Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #155734 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-01 10:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-03 17:11 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 320 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 10:49 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-01 13:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 12:05 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-02 04:41 -0400
Re: I Feel Old "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-01-02 11:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 17:14 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-03 08:07 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 15:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 11:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 18:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 06:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 12:24 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-03 09:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 13:12 -0700
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 16:56 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 14:27 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-03 23:53 +0000
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-04 07:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 14:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 16:55 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 11:41 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:37 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 13:11 -0700
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 16:01 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 16:23 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-03 17:30 -0400
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-04 14:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:15 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 13:31 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-05 22:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 17:07 -0800
Re: I Feel Old philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-06 19:21 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-01 21:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-01 22:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 15:57 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-01 20:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-02 00:45 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 06:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 08:18 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:34 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-02 14:27 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:28 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-02 19:56 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-03 10:00 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-17 08:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 13:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 11:15 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-06 11:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 12:02 -0600
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 18:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-06 18:06 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 09:22 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 15:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 09:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:47 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 18:47 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 19:23 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:58 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 15:53 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 11:26 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 09:53 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:24 +0100
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-10 06:06 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-08 10:13 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:42 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-09 07:07 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-09 11:55 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 15:40 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-10 06:13 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-09 13:36 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-09 15:30 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-08 10:43 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 10:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 10:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 22:53 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 12:53 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:29 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:26 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 16:22 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 10:03 +1100
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-12 21:01 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 14:22 +1100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-13 10:14 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-13 18:51 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-14 07:02 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 13:06 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 09:51 +1100
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 06:01 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-08 13:21 -0600
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-08 20:58 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2016-01-08 20:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:31 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-09 18:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-09 12:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 15:31 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 17:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-09 17:07 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-10 11:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 17:08 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:43 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 08:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 09:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 12:28 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 10:58 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 14:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 13:57 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 18:19 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 17:37 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 18:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-08 16:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-09 18:38 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 21:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-09 22:56 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 23:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 14:58 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 14:01 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 16:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 14:48 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-11 17:28 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:01 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 16:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-07 13:13 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 18:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 23:20 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:29 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:30 +0100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 10:59 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 19:48 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-05 06:27 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 16:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 11:08 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 13:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-04 14:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:38 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 17:47 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 01:27 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 11:18 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-13 19:05 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 20:22 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-14 14:09 -0600
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-15 14:51 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 09:48 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 17:26 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 13:19 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-15 09:20 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-15 17:44 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 12:57 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-19 12:42 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-19 15:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 19:15 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 13:44 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-15 15:02 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-16 08:58 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 23:51 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 16:01 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 17:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 08:03 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-16 08:29 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 03:38 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 16:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 16:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 02:11 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 14:02 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 14:22 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-18 05:09 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 15:00 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-18 03:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-16 16:15 +0100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-17 11:39 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-18 04:41 +1100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-16 16:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-16 11:19 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-16 18:36 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-16 17:23 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 13:01 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-16 20:55 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-16 14:53 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 05:43 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 19:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 14:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 15:19 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 19:27 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 15:00 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 22:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 16:12 +1100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-17 11:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 12:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-17 10:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-17 15:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 05:14 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 15:38 -0600
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-16 14:09 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-16 15:19 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-15 19:29 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-15 14:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-14 13:46 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-14 05:17 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-14 13:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:37 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-05 04:44 -0400
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 11:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 17:04 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-04 17:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-02 15:01 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 15:58 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 06:40 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 12:31 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 22:06 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 07:09 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 12:11 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 20:42 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:43 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:21 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-04 17:47 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:10 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:26 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:57 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:46 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:36 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-07 13:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:35 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-08 00:15 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 19:41 +1100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 12:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-07 21:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:51 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 12:59 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:35 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-05 17:31 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:38 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 05:49 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 07:13 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 16:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:39 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-06 09:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 17:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:42 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 14:20 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:34 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 19:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 12:35 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 20:54 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 23:48 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:38 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-07 07:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 06:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 21:47 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 05:45 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-10 12:18 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 08:12 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-10 13:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 08:15 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 05:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:29 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:20 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:52 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:34 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:40 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:39 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:22 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 17:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 20:13 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:37 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 23:25 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2016-01-02 21:35 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-03 05:34 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 08:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2016-01-03 15:17 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-03 20:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 05:09 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:57 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-01 20:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-01-02 07:00 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Louis Krupp <lkrupp@nospam.pssw.com.invalid> - 2016-01-02 01:44 -0700
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 13:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-02 09:11 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-02 11:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-03 08:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 17:11 +0000
Page 6 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 16 Next page →
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 06:01 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfafd1Fqt6uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156244 |
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message news:gqd4mc-lr.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... > In article <n6n2tu$685$1@dont-email.me>, > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>On 07-Jan-16 11:36, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>>> The max is ~$55k/yr for single-employer plans, which isn't >>>> "lavish", though it doesn't look that bad on the surface. >>> >>> $55,000 a year pension is not a lot of money these days, especially >>> for two people. >> >>It's more than the median household income, and most of the people >>earning less are still paying a rent/mortgage _and_ have kids, so their >>monthly costs are much higher. >> >>Also, keep in mind that _doesn't_ include whatever they're getting from >>Social Security. >> >>> Some states tax pension income. Some states have onerous property >>> taxes. >> >>US median property tax is $1838/yr, ranging from $183/yr (LA) to >>$6,082/yr (NJ). That's not a significant problem for someone getting >>$55k/yr, especially if they don't have a mortgage. And, if they are >>smart, they'll move somewhere with low property taxes and no income >>taxes on pensions; it's not like they have a job to worry about. > > I am constantly surprised by the tax burden of these leftopondians. > $6k median property tax? I pay ~$450, But you pay much more in income and VAT taxes. And your country benefits very dramatically from the much more socialist approach to the gas and power generation industries there. There is a bit of that in the US with the TVA, but that isnt anything like as significant to the entire country's economy as yours is. > and I am well above medium in my property, > and the municipality is very tax-happy. > > Or is NJ such an outlier? Yes it is. >>Also, keep in mind that _doesn't_ include whatever they're getting from >>Social Security. >> >>> Selling a home under duress is costly in itself. >> >>That depends on the market, of course, but if this is likely to become a >>problem, then one should do it _before_ one is under duress. >> >>> Some elders have lived in a location for a long time. They may have >>> no mortgage, but some old neighborhoods (or houses) decay and aren't >>> worth very much to sell (or need expensive fixing up.) >> >>If it's not worth much, then the property taxes shouldn't be onerous. >> >>> Health care, such as a supplemental policy for what Medicare doesn't >>> cover, is very expensive. Prescriptions are expensive. >> >>Indeed, and that's why I pointed out that PBGC doesn't cover _any_ >>supplemental benefits, e.g. health or long-term care insurance. > > I realise we get a pretty good deal for the 14.2% pension&health > contribution we pay over here. Yeah, the US spends twice as much per capita on health care alone and ends up with a much worse result for the bottom say 10% too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 13:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6p22n$pmh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156244 |
On 1/8/2016 3:58 AM, Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <n6n2tu$685$1@dont-email.me>, > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 07-Jan-16 11:36, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>>> The max is ~$55k/yr for single-employer plans, which isn't >>>> "lavish", though it doesn't look that bad on the surface. >>> >>> $55,000 a year pension is not a lot of money these days, especially >>> for two people. >> >> It's more than the median household income, and most of the people >> earning less are still paying a rent/mortgage _and_ have kids, so their >> monthly costs are much higher. >> >> Also, keep in mind that _doesn't_ include whatever they're getting from >> Social Security. >> >>> Some states tax pension income. Some states have onerous property >>> taxes. >> >> US median property tax is $1838/yr, ranging from $183/yr (LA) to >> $6,082/yr (NJ). That's not a significant problem for someone getting >> $55k/yr, especially if they don't have a mortgage. And, if they are >> smart, they'll move somewhere with low property taxes and no income >> taxes on pensions; it's not like they have a job to worry about. > > I am constantly surprised by the tax burden of these leftopondians. > $6k median property tax? I pay ~$450, and I am well above medium in > my property, and the municipality is very tax-happy. The national median residential property tax is certainly less than $6K. There is a good deal of geographic variation, the highest I can find is Westchester County, NY ($8890 in 2008), but that's a very upscale neighborhood. In general, the Northeast is the highest, and the South the lowest. Statewide, NJ had the highest median ($7183 in 2012) and AL the lowest ($535). HI has the lowest rate ($2.77/$1K) and IL and NJ the highest (>$23/$1K). (You'd think those numbers would disqualify the NJ governor from rightwing presidential aspirations, but as a people we have a very short attention span.) There is also a good deal of variation in what it pays for. Where I am (MN, middle of the pack $2186 median), it pays for county roads and city streets, local police, schools, libraries, welfare, parks, and a bunch of other things that might elsewhere be financed from other sources (VAT, sales tax, income tax, etc.) Owner-occupied housing gets a lower rate. > > Or is NJ such an outlier? NJ is definitely an outlier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 20:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <IpVjy.157064$J03.138716@fx20.iad> |
| In reply to | #156280 |
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes: >On 1/8/2016 3:58 AM, Morten Reistad wrote: >The national median residential property tax is certainly less than >$6K. There is a good deal of geographic variation, the highest I can >find is Westchester County, NY ($8890 in 2008), but that's a very >upscale neighborhood. In general, the Northeast is the highest, and >the South the lowest. Statewide, NJ had the highest median ($7183 in >2012) and AL the lowest ($535). HI has the lowest rate ($2.77/$1K) and >IL and NJ the highest (>$23/$1K). California property taxes are assessed at 1% of the purchase price. The base value is set to the purchase price and can be increased by no more than 2% per annum (and it can be temporarily lowered during slumps in house pricing). So, after 20 years, one can be paying considerably less than 1% of the current market value in property taxes, which is an advantage for seniors. (My property tax bill would be 3x if assessed at current market value). Additional assessments (local bonds (schools, flood control district), annual sewer bill and starting this year the annual garbage collection bill) are added to the tax computed from the 'base value'. OTOH, current market values in this area are pushing a megabuck, although I think there's been some pullback in the last couple of months.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 20:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <laf6mc-f58.ln1@n6wuz.net> |
| In reply to | #156281 |
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: > Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes: > >The national median residential property tax is certainly less than > >$6K. There is a good deal of geographic variation, ... > California property taxes are assessed at 1% of the purchase price. The > base value is set to the purchase price and can be increased by no > more than 2% per annum (and it can be temporarily lowered during slumps > in house pricing). > So, after 20 years, one can be paying considerably less than 1% of > the current market value in property taxes, which is an advantage for seniors. > (My property tax bill would be 3x if assessed at current market value). A (possibly) unintended consequence of this law is the incentive to wrap corporations around large California real estate properties. The ownership of the corporation may change over time, but the ownership of the property (i.e, the corporation) never changes so the tax basis of the property is never marked to market. So, yes, an advantage for seniors who manage to stay in one place, but even more so for corporations that never die. We are now approaching the 40 year anniversary of this law. -- LAWFUL, adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction. - Ambrose Bierce
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 11:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2547mc-kr.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156303 |
In article <laf6mc-f58.ln1@n6wuz.net>, Jack Myers <jmyers@n6wuz.net> wrote: >Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: >> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes: > >> >The national median residential property tax is certainly less than >> >$6K. There is a good deal of geographic variation, ... > >> California property taxes are assessed at 1% of the purchase price. The >> base value is set to the purchase price and can be increased by no >> more than 2% per annum (and it can be temporarily lowered during slumps >> in house pricing). > >> So, after 20 years, one can be paying considerably less than 1% of >> the current market value in property taxes, which is an advantage for seniors. >> (My property tax bill would be 3x if assessed at current market value). > >A (possibly) unintended consequence of this law is the incentive to >wrap corporations around large California real estate properties. >The ownership of the corporation may change over time, but the >ownership of the property (i.e, the corporation) never changes so >the tax basis of the property is never marked to market. So, yes, >an advantage for seniors who manage to stay in one place, but even >more so for corporations that never die. We are now approaching >the 40 year anniversary of this law. Welcome to the modern world. This has been the norm in Scandinavia for around a century. As soon as the property is big enough to warrent the auditor and accountant expenses it most certainly has a corporation associated with it. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 18:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <871t9qp932.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #156303 |
"Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> writes: >> So, after 20 years, one can be paying considerably less than 1% of >> the current market value in property taxes, which is an advantage for seniors. >> (My property tax bill would be 3x if assessed at current market value). > > A (possibly) unintended consequence of this law is the incentive to > wrap corporations around large California real estate properties. When it was happening (The promulgation and passage of Prop 13 in 1978), a reporter for I'm *pretty sure* it was the SF Chronicle did an expose on the sheer volume of real estate held by corporate entities that would basically live in an effectively zero tax basis forever. > The ownership of the corporation may change over time, but the > ownership of the property (i.e, the corporation) never changes so > the tax basis of the property is never marked to market. So, yes, > an advantage for seniors who manage to stay in one place, but even > more so for corporations that never die. We are now approaching > the 40 year anniversary of this law. I have a close friend who owns a small share of an apartment building. The property tax on the entire building (18 units, generating about $400,000 in annual rent) is literally HALF than a typical four-bedroom home bought today in the same tax district. --NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1175249634.474034975.970106.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156281 |
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: > Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes: >> On 1/8/2016 3:58 AM, Morten Reistad wrote: > >> The national median residential property tax is certainly less than >> $6K. There is a good deal of geographic variation, the highest I can >> find is Westchester County, NY ($8890 in 2008), but that's a very >> upscale neighborhood. In general, the Northeast is the highest, and >> the South the lowest. Statewide, NJ had the highest median ($7183 in >> 2012) and AL the lowest ($535). HI has the lowest rate ($2.77/$1K) and >> IL and NJ the highest (>$23/$1K). > > California property taxes are assessed at 1% of the purchase price. The > base value is set to the purchase price and can be increased by no > more than 2% per annum (and it can be temporarily lowered during slumps > in house pricing). > > So, after 20 years, one can be paying considerably less than 1% of > the current market value in property taxes, which is an advantage for seniors. > (My property tax bill would be 3x if assessed at current market value). Of course, if you're paying less, that means others have to pay more. Everyone else's taxes have to be higher to make up for the shortfall. > > Additional assessments (local bonds (schools, flood control district), > annual sewer bill and starting this year the annual garbage collection > bill) are added to the tax computed from the 'base value'. > > OTOH, current market values in this area are pushing a megabuck, although > I think there's been some pullback in the last couple of months. > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 12:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn9211s.1nb.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156316 |
On 2016-01-09, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: >> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes: >>> On 1/8/2016 3:58 AM, Morten Reistad wrote: >> >>> The national median residential property tax is certainly less than >>> $6K. There is a good deal of geographic variation, the highest I can >>> find is Westchester County, NY ($8890 in 2008), but that's a very >>> upscale neighborhood. In general, the Northeast is the highest, and >>> the South the lowest. Statewide, NJ had the highest median ($7183 in >>> 2012) and AL the lowest ($535). HI has the lowest rate ($2.77/$1K) and >>> IL and NJ the highest (>$23/$1K). >> >> California property taxes are assessed at 1% of the purchase price. The >> base value is set to the purchase price and can be increased by no >> more than 2% per annum (and it can be temporarily lowered during slumps >> in house pricing). >> >> So, after 20 years, one can be paying considerably less than 1% of >> the current market value in property taxes, which is an advantage for seniors. >> (My property tax bill would be 3x if assessed at current market value). > > Of course, if you're paying less, that means others have to pay more. > Everyone else's taxes have to be higher to make up for the shortfall. > >> >> Additional assessments (local bonds (schools, flood control district), >> annual sewer bill and starting this year the annual garbage collection >> bill) are added to the tax computed from the 'base value'. >> >> OTOH, current market values in this area are pushing a megabuck, although >> I think there's been some pullback in the last couple of months. >> > > > We had our first property taxes, for decades, some years ago, when property values were on the floor. Houses were hard to sell, now houses are scarce, and values have risen, maybe 40%. in this instance, renewing the valuation every year is unfair, maybe taking a (mean!) average over ten years would be fairer. I am told that very high property taxes in parts of California is a way of keeping poor people out. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 15:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6ru37$52b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156317 |
On 09-Jan-16 06:59, mausg@mail.com wrote: > We had our first property taxes, for decades, some years ago, when > property values were on the floor. Houses were hard to sell, now > houses are scarce, and values have risen, maybe 40%. in this > instance, renewing the valuation every year is unfair, maybe taking a > (mean!) average over ten years would be fairer. I am told that very > high property taxes in parts of California is a way of keeping poor > people out. Many states have provisions that limit the annual increase in taxable value, typically 2-10%. Others don't allow any increase at all; it only gets reset when the property is sold. If the limit is below the rate of inflation (including zero), that's good for people on fixed incomes, but it means the tax burden falls mostly on new owners, which creates a disincentive to buying, and that is probably bad for society as a whole. There's no good answer. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 17:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <154106940.474070875.247186.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156333 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > On 09-Jan-16 06:59, mausg@mail.com wrote: >> We had our first property taxes, for decades, some years ago, when >> property values were on the floor. Houses were hard to sell, now >> houses are scarce, and values have risen, maybe 40%. in this >> instance, renewing the valuation every year is unfair, maybe taking a >> (mean!) average over ten years would be fairer. I am told that very >> high property taxes in parts of California is a way of keeping poor >> people out. > > Many states have provisions that limit the annual increase in taxable > value, typically 2-10%. Others don't allow any increase at all; it only > gets reset when the property is sold. > > If the limit is below the rate of inflation (including zero), that's > good for people on fixed incomes, but it means the tax burden falls > mostly on new owners, which creates a disincentive to buying, and that > is probably bad for society as a whole. There's no good answer. > Cargo Cult government. Let's all pray for alien spaceships to fly over and drop loads of goodies for everyone. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 17:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <28713285-33ba-43ab-8898-d0324f481f5b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156336 |
On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 3:22:44 PM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > > There's no good answer. > Cargo Cult government. Let's all pray for alien spaceships to fly over and > drop loads of goodies for everyone. Promote technological advancement, so that more goods can be produced. Use the technologies we already have - such as nuclear power. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-10 11:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c311720e-df11-4058-8f29-645600568637@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156333 |
On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 4:31:55 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > If the limit is below the rate of inflation (including zero), that's > good for people on fixed incomes, but it means the tax burden falls > mostly on new owners, which creates a disincentive to buying, and that > is probably bad for society as a whole. There's no good answer. Unfortunately, politicians of _both_ parties love promising all sorts of new government services and subsidies, but they won't talk about how much they'll cost. Even the supposedly anti-tax "small government" Republicans do it. Also, rarely are the _amount_ of government expenditures questioned. If they say it will cost $25 million to build a new school, people might argue whether a new school is needed, but won't question the $25 million figure. Unfortunately, some of the amounts are very outrageous. SEPTA (Phila transit agency) has a very detailed capital budget plan on-line, and some of the items seem expensive, like $1 million for a new roof or new driveway for a car barn (maybe it's justified, I don't know.) The newspapers report a ton of budget related stuff about government spending, but the general public could care less, unless of course there's some sex involved. If a senator is caught taking his mistress out to lunch, charged to the government, all hell will break loose, but if the same senator gets a sweetheart billion dollar defense contract for his district, it's business as usual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 17:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n71cg1$2v0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156354 |
On 10-Jan-16 13:25, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> If the limit is below the rate of inflation (including zero), >> that's good for people on fixed incomes, but it means the tax >> burden falls mostly on new owners, which creates a disincentive to >> buying, and that is probably bad for society as a whole. There's >> no good answer. > > Unfortunately, politicians of _both_ parties love promising all > sorts of new government services and subsidies, but they won't talk > about how much they'll cost. Even the supposedly anti-tax "small > government" Republicans do it. Every time I've seen a Dem propose new services, they clearly explain the cost and exactly how they'll pay for it--usually new taxes. I rarely see Reps talk up new services; they often let Dems increase services and then block the taxes to pay for them, then blame the Dems for fiscal irresponsibility. The only spending increase that actually gets Rep votes is Defense or other corporate welfare--not that they'll pay for those either. > Also, rarely are the _amount_ of government expenditures questioned. > If they say it will cost $25 million to build a new school, people > might argue whether a new school is needed, but won't question the > $25 million figure. Unfortunately, some of the amounts are very > outrageous. SEPTA (Phila transit agency) has a very detailed capital > budget plan on-line, and some of the items seem expensive, like $1 > million for a new roof or new driveway for a car barn (maybe it's > justified, I don't know.) There's definitely a lot of waste there; we typically spend more to _study_ problems than it costs to actually _solve_ those problems in other developed countries. A big part of the problem is purchasing processes intended to prevent corruption have grown so horrifically complicated that only the corrupt are able to actually get anything done--not that getting things done is a priority for anyone involved--and adds far more cost itself than it would ever theoretically save. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 07:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3f13b1c9-8b58-4ad8-aaa8-6ae60e4055b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156448 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:08:20 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Every time I've seen a Dem propose new services, they clearly explain > the cost and exactly how they'll pay for it--usually new taxes. > > I rarely see Reps talk up new services; they often let Dems increase > services and then block the taxes to pay for them, then blame the Dems > for fiscal irresponsibility. The only spending increase that actually > gets Rep votes is Defense or other corporate welfare--not that they'll > pay for those either. Republicans spend a fortunate on "corporate welfare", such as zillions of dollars of tax credits for business. In additional to Defense, which they can't spend enough on, Republicans are also big on public safety, such as more cops, more equipment for cops, and prisons. > A big part of the problem is purchasing processes intended to prevent > corruption have grown so horrifically complicated that only the corrupt > are able to actually get anything done--not that getting things done is > a priority for anyone involved--and adds far more cost itself than it > would ever theoretically save. This is nothing new. The US military was hamstrung by enormous purchasing regulations prior to WW II and was unable to build up. (Download the official Signal Corps history, volume 1 has a whole chapter on the incredible B/S they had to go through.) Indeed, government procurement was a problem in the 1930s when FDR was trying to fight the Depression. FDR had to key assistants, Hopkins and Ickes. Hopkins wanted to spend money fast and furious to alleviate suffering and give people food, shelter, and something to do, and not worry about waste or fraud. Ickes, in contrast, was very fussy and would not spend a dime until everything was thoroughly discussed and checked out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 08:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87vb6y21eg.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #156503 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > This is nothing new. The US military was hamstrung by enormous > purchasing regulations prior to WW II and was unable to build up. > (Download the official Signal Corps history, volume 1 has a whole > chapter on the incredible B/S they had to go through.) > > Indeed, government procurement was a problem in the 1930s when FDR > was trying to fight the Depression. FDR had to key assistants, > Hopkins and Ickes. Hopkins wanted to spend money fast and furious > to alleviate suffering and give people food, shelter, and something > to do, and not worry about waste or fraud. Ickes, in contrast, > was very fussy and would not spend a dime until everything was > thoroughly discussed and checked out. There is periodic stuff about DOD budget in general. in the 90s, congress passed legislation that all federal agencies had to pass regular financial audit ... so far DOD has been unable to. There was big press that Marines had passed one ... but it turned out it was a little premature ... found several things that they failed. There have been some claims that DOD might pass an financial audit in 2017 (two decades after the law passed) ... but recent references are casting doubt that is going to be possible. one of the conspiracy stories is about a report concerning trillion dollars that had gone missing in DOD ... but in 9/11 ... the plane took out the accounting section and all that information went missing. 2002, congress let the financial responsibility act expire (spending couldn't exceed revenue) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#fiscal.responsibility.act by the middle of last decade, the savaging of any fiscal responsible budget by congress, the US comptroller general was including in speeches that nobody in congress was capable of middle school arithmetic (for what they were doing to the budget, massive license to steal). posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#comptroller.general the first major bill after letting fiscal responsibility act expire was Medicare Part-D ... comptroller general would claim that it comes to be a long term $40T item (and gift to the drug industry). CBS 60mins did expose on what went on in congress ... and the 18 republican members of congress & staff that shepherded it through. At last minute, just before final vote, they insert a one liner that prevents competitive bidding and prevent distribution of CBO report detailing effects of the change. After bill passes, all 18 have resigned and on drug industry payroll. CBS shows drugs under part-D are three times as expensive as the identical drugs from VA (that allows competitive bidding). posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#medicare.part-d 2010 there was CBO report that in the interval since letting act expire, tax revenue was reduced by $6T and spending increased by $6T (for $12T budget gap compared to fiscal responsible budget). -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 09:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0862a878-0310-4031-820d-88c20c7bca9a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156514 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 11:44:27 AM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > There is periodic stuff about DOD budget in general. in the 90s, > congress passed legislation that all federal agencies had to pass > regular financial audit ... so far DOD has been unable to. There was big > press that Marines had passed one ... but it turned out it was a little > premature ... found several things that they failed. There have been > some claims that DOD might pass an financial audit in 2017 (two decades > after the law passed) ... but recent references are casting doubt that > is going to be possible. One of the objectives of merging Army and Navy into DOD was to get economies of scale by common purchasing. Supposedly, one Secretary found that they used different belt buckles and saved a lot of money by having a common source. However, in the 1950s the Army and Navy fought a consolidated DOD, they utterly hated giving up their own perogatives. Unfortunately, the Cold War ruined a lot of plans to economize. Immediately after WW II, the military was supposed to quickly shrink down to a tiny level, and no draft. But Soviet rattling and the Korean War, China, and then Vietnan kept DOD alive. No politician wanted to be 'soft on defense', and of course defense contracts meant big bucks for local companies in their districts. As mentioned, many peaceniks of the 1960s who later came to Congress found themselves as hawks, defending a military base or contractor in their district. Suddenly that inhumane fighter jet or bomber becomes a desirable thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 12:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n73gf8$38k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156520 |
On 12-Jan-16 11:52, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > No politician wanted to be 'soft on defense', and of course defense > contracts meant big bucks for local companies in their districts. > > As mentioned, many peaceniks of the 1960s who later came to Congress > found themselves as hawks, defending a military base or contractor > in their district. Suddenly that inhumane fighter jet or bomber > becomes a desirable thing. Also, defense contractors realized they could spread the manufacturing around by breaking it into a thousand pieces and subbing out each one of them to a different firm, so now _every_ Congressman has an employer in their district to defend when a project comes up for debate. The idea that these companies could produce _something else_, i.e. something that would actually benefit the people, escapes them. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 10:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ed547d12-c647-4461-99db-1253a16fc89d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156525 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 1:28:27 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Also, defense contractors realized they could spread the manufacturing > around by breaking it into a thousand pieces and subbing out each one of > them to a different firm, so now _every_ Congressman has an employer in > their district to defend when a project comes up for debate. Ironically, in WW II, small business got hurt. They couldn't get raw materials without a priority, and they couldn't get defense contracts since the govt preferred large companies. The govt did put pressure on large companies to subcontract out stuff, but the large companies generally preferred back then to do it all in-house. Interesting how years ago a large company would pride itself to be wholly self-contained. In some cases that was necessary since a large plant might not have any resources available to it in its otherwise rural town or neighborhood. Companies generated their own power and had their own water and phone systems. But also, it was get economies of scale and have reliable sources that couldn't be interrupted. Henry Ford prided himself on River Rouge, where he made his own steel, rubber, and glass for his cars. In contrast, today companies want to be as small as possible and contract out as much as they can. > The idea that these companies could produce _something else_, i.e. > something that would actually benefit the people, escapes them. As Vietnam wound down, a number of defense contractors got interested to supply vehicles and components for transit, such as Boeing and Rohr. There was frustration in traditional transit circles as the newcomers were seen as super experts when in fact they had little practical experience in railroading. (Of course, the reverse was true. During WW II, Budd attempted to build an airplane for the Navy, which apparently didn't work out too well.) Anyway, today, Lockheed is a consolidation of several once-large companies. IMHO, it's too big.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 14:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n73oo3$694$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156534 |
On 12-Jan-16 12:58, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> Also, defense contractors realized they could spread the >> manufacturing around by breaking it into a thousand pieces and >> subbing out each one of them to a different firm, so now _every_ >> Congressman has an employer in their district to defend when a >> project comes up for debate. > > ... > Interesting how years ago a large company would pride itself to be > wholly self-contained. In some cases that was necessary since a > large plant might not have any resources available to it in its > otherwise rural town or neighborhood. Companies generated their own > power and had their own water and phone systems. But also, it was > get economies of scale and have reliable sources that couldn't be > interrupted. Henry Ford prided himself on River Rouge, where he > made his own steel, rubber, and glass for his cars. > > In contrast, today companies want to be as small as possible and > contract out as much as they can. Supply chain management--and transportation--has gotten a lot better since then, but partly it's business school fads. The trend for the last few decades has been to outsource everything except your "core competencies" on the assumption that a company specializing in that particular function will do it better--or at least cheaper. Even if not, outsourcing work (especially capital-intensive or low-wage work) makes your financial reports to Wall St look better, which is more important in some ways than actually making money. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 13:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8b4050ca-56e4-44e5-af12-5f06d2796316@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156542 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 3:49:43 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Supply chain management--and transportation--has gotten a lot better > since then, but partly it's business school fads. The trend for the > last few decades has been to outsource everything except your "core > competencies" on the assumption that a company specializing in that > particular function will do it better--or at least cheaper. Even if > not, outsourcing work (especially capital-intensive or low-wage work) > makes your financial reports to Wall St look better, which is more > important in some ways than actually making money. > Just today the Phila Inqr reported on the breakup of duPont. They describe how the Koch Bros bought a unit and are milking it dry, not investing a dime in it, but taking the profits to promote anti-tax political candidates. http://www.philly.com/philly/business/homepage/20160112_Cuts_to_DuPont_s_research__business_draw_mixed_reactions.html New owners of duPont do not want to invest anything in R&D. http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/philly/columnists/joseph-distefano&id=364586981 http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/364799621.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web