. The longest shift I ever worked was 36 hours. I remember leaving the lab but have no other memories until waking up the next morning 12 hours later. So you would agree that any downsides to working ANY number of hours would lead a fair-minded person to conclude that the worker is fully entitled to ALL that he earns thereby? No! The work done by out of hours staff depends on the work of the daytime shift. No, each shift works for an agreed upon wage, so your statement is nonsense. Without them the quality of the out of hours service could not be maintained. Many businesses are now 24/7/365 or haven't you heard? Likewise all businesses depend on infrastructure rich is best provided through taxes. Infrastructure should be paid for through consumption taxes and fees related to the item consumed. Freeloaders like you begrudge these payments and want to make the rich richer by impoverishing the rest of society. I pay taxes for things I use and for many things I will NEVER use, so don't go calling ME a "freeloader," you socialist freeloader. Do you work in a 24 hour business? How many of the deliveries are in the daytime, about 99%?. A 24 hour business, like healthcare which was my major employment for 40 - odd years depends on the day shifts. But those working the night shifts are paid more. If they paid no tax on the extra earnings the day shift would resent it. Some of those unable to work shifts but whose work is necessary for the night shifts even resent the extra hourly pay. I have never been paid any state benefits except for the basic state pension which everyone who has paid their contributions receives. I have never been unemployed and like most workers in the NHS I worked longer hours even without pay. In fact as a manager I was not entitled to any pay for working extra hours yet I worked about 1.5 hours extra per day and told my staff to call me anytime day or night if they had a problem. You pay taxes to keep your society running. Yet you begrudge those payments which don't benefit you. You also supported the Bush administration which promised before election to increase spending and cut taxes. Result: crash. You are a freeloader since you begrudge the taxes which keep your society running. I am not a freeloader Perhaps I'm not being entirely fair here.If you pay your taxes you're a wannabe freeloader. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
Mike Collins wrote:
Mike Collins wrote: wrote: On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 1:00:25 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote: wsnell01 wrote: On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:03:15 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote: wsnell01 wrote: On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 7:00:56 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote: wsnell01 wrote: On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:49:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote: On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote: Quadibloc: However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and "Questar" are two words that do not go together. I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who can afford Questars. Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar. It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car. Or no savings at all, but a subsistence diet and maybe a roof over your head. Maybe. In this scenario someone with a full time job would be moonlighting somewhere in order to raise extra cash. He would be trading some of his spare time for more money. It hardly seems fair to tax his hard work, correct? No, incorrect. Have you done this for extended periods. I worked 65 to 70 hour weeks for years. I paid taxes on the overtime. Why should I expect not to do this? You should not pay the tax because, comparatively, you end up with less spare time and a portion of your earnings and those who didn't work longer end up with more spare time and a portion of your earnings. But the quality of the work is hard to keep up when hours are so long. If someone is moonlighting the quality of work in his first job will suffer And so will his health. In many/most situations that will not be the case. YMMV. If a second job is not taxed the employer will be able to pay lower wages and nobody except that employer wins. I am suggesting that income should not be taxed, period. That's due to your naďveté. Income is the result of effort (of some sort) and effort requires that one use one's time. When you tax income you are stealing time from one person and giving it to someone else. Are you suggesting that people doing the same job as a first job should pay taxes and those doing a second job should not? What makes you think that!? And don't talk about the "fair tax" which would bankrupt your country and give the middle class money to the rich. Only the naive could think this a practical way to run an economy. Since you do not even understand the very basic ideas behind the fair tax you are not qualified to comment on it. That's your cowards get out clause because you don't have any answer to my criticisms. You have said little that is true about the fair tax. Educate yourself about it and you -might- be able to discuss it in an intelligent manner. In Europe the EC working time directive put an end to this and forced employers to give their workers decent hours and holidays. Even after the implementation in the UK I was working three twelve hour shifts on successive days and it was just bearable. Four twelve hour shifts was bad. Nobody managed five twelve hour shifts without difficulty. In WW2 my father was working twelve hour shifts in an aircraft factory and the deaths of younger workers from industrial accidents and sickness soared. If you were working overtime without difficulty then why should anyone else be kept from working longer hours if they desire? I didn't say I worked those hours without difficulty. I implied that tiredness due to long hours impairs efficiency. That affected me just like everyone else. It also affected my health like most of those working the same shifts. Then you alone are entitled to your earnings. But they still paid taxes. That they had to pay such taxes is a gross injustice. If they did not pay taxes that would be the injustice. I suspect you never worked those kind of hours for extended periods. The longest shift I ever worked was 36 hours. I remember leaving the lab but have no other memories until waking up the next morning 12 hours later. So you would agree that any downsides to working ANY number of hours would lead a fair-minded person to conclude that the worker is fully entitled to ALL that he earns thereby? No! The work done by out of hours staff depends on the work of the daytime shift. No, each shift works for an agreed upon wage, so your statement is nonsense. Without them the quality of the out of hours service could not be maintained. Many businesses are now 24/7/365 or haven't you heard? Likewise all businesses depend on infrastructure rich is best provided through taxes. Infrastructure should be paid for through consumption taxes and fees related to the item consumed. Freeloaders like you begrudge these payments and want to make the rich richer by impoverishing the rest of society. I pay taxes for things I use and for many things I will NEVER use, so don't go calling ME a "freeloader," you socialist freeloader. Do you work in a 24 hour business? How many of the deliveries are in the daytime, about 99%?. A 24 hour business, like healthcare which was my major employment for 40 - odd years depends on the day shifts. But those working the night shifts are paid more. If they paid no tax on the extra earnings the day shift would resent it. Some of those unable to work shifts but whose work is necessary for the night shifts even resent the extra hourly pay. I have never been paid any state benefits except for the basic state pension which everyone who has paid their contributions receives. I have never been unemployed and like most workers in the NHS I worked longer hours even without pay. In fact as a manager I was not entitled to any pay for working extra hours yet I worked about 1.5 hours extra per day and told my staff to call me anytime day or night if they had a problem. You pay taxes to keep your society running. Yet you begrudge those payments which don't benefit you. You also supported the Bush administration which promised before election to increase spending and cut taxes. Result: crash. You are a freeloader since you begrudge the taxes which keep your society running. I am not a freeloader Perhaps I'm not being entirely fair here.If you pay your taxes you're a wannabe freeloader. So you have no answer Mr wannabe freeloader! |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:02:46 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
So you have no answer Mr wannabe freeloader! There are people in your country who make much more than you and pay quite a bit more in taxes to "support" your government (such as it is.) You are not paying your fair share. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
5" Celestron Schmidt-Cass, Mount on Camera Tripod | W. eWatson | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | July 11th 08 03:59 PM |
What made "2001" a "great" SF film? | [email protected] | Policy | 2 | February 26th 07 08:41 PM |
What made "2001" a "great" SF film? | Rand Simberg | Policy | 0 | February 7th 07 04:58 PM |
Observing the Sun using a home-made "Solar-Shield" | orion94nl | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | August 7th 06 01:15 AM |