New DSLR lenses from Nikon
Bruce
AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom lens.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp
US $ 1259.95
Euro 1199.00
GBP 1049.99
AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED
Full frame (FX) format, ultra-fast wide angle fixed focal length lens.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020901nikon24mmf14.asp
US $ 2199.95
Euro 2149.00
GBP 1949.99
Pete D
"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:61a3n5hlk1bk315qd...@4ax.com...
Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
crazy.
Crazy Spotters Inc.
No. What's truly crazy is that you think that's the only thing that's
crazy.
C J Campbell
Does the Euro pricing include VAT?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Alfred Molon
n...@email.com says...
> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
> crazy.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Bruce
Yes, the Euro and GBP prices include VAT (from 15% to 22% depending on
which country) whereas the US price does not include taxes.
Crazy Spotters Inc.
wrote:
>In article <edWdnTLZJMvSMezW...@westnet.com.au>,
>n...@email.com says...
>> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
>> crazy.
>
>Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.
No, camera companies think that all DSLR buyers are stupid.
They are correct.
Those prices alone prove this, in any country.
C J Campbell
> Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
>
> AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
> Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom lens.
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp
> US $ 1259.95
> Euro 1199.00
> GBP 1049.99
Lot of people are going to want this lens. Looks like my 28 mm f/2.8 is
going up for sale on eBay.
>
>
> AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED
> Full frame (FX) format, ultra-fast wide angle fixed focal length lens.
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020901nikon24mmf14.asp
> US $ 2199.95
> Euro 2149.00
> GBP 1949.99
Even bigger and heavier than the 28mm f/2.8. But this lens does take
filters and it is a stop faster. Maybe a little too rich for my blood
(says the guy who shoots with a D3x).
Yep, the 28mm f/2.8 goes on sale soon as I get back from Mexico.
C J Campbell
> In article <edWdnTLZJMvSMezW...@westnet.com.au>,
> n...@email.com says...
>> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
>> crazy.
>
> Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.
Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
has no VAT.
Alan Browne
> In article<edWdnTLZJMvSMezW...@westnet.com.au>,
> n...@email.com says...
>> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
>> crazy.
>
> Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.
Whenever Europeans act stupidly, most everyone thinks so.
(I'd mention, for example, the Lisbon treaty (with serial referendums
until people vote "right"), Italian governance, Greek government budgets
and Spanish economic and labour theory and a plethora of other stupid
European things brought on by European thought, but that would be a bit
overwhelming to most.)
Naturally, this does nothing to obviate Japanese, American, Canadian or
other nationals stupidity. There's more that enough to go around
without import or export barriers.
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
Alan Browne
> On 2010-02-09 11:36:55 -0800, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> In article <edWdnTLZJMvSMezW...@westnet.com.au>,
>> n...@email.com says...
>>> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
>>> crazy.
>>
>> Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.
>
> Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
> has no VAT.
So what? America is the most indebted nation in the world.
You just can't see the US VAT. You see almost every bit of food in the
US is subsidized by the federal (and often state) governments. (That
this is a leading contributor to US obesity rates is another costly effect).
Many industries are subsidized, esp. aerospace and military. So every
time you fly on a US built aircraft you are getting that subsidy. Oh,
and paying for it in your taxes. (I should say not paying for it as the
US deficit continues to grow under the silly notion that major wars can
be fought while cutting taxes, but that's another story).
The US may not have a VAT, per se. However, and you'll really hate
this, some policy wonks (both D & R) see it as a way to stem the tide.
It's germane to note that Canada halted its growing deficits in part
through the adoption of a VAT (called GST (Fed) and PST (Prov.) (or HST
when blended)). That coupled to fiscal restraint - certainly not a US
virtue since Clinton. (And blaming any of this on 'bama would just be
partisan whining).
J�rgen Exner
>has no VAT.
1: Canada does have VAT, it is called "Goods and Services Tax". Don't
know about other countries in America.
2: I am quite certain I prefer a flat simple straightforward VAT over
the impenetrable jungle of local, state, county and other sales taxes
that are slapped on in the US and sometimes vary just across the street.
3: Not to mention that VAT is refundable upon export of the good while
sales tax is not.
jue
C J Campbell
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
> On 10-02-09 16:04 , C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2010-02-09 11:36:55 -0800, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <edWdnTLZJMvSMezW...@westnet.com.au>,
>>> n...@email.com says...
>>>> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
>>>> crazy.
>>>
>>> Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.
>>
>> Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
>> has no VAT.
>
> So what? America is the most indebted nation in the world.
Now just hold your horses, there. Did I say Americans were smarter? No,
I did not.
Just take a look at every president elected in the US over the last few
generations, including our current president. Why on earth would our
politicians have any reason to believe that we are not stupid?
tony cooper
<christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2010-02-09 11:36:55 -0800, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> In article <edWdnTLZJMvSMezW...@westnet.com.au>,
>> n...@email.com says...
>>> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
>>> crazy.
>>
>> Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.
>
>Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
>has no VAT.
Not by that name, but the concept of adding a tax to the purchase of
goods and services is certainly practiced here. Our states are just
as tax-hungry as any other government entity.
One of the major differences is that advertised prices in the UK
include VAT, but advertised prices in the US do not include sales tax.
They may include a notation that sales tax will be added, but not an
amount.
While visitors to the US often object to this because they feel the
advertising falsely represents the actual price to be paid, there is a
good reason for stating the pre-tax price. If Best Buy (a chain of
stores) advertises a camera for $100, the final price will be $106 if
the purchase is made in Orange County (FL) or $107 if the purchase is
made in Seminole County (FL) due to local option tax rates. If the
camera is purchased by a hospital or other exempt entity, the final
price is $100. The stores involved may be equidistant from the
customer's home.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
C J Campbell
If you like this oppressive, extremely regressive tax, fine with me.
I'll give it a pass, thank you. And don't complain to me about how your
stuff costs more.
Bill Graham
"C J Campbell" <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2010020913044675249-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
> On 2010-02-09 11:36:55 -0800, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> In article <edWdnTLZJMvSMezW...@westnet.com.au>,
>> n...@email.com says...
>>> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
>>> crazy.
>>
>> Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.
>
> Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
> has no VAT.
As of February, 2010.....But just give Obama a little more time.....He's got
a nice VAT on the drawing boards right now.......
C J Campbell
> Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
>
> AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
> Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom lens.
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp
> US $ 1259.95
> Euro 1199.00
> GBP 1049.99
This thing is going to be one of the most popular lenses Nikon has ever made.
>
>
> AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED
> Full frame (FX) format, ultra-fast wide angle fixed focal length lens.
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020901nikon24mmf14.asp
> US $ 2199.95
> Euro 2149.00
> GBP 1949.99
You know, the more I think about this second lens...
It is being pitched to the photojournalism community -- a big, heavy
fixed focus lens. Okay, I guess. Personally, I see the PJs buying up so
many of the f/4 16-35 that it will be on backorder for years. But not
this 24mm tank.
Some also say that landscape photographers really want a lens that can
do a shallow DOF and has good bokeh. Yep, that slapping sound is the
sound of millions of f/64 types doing face palms. They don't want good
bokeh! They want the whole picture to be sharp!
I predict this lens will sell by the dozens.
C J Campbell
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:04:46 -0800, C J Campbell
> <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-02-09 11:36:55 -0800, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <edWdnTLZJMvSMezW...@westnet.com.au>,
>>> n...@email.com says...
>>>> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
>>>> crazy.
>>>
>>> Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.
>>
>> Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
>> has no VAT.
>
> Not by that name, but the concept of adding a tax to the purchase of
> goods and services is certainly practiced here. Our states are just
> as tax-hungry as any other government entity.
Yes, but it is not reflected in the price of the lens. As you go on to
point out very clearly.
>
> One of the major differences is that advertised prices in the UK
> include VAT, but advertised prices in the US do not include sales tax.
> They may include a notation that sales tax will be added, but not an
> amount.
>
> While visitors to the US often object to this because they feel the
> advertising falsely represents the actual price to be paid, there is a
> good reason for stating the pre-tax price. If Best Buy (a chain of
> stores) advertises a camera for $100, the final price will be $106 if
> the purchase is made in Orange County (FL) or $107 if the purchase is
> made in Seminole County (FL) due to local option tax rates. If the
> camera is purchased by a hospital or other exempt entity, the final
> price is $100. The stores involved may be equidistant from the
> customer's home.
>
>
>
>
--
Alan Browne
Except health care and education of course. You know - important stuff.
The US will have a VAT within 20 years. Probably less.
C J Campbell
It will pass right after medical reform, too.
Both parties are obsessed with populist "blame the bankers for the
economy" rhetoric. Which means they are likely to do nothing. Which is
just the way I like it. Unfortunately, while neither party has said
"Jewish bankers," the message is just as clear. The nation is being run
by fascists who dominate both sides of the aisle.
tony cooper
<jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>3: Not to mention that VAT is refundable upon export of the good while
>sales tax is not.
Where this makes a difference is when the item purchased is taken into
possession by the buyer in the place where sales tax is charged. An
item that I may pay sales tax on can be purchased by someone in a
foreign country who does not pay tax on that item. Once you pay sales
tax, it is not refundable. But, under certain conditions, you need
not pay the tax in the first place.
Each state's laws on this may be different, but here's one example:
http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub104.pdf
Bruce
<christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Both parties are obsessed with populist "blame the bankers for the
>economy" rhetoric. Which means they are likely to do nothing. Which is
>just the way I like it. Unfortunately, while neither party has said
>"Jewish bankers," the message is just as clear. The nation is being run
>by fascists who dominate both sides of the aisle.
You should thank God for Sarah Palin, then.
Palin to the rescue, 2012. ;-)
LOL!
<christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2010-02-09 14:12:21 -0800, J�rgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>> C J Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
>>> has no VAT.
>>
>> 1: Canada does have VAT, it is called "Goods and Services Tax". Don't
>> know about other countries in America.
>> 2: I am quite certain I prefer a flat simple straightforward VAT over
>> the impenetrable jungle of local, state, county and other sales taxes
>> that are slapped on in the US and sometimes vary just across the street.
>> 3: Not to mention that VAT is refundable upon export of the good while
>> sales tax is not.
>>
>> jue
>
>If you like this oppressive, extremely regressive tax, fine with me.
>I'll give it a pass, thank you. And don't complain to me about how your
>stuff costs more.
Yes. Let's all blame their respective governments on why $25 of labor,
glass, metal, and cheap plastics costs $2000.
Holy fuck are you ever DSLR worshippers idiots!
LOL!
LOL!
<christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2010-02-09 14:12:21 -0800, J�rgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>> C J Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
>>> has no VAT.
>>
>> 1: Canada does have VAT, it is called "Goods and Services Tax". Don't
>> know about other countries in America.
>> 2: I am quite certain I prefer a flat simple straightforward VAT over
>> the impenetrable jungle of local, state, county and other sales taxes
>> that are slapped on in the US and sometimes vary just across the street.
>> 3: Not to mention that VAT is refundable upon export of the good while
>> sales tax is not.
>>
>> jue
>
>If you like this oppressive, extremely regressive tax, fine with me.
>I'll give it a pass, thank you. And don't complain to me about how your
>stuff costs more.
Yes. Let's all blame their respective governments on why $25 of labor,
glass, metal, and cheap plastics costs $2000.
Holy fuck are you DSLR worshippers ever idiots!
LOL!
Alan Browne
If nothing is done about banking, the notion that the largest banks are
"too large to fail" will bring down the US economy in a way that will
make the Great Depression look like summer camp.
The basics, which include sane reserve ratios have been ignored by
conveniently using out of gov't purview investment systems (hedge funds
and derivatives), the use of underfunded single co. insurance schemes by
all involved coupled to cross lending in what really amounts to an
"accountable" ponzi scheme.
In order to legitimatize all this, they all used the same 2 (a few more)
large ratings firms and "shopped" their paper at these firms until
getting a favourable rating - this further leveraged the poor quality
paper on the street into a higher value (less perception of risk) than
they were.
To believe that doing nothing is just fine is, I hope, ignorance.
Because knowing the facts and not being willing to do anything about
them is sheer stupidity.
I won't even go into the housing asset bubble issue. That was clear
enough back in 2002. And was roundly ignored by the people who should
never have stepped into that market: Fanny & Freddie who just ended up
being stupidy fuel instead of a natural brake against stupidity.
RichA
> Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
>
> AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
> US $ 1259.95
> Euro 1199.00
> GBP 1049.99
>
> AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED
> US $ 2199.95
> Euro 2149.00
> GBP 1949.99
I like their description of them as "affordable" alternatives to the
faster FX stuff. What will they charge for the 14-24mm f2.8 and
24-70mm f2.8 now, $4000 each??
C J Campbell
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
You show a much better understanding of the problem than most people.
>
> To believe that doing nothing is just fine is, I hope, ignorance.
>
> Because knowing the facts and not being willing to do anything about
> them is sheer stupidity.
>
> I won't even go into the housing asset bubble issue. That was clear
> enough back in 2002. And was roundly ignored by the people who should
> never have stepped into that market: Fanny & Freddie who just ended up
> being stupidy fuel instead of a natural brake against stupidity.
Heck, the housing asset bubble was a problem that was being talked
about clear back in the '80s when the Savings & Loan industry
collapsed. I knew then that the S&L failures were just round one.
I admit to being facetious when I said "doing nothing" is just the way
I like it.
--
tony cooper
<christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2010-02-09 14:21:54 -0800, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> said:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:04:46 -0800, C J Campbell
>> <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-02-09 11:36:55 -0800, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> said:
>>>
>>>> In article <edWdnTLZJMvSMezW...@westnet.com.au>,
>>>> n...@email.com says...
>>>>> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
>>>>> crazy.
>>>>
>>>> Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.
>>>
>>> Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
>>> has no VAT.
>>
>> Not by that name, but the concept of adding a tax to the purchase of
>> goods and services is certainly practiced here. Our states are just
>> as tax-hungry as any other government entity.
>
>Yes, but it is not reflected in the price of the lens. As you go on to
>point out very clearly.
>
It's not reflected in the *advertised* price of the lens, or MRSP,
but it will certainly be reflected in the price of the lens when you
buy it.
Savageduck
...and then only snowmobiles will be tax free. Presidential adviser,
and former governor of Alaska, Todd will make sure of that.
He will write that on her hand himself.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
RichA
> Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
>
> AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
> Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom lens.http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp
> Euro 1199.00 - $1651.00 U.S.
> GBP 1049.99 - $1647.00 U.S.
>
> AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED
> Full frame (FX) format, ultra-fast wide angle fixed focal length lens.http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020901nikon24mmf14.asp
> US $ 2199.95
> GBP 1949.99 - $3058.75 U.S.
C J Campbell
I think not. She will be a fine news commentator -- meaning she will be
good for Fox's ratings. But she is regarded as poison by both parties.
Her image would need considerable rehabilitation to make her a viable
candidate for pretty much anything.
I am sure that there are politicians who have a clear sense of
responsibility to the Republic and who are not hostage to the
extremists of their party. I am also sure that no one like that has a
snowball's chance in Hades of getting elected president. Apparently,
being a certifiable nutcase is prerequisite for the job. Okay. So Palin
to the rescue, then.
Bill Graham
"C J Campbell" <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2010020916350416807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
money, I'll vote for her.......
C J Campbell
NO! Not now! My bank just told me my bank account was overdrawn by $1.3
million. Apparently it happened to thousands of their customers.
Computer error. One customer is overdrawn by $32 million. They promise
to have it fixed by morning...
The computer is an amazing labor-saving device. Think of the man-hours
it would have taken to make a mistake like that manually.
Alan Browne
And that's the sad part. The veneer of the economy looked fine but the
rot underneath was out of view. The few who raised the issue were
rebuffed. Politically inconvenient, you know.
No, not 1 person in 20 seemed to get it before, and I doubt the ratio
has improves to much better than 1 in 15.
>>
>> To believe that doing nothing is just fine is, I hope, ignorance.
>>
>> Because knowing the facts and not being willing to do anything about
>> them is sheer stupidity.
>>
>> I won't even go into the housing asset bubble issue. That was clear
>> enough back in 2002. And was roundly ignored by the people who should
>> never have stepped into that market: Fanny & Freddie who just ended up
>> being stupidy fuel instead of a natural brake against stupidity.
>
> Heck, the housing asset bubble was a problem that was being talked about
> clear back in the '80s when the Savings & Loan industry collapsed. I
> knew then that the S&L failures were just round one.
And many people knew that if interest rates were so low and some banks
were handing out $600K jumbo mortgages (aka "junk mortgages") to people
who could not qualify for an ordinary mortgage on $250K home, that
something, somewhere had to give.
The (current era) bubble warnings were loud and clear back in 2002 or
so. (Wash Post, LA Times, NYT amongst other wrote about it a lot).
>
> I admit to being facetious when I said "doing nothing" is just the way I
> like it.
There's an attitude that says, "leave banking alone" but instead results
in rules being pared away. The Reps and the Dems are equally guilty of
negligence on this.
Savageduck
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
I knew there was going to be a problem when I had lenders lined up
telling me my home, which I bought in 1993 for $125K was valued at over
$400K and I should benefit from some of that equity.
I didn't bite.
I did take advantage of a drop in interest rates in 2001. I refinanced
at a lower rate and shorter term, without taking any additional equity
out of the inflated valuation. As a result I have a small balance and
mortgage payments lower than I could rent for today.
I have since witnessed 5 foreclosures in my immediate neighborhood, and
I continue to get offers from any number of banks to "lower my payment."
I am also aware of foreclosures on properties of individuals I worked
with, who had bought homes they could not in any real World afford.
Among those foreclosed on in our neighborhood, were two families who
had bought their first homes, and who were lead on by the realtors and
the banks to take advantage of phantom equity growth, to put themselves
into debt they could never possibly support. Their economic future has
been effectively destroyed due to their naivety, greed and the
predatory behavior of the realtors and the banks.
>
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Ray Fischer
>Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
>
>AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
>Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom lens.
Why would anyone spend that much to get image stablization on a wide
angle f4 zoom?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Alan Browne
I have no problem with equity loans if they are for a related capital
improvement. For example a major renovation, addition, etc. Possibly
to buy a small cottage in the country for the weekend or as a retirement
starter.
However, people turned their home equity into ATM's so they could have
the beamer and the Humveee, the boat and the motorcycles and let's throw
in a (really) nice place up at the lake and a 5-star ski vacation in
Gstaad... it's "really" not costing anything you see, because the house
is going up in value faster than we can spend it, right?
It's that thinking that makes me puke - and you can't blame it all on
the banks. People have to saw off a chunk of responsibility for
themselves on that one and take the bath. I really have no pity.
> I didn't bite.
> I did take advantage of a drop in interest rates in 2001. I refinanced
> at a lower rate and shorter term, without taking any additional equity
> out of the inflated valuation. As a result I have a small balance and
> mortgage payments lower than I could rent for today.
We have variable rate mortages which means that your monthly interest
(or bi-weekly in my case) float with the rate automatically. On average
over the course of a 15 year mortgage you save. Over a 25 yr. you
definitely save. Recently I was seeing as low as 1.45. (Then the 3 yr.
sub term rolled over and I got kicked up to 3.00. Still damned good
compared to fixed mortgages (although here even a 30 yr will be
re-negotiated every 2 - 5 yrs depending on terms).
When I divorced I reset to 15 years again ... but should finish off well
before that. (on the variable rate you can make penalty free lump sum
payments at any time and that rockets it down - as we cannot deduct
interest payments from our taxes there is no advantage to dragging it
out - unless market returns are well above the mortgage rate - I took a
balanced approach on that one).
> I have since witnessed 5 foreclosures in my immediate neighborhood, and
> I continue to get offers from any number of banks to "lower my payment."
Canada hasn't been hit as hard. Mortgage lenders are more conservative
than in the US so people were not so over-extended. In some markets
(Alberta, BC) they have been hit worse - but as long as people kept
their jobs, it was no big deal. There are no (or few) cases of people
who owe more than the current value of the home. It's also (I believe)
less easy to "walk away and leave the keys at the bank" than in the US -
eg: the banks don't want to own homes any more here than down there.
> I am also aware of foreclosures on properties of individuals I worked
> with, who had bought homes they could not in any real World afford.
See my 2nd para rant above.
> Among those foreclosed on in our neighborhood, were two families who had
> bought their first homes, and who were lead on by the realtors and the
> banks to take advantage of phantom equity growth, to put themselves into
> debt they could never possibly support. Their economic future has been
> effectively destroyed due to their naivety, greed and the predatory
> behavior of the realtors and the banks.
Yep. And the seers saw it over 5 years before it hit.
Alan Browne
> On 2010-02-09 14:48:32 -0800, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:36:11 -0800, C J Campbell
>> <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Both parties are obsessed with populist "blame the bankers for the
>>> economy" rhetoric. Which means they are likely to do nothing. Which is
>>> just the way I like it. Unfortunately, while neither party has said
>>> "Jewish bankers," the message is just as clear. The nation is being run
>>> by fascists who dominate both sides of the aisle.
>>
>>
>> You should thank God for Sarah Palin, then.
>>
>> Palin to the rescue, 2012. ;-)
>
> I think not. She will be a fine news commentator -- meaning she will be
> good for Fox's ratings. But she is regarded as poison by both parties.
> Her image would need considerable rehabilitation to make her a viable
> candidate for pretty much anything.
The key problem with American politics. Her "image".
She doesn't have the fundamental ability to lead, to make real, hard
decisions.
That should be way ahead of "image" (no matter how much we all want to
boff perky stewardesses, which is the "image" she portrays).
> I am sure that there are politicians who have a clear sense of
> responsibility to the Republic and who are not hostage to the extremists
> of their party. I am also sure that no one like that has a snowball's
> chance in Hades of getting elected president.
As McCain proved. Not perfect of course, but when the election was
within 60 days of the ballot, he went "party" real fast, dropped his
message in the ditch and lost the game.
He lost for 5 reasons: 1) losing his message 2) Palin 3) Palin 4) Palin
5) Looking like a certifiable cretin at the WH during the "meltdown"
conference before the election.
> Apparently, being a
> certifiable nutcase is prerequisite for the job. Okay. So Palin to the
> rescue, then.
That's like the unqualified rescuing a panic'd swimmer.
Welcome to the Screwed SA.
tony cooper
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>I knew there was going to be a problem when I had lenders lined up
>telling me my home, which I bought in 1993 for $125K was valued at over
>$400K and I should benefit from some of that equity.
How you doing on Homeowner's Insurance? I've been with State Farm for
the 28 years I've been in this house (and also with them on my
previous homes). State Farm has announced a 15% increase for this
next year (starting March 15, for me) and they are petitioning the
legislature for considerably larger increases in the future. They are
also trying to pull out of Florida because of hurricane losses.
I've got bids from four other insurers, and all of them value my home
at least double what I could sell it for. The rates are based on the
replacement cost and not what the house would bring on the market.
Paul Furman
> Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
>
> AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
> Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom lens.
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp
> US $ 1259.95
> Euro 1199.00
> GBP 1049.99
Nice. f/4 should be cheaper though I'd have thought.
That's the price the old 17-25 is selling for on ebay.
AF-S & VR probably aren't needed, they could have saved money there.
Nobody in their right mind will buy this for an entry level DX body that
needs AF-S. VR ... we'll see if that's really useful. Maybe.
> AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED
> Full frame (FX) format, ultra-fast wide angle fixed focal length lens.
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020901nikon24mmf14.asp
> US $ 2199.95
> Euro 2149.00
> GBP 1949.99
Exotic game of catch up with Canon. This sounds fun but really is very
specialized. Samples from the Canon version:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=317311
Savageduck
I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners
Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance
which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so
that is a risk which is minimized for me.
I am also insured for replacement value, and there have been some
reasonable bumps over the years which seem to be in line with
replacement costs, but no notices of any rate increases for this year.
Phew!
The same policy covers liability at my rented boat slip at our lake
marina. Fortunately with the rain we have had over the last few weeks
those docks are afloat again, after being high and dry since the end of
August.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Ray Fischer
>On 2010-02-09 20:59:48 -0800, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> said:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:12:40 -0800, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I knew there was going to be a problem when I had lenders lined up
>>> telling me my home, which I bought in 1993 for $125K was valued at over
>>> $400K and I should benefit from some of that equity.
>>
>> How you doing on Homeowner's Insurance? I've been with State Farm for
>> the 28 years I've been in this house (and also with them on my
>> previous homes). State Farm has announced a 15% increase for this
>> next year (starting March 15, for me) and they are petitioning the
>> legislature for considerably larger increases in the future. They are
>> also trying to pull out of Florida because of hurricane losses.
>>
>> I've got bids from four other insurers, and all of them value my home
>> at least double what I could sell it for. The rates are based on the
>> replacement cost and not what the house would bring on the market.
>
>I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners
>Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance
>which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so
>that is a risk which is minimized for me.
How did you justify the earthquake insurance? To me it seems way
overpriced for what you get. That 15% deductable was the deal breaker
for me.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Savageduck
Once my equity exceeded the deductible, and knowing my comprehensive
Homeowner's policy would not cover earthquake damage, the annual
premium was not unreasonable.
If not I would only have possible assistance to repair or rebuild if
FEMA came into play with a disaster declaration, and there is no
consistent guarantee of that happening.
I was lucky with our 6.5 earthquake in December 2003. The epicenter was
about 20 miles from us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_San_Simeon_earthquake
It felt as though a truck had run into the house. With all the shaking
I couldn't even take the initial move of getting out of the house, as I
was knocked off my feet. There was only some dry wall crack damage, and
the stove pipe for my wood stove got shaken loose. Two women in Paso
Robles weren't so lucky when a building collapsed on them.
So as long as I am living between the Oceanic fault zone in the Santa
Lucia mountains and the Coastal ranges and the faults they harbor, and
the San Andreas Fault, 30 miles to the East, I think I can justify the
cost of Earthquake insurance.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Ray Fischer
>On 2010-02-09 21:48:54 -0800, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said:
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners
>>> Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance
>>> which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so
>>> that is a risk which is minimized for me.
>>
>> How did you justify the earthquake insurance? To me it seems way
>> overpriced for what you get. That 15% deductable was the deal breaker
>> for me.
>
>Once my equity exceeded the deductible, and knowing my comprehensive
>Homeowner's policy would not cover earthquake damage, the annual
>premium was not unreasonable.
$900/year with a $35,000 deductable doesn't seem very reasonable.
>If not I would only have possible assistance to repair or rebuild if
>FEMA came into play with a disaster declaration, and there is no
>consistent guarantee of that happening.
>
>I was lucky with our 6.5 earthquake in December 2003. The epicenter was
>about 20 miles from us.
My house (we're about the same distance in the S. Bay) has stood
without damage for 60 years. I've chosen to ensure that it's
structurally sound.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_San_Simeon_earthquake
Oh, THAT earthquake. I was referring to the Loma Prieta.
>It felt as though a truck had run into the house. With all the shaking
>I couldn't even take the initial move of getting out of the house, as I
>was knocked off my feet. There was only some dry wall crack damage, and
>the stove pipe for my wood stove got shaken loose. Two women in Paso
>Robles weren't so lucky when a building collapsed on them.
>
>So as long as I am living between the Oceanic fault zone in the Santa
>Lucia mountains and the Coastal ranges and the faults they harbor, and
>the San Andreas Fault, 30 miles to the East, I think I can justify the
>cost of Earthquake insurance.
Shrug. Everyone makes their own risk assessment.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Bruce
wrote:
Euro/GBP prices include Value Added Tax (VAT) which varies between 15%
and 25% according to country. US prices do not include taxes.
Rich
news:gtq4n5pggujikhkgd...@4ax.com:
Worst case scenario, a guy in California pays $2386.00 for the 24mm, tax-
in. The Brit pays $600 more.
Savageduck
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2010-02-09 21:48:54 -0800, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said:
>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners
>>>> Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance
>>>> which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so
>>>> that is a risk which is minimized for me.
>>>
>>> How did you justify the earthquake insurance? To me it seems way
>>> overpriced for what you get. That 15% deductable was the deal breaker
>>> for me.
>>
>> Once my equity exceeded the deductible, and knowing my comprehensive
>> Homeowner's policy would not cover earthquake damage, the annual
>> premium was not unreasonable.
>
> $900/year with a $35,000 deductable doesn't seem very reasonable.
Which insurance company gave you that price?
Are you in some high ticket Bay Area home? or are you in one of the
shaky land reclamation areas like The Marina, or a potential slide
area? ...or all of those?
I wouldn't pay that either. Perhaps the insurance companies don't want
the "Earthquake" business in the Bay Area.
I have a feeling that there must be some sort of insurance company
"red-line" zoning for the Bay Area, or I am benefitting from living in
a rural area. With Allstate I am paying less than $900 a year for
Homeowner's & Earthquake insurance combined.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Martin Brown
This is the golden island problem. UK photo dealers are much better at
maintaining their margins than US box shifters. It wasn't all that long
ago that the rule of thumb for hitech gear was price in USD = price in
GBP. At least they have passed on some of the shift in exchange rates.
The smart Brit has a long weekend holiday in New York and goes shopping...
Regards,
Martin Brown
NameHere
I fail to understand what is preventing all these whiney-assed pompous
brits from making their own cameras and lenses, then selling them at
inflated prices to all other countries. No, they'd rather sit on their
asses whining about the rest of the world, like it owes them something. Do
the british actually produce *anything* that the rest of the world wants?
That whole country could probably fall off the face of the earth and nobody
would know until months later, when everyone noticed there was a drastic
record-lull in the worldwide level of complaining and whining.
STS
news:a0a5n594oauda9r00...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
>>>>>> Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom
>>>>>> lens.http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp
>>>>>> US $ 1259.95 -
>>>>>> Euro 1199.00 - $1651.00 U.S.
>>>>>> GBP 1049.99 - $1647.00 U.S.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED
>>>>>> Full frame (FX) format, ultra-fast wide angle fixed focal length
>>>>>> lens.http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020901nikon24mmf14.asp
>>>>>> US $ 2199.95
>>>>>> Euro 2149.00 - $2960.00 U.S.
>>>>>> GBP 1949.99 - $3058.75 U.S.
>>>>
>>>> Euro/GBP prices include Value Added Tax (VAT) which varies between 15%
>>>> and 25% according to country. US prices do not include taxes.
>>>
>>> Worst case scenario, a guy in California pays $2386.00 for the 24mm,
>>> tax-
>>> in. The Brit pays $600 more.
>>
>>This is the golden island problem. UK photo dealers are much better at
>>maintaining their margins than US box shifters. It wasn't all that long
>>ago that the rule of thumb for hitech gear was price in USD = price in
>>GBP. At least they have passed on some of the shift in exchange rates.
>>
>>The smart Brit has a long weekend holiday in New York and goes shopping...
>
> brits from making their own cameras and lenses, then selling them at
> inflated prices to all other countries. No, they'd rather sit on their
> asses whining about the rest of the world, like it owes them something. Do
> the british actually produce *anything* that the rest of the world wants?
> That whole country could probably fall off the face of the earth and
> nobody
> would know until months later, when everyone noticed there was a drastic
> record-lull in the worldwide level of complaining and whining.
Cost of manufactureing. It's cheaper to import containers than to produce
locally.
FWIW, us Brits don't like it either. We also pay about 70% tax during our
lifetime, which is why such a tiny country can stand it's ground.
For the normal consumer though, it's a joke what we pay in the UK compared
to other countries.
C J Campbell
I don't know if you remember that photo I was circulating awhile back
of an uninhabitable shack in Arizona that was carrying a loan of
$130,000. The ultimate lender turned out to be a teachers' union in the
midwest. The shack sold at auction for $12,000 and was torn down by the
neighbors. So much for the teachers' pensions.
The borrower was a druggie who had never held a job. She just kept
refinancing the shack and her beat up old truck and living off the
proceeds. At one point she had more than 20 of her druggie friends
living in the shack and in boxes in the yard.
The next door neighbor bought the place and uses the empty lot to park
his RV. Talking to people there, no one seemed to miss the old
residents. By the time she moved out, she and her sons had stripped the
place of everything valuable, including the copper plumbing.
Bruce
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
It isn't the same across all photo products - not even across all
Nikon products. Take off the tax, and a D700 body sells for much the
same price in the UK as in the USA. The same applies to the D3X.
>The smart Brit has a long weekend holiday in New York and goes shopping...
My partner claims to be able to pay for the cost of the trip to NY
with the saving on the price of clothes. Sounds good, until you
realise how much you have to spend on clothes to generate that much of
a saving. Still, what are income tax refunds for? ;-)
Dimitris M
prices and the VAT is included. France has usually the most expensive
prices, that are about as the announced. England and Greece have the lowest.
BUT the street prices, are not anounced, as there is a "price protection"
policy from the company that represents Nikon in each country. For ex, the
anounced (super market) price for the D90 + 18-105VR is 1.050 euros, the
price that is anoumced from some good specialized shops in Athens is 950
euros, and in the same shops, the price "in place" is 850 euros (after a
small bargain).
I have friends who live in NY and they come to Greece every year. As I have
seen from the prices in BH, is not worth at all for me to by any Nikon dSLR
or lens from there. In contrary there are other products made in USA (like
Lowel-lite) that are 40% cheaper in BH than in here.
So I expect the 16-35 f4 in no more than 3 months to be at about 900 euros,
here.
--
Dimitris M
? "Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:gtq4n5pggujikhkgd...@4ax.com...
Alan Browne
> This is the golden island problem. UK photo dealers are much better at
> maintaining their margins than US box shifters.
The US model of high turn ratios (lower WIP/inventory/capital costs)
depends on box shifters. And for that, with lower unit margins, they
can make profits way beyond any traditional business in the Nation of
Shopkeepers.
Regretfully this is what has made Wal*Merde a smashing financial success.
tony cooper
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 10-02-10 7:27 , Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> This is the golden island problem. UK photo dealers are much better at
>> maintaining their margins than US box shifters.
>
>The US model of high turn ratios (lower WIP/inventory/capital costs)
>depends on box shifters. And for that, with lower unit margins, they
>can make profits way beyond any traditional business in the Nation of
>Shopkeepers.
>
>Regretfully this is what has made Wal*Merde a smashing financial success.
This is a bit of a drift from the original topic: Nikon lens prices.
To the best of my knowledge, Nikon products are priced roughly the
same in all stores - big box or dedicated camera - in this area.
Stores may offer a package deal that makes the price look different,
but the difference is in accessories like a bag, tripod, filters, etc.
An exception is when a retailer offers a "close out" on a particular
model of camera that has been superseded by a new model, but I've only
seen this on P&S Nikons.
Even the on-line retailers seem to roughly in lock-step on Nikon (and
Canon) dslrs. Exceptions might be gray-market products. The major
price differences hinge on the package involved, not the basic camera
and lens(es).
Some on-line retailers do offer discounts, but good luck actually
getting the product at a discount. The "Brooklyn" retailers don't
ship unless over-priced accessories are added to the order.
Savageduck
I have found B&H and Adorama do not play the bait and switch, or
accessory add on games.
Discounts when offered are genuine.
Adorama will lead you through their "package kits" but will take orders
for single items without complaint.
B&H can be more helpful. In the case of replacing my D300 with a D300s
+ 18-200mm VRII, their pricing of the body and lens as separates, was
lower than that of the D300s/18-200mm VRII kit, which is a Nikon boxed
kit. There is no pressure to buy crap from them.
Abes of Maine is somewhat different, they will accept non-kit, or add
on accessory orders, but they will always make a follow up
"confirmation call." On that call they try to repeat their pitch for
any number of overpriced third party, high profit margin items, you
would never dream of buying. I have bought some items from them when
they had the lowest price by a considerable margin over B&H or Adorama
with some discounts. The routine has always been the same with them.
...and when I don't add to the order there is a distinct air of
disappointment on the part of the calling representative. They also
fill your e-mail in-box with junk on a daily basis if you do not filter.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
tony cooper
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>Abes of Maine is somewhat different, they will accept non-kit, or add
>on accessory orders, but they will always make a follow up
>"confirmation call." On that call they try to repeat their pitch for
>any number of overpriced third party, high profit margin items, you
>would never dream of buying. I have bought some items from them when
>they had the lowest price by a considerable margin over B&H or Adorama
>with some discounts. The routine has always been the same with them.
>...and when I don't add to the order there is a distinct air of
>disappointment on the part of the calling representative. They also
>fill your e-mail in-box with junk on a daily basis if you do not filter.
I purchased a camera from Abe's, and I did receive a "confirmation"
telephone call before shipment. It was a rather low-key pitch for
filters, but they didn't persist. I've never received an email from
them since. I feel slighted.
Ray Fischer
>On 2010-02-09 23:54:39 -0800, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said:
>
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> On 2010-02-09 21:48:54 -0800, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said:
>>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners
>>>>> Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance
>>>>> which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so
>>>>> that is a risk which is minimized for me.
>>>>
>>>> How did you justify the earthquake insurance? To me it seems way
>>>> overpriced for what you get. That 15% deductable was the deal breaker
>>>> for me.
>>>
>>> Once my equity exceeded the deductible, and knowing my comprehensive
>>> Homeowner's policy would not cover earthquake damage, the annual
>>> premium was not unreasonable.
>>
>> $900/year with a $35,000 deductable doesn't seem very reasonable.
>
>Which insurance company gave you that price?
That's the standard California insurance terms. State Farm offers it.
>Are you in some high ticket Bay Area home?
Is there any other kind of Bay Area home? I live in the South Bay.
The median price is around $550,000 (still).
>I wouldn't pay that either. Perhaps the insurance companies don't want
>the "Earthquake" business in the Bay Area.
>
>I have a feeling that there must be some sort of insurance company
>"red-line" zoning for the Bay Area, or I am benefitting from living in
>a rural area. With Allstate I am paying less than $900 a year for
>Homeowner's & Earthquake insurance combined.
Hmmph.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Pete D
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:yrGdnU8tO4OQT-zW...@giganews.com...
> On 10-02-09 14:36 , Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article<edWdnTLZJMvSMezW...@westnet.com.au>,
>> n...@email.com says...
>>> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
>>> crazy.
>>
>> Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.
>
>
> (I'd mention, for example, the Lisbon treaty (with serial referendums
> until people vote "right"), Italian governance, Greek government budgets
> and Spanish economic and labour theory and a plethora of other stupid
> European things brought on by European thought, but that would be a bit
> overwhelming to most.)
>
> Naturally, this does nothing to obviate Japanese, American, Canadian or
> other nationals stupidity. There's more that enough to go around without
> import or export barriers.
Our Australia government is certainly not worth a cracker at the moment,
opposition about the same......... :-(
Peter
news:4km3n5h2gifbk1hgj...@4ax.com...
>C J Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
>>has no VAT.
>
> know about other countries in America.
> 2: I am quite certain I prefer a flat simple straightforward VAT over
> the impenetrable jungle of local, state, county and other sales taxes
> that are slapped on in the US and sometimes vary just across the street.
> 3: Not to mention that VAT is refundable upon export of the good while
> sales tax is not.
Almost right. What you call a sales tax is actually a use tax. If a purchase
is made for resale, or to be shipped outside the taxing jurisdiction, the
purchase is usually exempt.
--
Peter
Peter
news:ksm3n51bm4hcrmn5h...@4ax.com...
>
> While visitors to the US often object to this because they feel the
> advertising falsely represents the actual price to be paid, there is a
> good reason for stating the pre-tax price. If Best Buy (a chain of
> stores) advertises a camera for $100, the final price will be $106 if
> the purchase is made in Orange County (FL) or $107 if the purchase is
> made in Seminole County (FL) due to local option tax rates. If the
> camera is purchased by a hospital or other exempt entity, the final
> price is $100. The stores involved may be equidistant from the
> customer's home.
>
True, but under most jurisdictions, if you make a purchase in a lower tax
jurisdiction than where it will be used, technically you may, depending on
the item, owe the using jurisdiction the difference. There are serious
enforcement issues. For real dollar differences think automobiles and
recreational boats.
--
Peter
Peter
news:OpSdneCy8pAsnu_W...@giganews.com...
>
> "C J Campbell" <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message
> news:2010020916350416807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
>>> <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Both parties are obsessed with populist "blame the bankers for the
>>>> economy" rhetoric. Which means they are likely to do nothing. Which is
>>>> just the way I like it. Unfortunately, while neither party has said
>>>> "Jewish bankers," the message is just as clear. The nation is being run
>>>> by fascists who dominate both sides of the aisle.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Palin to the rescue, 2012. ;-)
>>
>> I think not. She will be a fine news commentator -- meaning she will be
>> good for Fox's ratings. But she is regarded as poison by both parties.
>> Her image would need considerable rehabilitation to make her a viable
>> candidate for pretty much anything.
>>
>> responsibility to the Republic and who are not hostage to the extremists
>> of their party. I am also sure that no one like that has a snowball's
>> rescue, then.
>>
> money, I'll vote for her.......
You are even more scary than I thought.
--
Peter
Peter
> If nothing is done about banking, the notion that the largest banks are
> "too large to fail" will bring down the US economy in a way that will make
> the Great Depression look like summer camp.
>
> The basics, which include sane reserve ratios have been ignored by
> conveniently using out of gov't purview investment systems (hedge funds
> and derivatives), the use of underfunded single co. insurance schemes by
> all involved coupled to cross lending in what really amounts to an
> "accountable" ponzi scheme.
>
> In order to legitimatize all this, they all used the same 2 (a few more)
> large ratings firms and "shopped" their paper at these firms until getting
> a favourable rating - this further leveraged the poor quality paper on the
> street into a higher value (less perception of risk) than they were.
>
> To believe that doing nothing is just fine is, I hope, ignorance.
>
> Because knowing the facts and not being willing to do anything about them
> is sheer stupidity.
>
> I won't even go into the housing asset bubble issue. That was clear
> enough back in 2002. And was roundly ignored by the people who should
> never have stepped into that market: Fanny & Freddie who just ended up
> being stupidy fuel instead of a natural brake against stupidity.
>
It was a stupidity fueled in the name of political correctness. It was, and
still is, political blasphemy to state that a person should not have
government funding to purchase a home they cannot afford to live in.
--
Peter
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Almost right. What you call a sales tax is actually a use tax. If a purchase
> is made for resale, or to be shipped outside the taxing jurisdiction, the
> purchase is usually exempt.
The concept of a VAT was to combine all sales and use taxes, import duties,
etc into one flat tax. The principal behind it is that it is your money,
you should be able to spend it on whatever you want.
That's also why things like food (raw, packaged and take away) are excempt,
but luxuries, e.g. eating in a restaurant is not.
At one time the UK had a vary complicated structure of import duties, luxury
taxes, etc. The VAT was created by calculating the expected income from all
of them and dividing it by the total amount people were expected to spend.
It's considered a regressive tax because poor people pay VAT at the same
rate as rich people, but that's not really true. They pay the same rate,
but rich people pay much more of it because they are able to afford more
items that are not excempt.
So a poor person who spends 90% of their income on excempt items pays
VAT on 10% of their income, while a rich person who spends 20% of their income
on excempt items pays VAT on 80% of their income.
VAT is also popular in countries that do a lot of exports to the US. Tax
treaties prevent them from charging import duites, but luxury taxes and
VAT are allowed.
Sales taxes can be a problem and generally are used to punish the poor.
When I lived in Philly, the state of PA had a 6% sales tax, the city had
just added a 1% sales tax. We lived on the edge of the city and could easily
go out of the city to make major purchases, while someone who lived in a
less affluent neighborhood or could not afford a car, had to pay the extra
sales tax.
I understand that is the same way with most major cities in the U.S.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel g...@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.
Peter
news:2010020919124023810-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> I knew there was going to be a problem when I had lenders lined up telling
> me my home, which I bought in 1993 for $125K was valued at over $400K and
> I should benefit from some of that equity.
>
> I didn't bite.
> I did take advantage of a drop in interest rates in 2001. I refinanced at
> a lower rate and shorter term, without taking any additional equity out of
> the inflated valuation. As a result I have a small balance and mortgage
> payments lower than I could rent for today.
> I have since witnessed 5 foreclosures in my immediate neighborhood, and I
> continue to get offers from any number of banks to "lower my payment."
> I am also aware of foreclosures on properties of individuals I worked
> with, who had bought homes they could not in any real World afford.
> Among those foreclosed on in our neighborhood, were two families who had
> bought their first homes, and who were lead on by the realtors and the
> banks to take advantage of phantom equity growth, to put themselves into
> debt they could never possibly support. Their economic future has been
> effectively destroyed due to their naivety, greed and the predatory
> behavior of the realtors and the banks.
>
I have a similar story. As a result when we sold our home we put 100% of the
selling price into the bank.
Question:
Is it predatory for me to take advantage of your greed?
Contrast with: if I encourage you to be greedy and then take advantage of
it.
--
Peter
Peter
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:12:40 -0800, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>I knew there was going to be a problem when I had lenders lined up
>>telling me my home, which I bought in 1993 for $125K was valued at over
>>$400K and I should benefit from some of that equity.
>
> the 28 years I've been in this house (and also with them on my
> previous homes). State Farm has announced a 15% increase for this
> next year (starting March 15, for me) and they are petitioning the
> legislature for considerably larger increases in the future. They are
> also trying to pull out of Florida because of hurricane losses.
>
> I've got bids from four other insurers, and all of them value my home
> at least double what I could sell it for. The rates are based on the
> replacement cost and not what the house would bring on the market.
>
Are they including land in replacement cost?
--
Peter
whisky-dave
> On 2010-02-09 11:36:55 -0800, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> n...@email.com says...
>>> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
>>> crazy.
>>
>> Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.
>
> has no VAT.
So what are these taxes that USains have to pay ?
whisky-dave
> On 2010-02-09 13:54:17 -0800, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
>
>> On 10-02-09 16:04 , C J Campbell wrote:
>>> On 2010-02-09 11:36:55 -0800, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> In article <edWdnTLZJMvSMezW...@westnet.com.au>,
>>>> n...@email.com says...
>>>>> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is
>>>>> just
>>>>> crazy.
>>>>
>>>> Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.
>>>
>>> Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
>>> has no VAT.
>>
>
> Now just hold your horses, there. Did I say Americans were smarter? No, I
> did not.
>
> Just take a look at every president elected in the US over the last few
> generations, including our current president.
Doesn't the current president think he's the 44th American president
when he's actually the 43rd or something like that ?
tony cooper
I've never heard of any enforcement in that area, and the Florida
Department of Revenue is the pit bull of tax collectors.
In Florida, the sales tax on an automobile or boat is based on the
address of the person registering it. If I register a car at an
Orange County tax office, I pay the rate based on my Seminole County
address. The Seminole County rate is 1% higher than Orange County.
If I buy a new car, and the dealer handles the registration, the rate
is based on my address and not the dealer's address.
tony cooper
No. It's clear on all the bids that the land is valued separately. I
was amazed, in fact, that the land was valued as high as it is
compared to what I paid for the lots on which the home sits.
Peter
Let's start with boats.
If I purchase a boat in Delaware through a Delaware corporation and register
the boat in Delaware, I will have no sale tax to pay. If I visit FL, with
the boat I will not pay a use tax in FL. However, If I dock it there
permanently the Delaware corporation will be subject to he use tax on the
boat. There is some grace period, but I am not certain what it is.
A similar rule applies to automobiles.
At one time our NY Tax department was actually going to marinas and checking
registrations. Many New York boat dealers were falsely showing delivery in
Delaware. The case was ultimately settled.
Technically FL could do the same thing, but the trip from DE to FL is a lot
longer than the trip from DE to NY. Also, DE has little interest in
cooperating in a joint investigation.
As to cars? Are there no out of state cars in FL?
One area where the enforcement issue has been made workable is with
racehorses.
--
Peter
Pete Stavrakoglou
"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
news:hl12lf$q20$1@qmul...
That depends on which one of the 57 states he is in at the time.
Pete Stavrakoglou
news:4b741c1b$0$21958$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
A New York State resident is required to pay the difference in sales tax to
New York for any item purchased out-of-state. If I buy a camera from a
reseller in another state online, they do not charge me the sales tax. I am
required by law to pay New York the difference.
There was an infamous occurance years ago when Ikea opened a store in New
Jersey, not far from NYC. Ikea advertised in MYC for the new store, noting
that the sales tax in New Jersey was much lower and the New Yorkers could
therefore save money. New York State sent tax authorities to the store in
New Jersey to surevey the parking lot. Any car with a New York licens plate
was pasted with a warning that they owe the difference in tax to New York
and that they better pay. This was akin to the state of spying on its
residents.
Pete Stavrakoglou
I'll take her over the current mistake in the White House in a heartbeat.
Pete Stavrakoglou
> On 10-02-09 19:35 , C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2010-02-09 14:48:32 -0800, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:36:11 -0800, C J Campbell
>>> <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Both parties are obsessed with populist "blame the bankers for the
>>>> economy" rhetoric. Which means they are likely to do nothing. Which is
>>>> just the way I like it. Unfortunately, while neither party has said
>>>> "Jewish bankers," the message is just as clear. The nation is being run
>>>> by fascists who dominate both sides of the aisle.
>>>
>>>
>>> You should thank God for Sarah Palin, then.
>>>
>>> Palin to the rescue, 2012. ;-)
>>
>> I think not. She will be a fine news commentator -- meaning she will be
>> good for Fox's ratings. But she is regarded as poison by both parties.
>> Her image would need considerable rehabilitation to make her a viable
>> candidate for pretty much anything.
>
>
> She doesn't have the fundamental ability to lead, to make real, hard
> decisions.
Sounds like you are confusing her with Obama. He never had to make a hard
decision in any facet of his career before becoming president. At least
Palin has experience running something.
> That should be way ahead of "image" (no matter how much we all want to
> boff perky stewardesses, which is the "image" she portrays).
>
>> I am sure that there are politicians who have a clear sense of
>> responsibility to the Republic and who are not hostage to the extremists
>> of their party. I am also sure that no one like that has a snowball's
>> chance in Hades of getting elected president.
>
> As McCain proved. Not perfect of course, but when the election was within
> 60 days of the ballot, he went "party" real fast, dropped his message in
> the ditch and lost the game.
>
> He lost for 5 reasons: 1) losing his message 2) Palin 3) Palin 4) Palin 5)
> Looking like a certifiable cretin at the WH during the "meltdown"
> conference before the election.
>
>> Apparently, being a
>> certifiable nutcase is prerequisite for the job. Okay. So Palin to the
>> rescue, then.
>
> That's like the unqualified rescuing a panic'd swimmer.
>
> Welcome to the Screwed SA.
J. Clarke
One example--there was a large appliance store in Springfield, MA, almost on
the CT border, that sold quite a lot of appliances to people in Connecticut.
If one took delivery in MA then they collected the MA sales tax, but if the
appliance was delivered to CT then they didn't collect any sales tax. One
day they were raided by the MA tax authorities working in cooperation with
the CT authorities, and everyone in CT who had had an appliance delivered
got a bill for the use tax.
tony cooper
<pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>> I've never heard of any enforcement in that area, and the Florida
>> Department of Revenue is the pit bull of tax collectors.
>>
>> In Florida, the sales tax on an automobile or boat is based on the
>> address of the person registering it. If I register a car at an
>> Orange County tax office, I pay the rate based on my Seminole County
>> address. The Seminole County rate is 1% higher than Orange County.
>> If I buy a new car, and the dealer handles the registration, the rate
>> is based on my address and not the dealer's address.
>
>Let's start with boats.
>If I purchase a boat in Delaware through a Delaware corporation and register
>the boat in Delaware, I will have no sale tax to pay. If I visit FL, with
>the boat I will not pay a use tax in FL. However, If I dock it there
>permanently the Delaware corporation will be subject to he use tax on the
>boat. There is some grace period, but I am not certain what it is.
>A similar rule applies to automobiles.
>At one time our NY Tax department was actually going to marinas and checking
>registrations. Many New York boat dealers were falsely showing delivery in
>Delaware. The case was ultimately settled.
>Technically FL could do the same thing, but the trip from DE to FL is a lot
>longer than the trip from DE to NY. Also, DE has little interest in
>cooperating in a joint investigation.
What you are referring to is not the rate of tax involved, but the
evasion of tax. If you have a boat in Florida (that is kept/used here
permanently), and don't register that boat in Florida, you are evading
tax.
You are more likely to be busted by the Marine Patrol than you are the
tax authorities. Also, you are likely to reported by the marina
management.
If you are using your boat in Florida while visiting Florida, you can
do so for 90 days without registering it. Longer than that, you must
register it.
>As to cars? Are there no out of state cars in FL?
Sure, but if you are visiting Florida you need not register your
automobile in Florida. If you move here, you do, and you will be
charged sales tax if the car was purchased less than six months prior
to your move, but you only pay the difference (if any) from what you
paid in the other state. You must register the auto within 10 days of
moving here if you (a) are employed in Florida, and/or (b) enroll a
child in a Florida school. You must also insure the auto with a
company licensed in Florida (most national companies are) and obtain a
Florida driver's license.
The gray area is the snowbird who lives in Florida part of the year
and lives in another state the rest of the year. Usually, a retiree.
They can usually get away with not registering the car in Florida
unless they get a ticket or are reported by someone. If they are
stopped by the police for a traffic infraction, and either don't have
a Florida driver's license or Florida license plates, they may have to
prove in court that they are not residents of Florida.
BTW, these are just Florida rules. Every state has a different set of
rules, and nothing above may pertain to other states.
Peter
It's not uncommon to purchase perfectly good homes, especially waterfront
property, tear them down and build a totally new structure. That's why I
think something does not sound right. Can't put my finger on it though.
OTOH I remember one lender insisting that the borrower take out flood
insurance because the business was located in a Federal flood plain. They
ignored that the business was on the 32nd floor of the building. Finally,
after hours of negotiation I was able to get a waiver of that requirement.
--
Peter
Peter
news:hl17f0$k6o$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> A New York State resident is required to pay the difference in sales tax
> to New York for any item purchased out-of-state. If I buy a camera from a
> reseller in another state online, they do not charge me the sales tax. I
> am required by law to pay New York the difference.
You are required to make such a declaraton on your New York Income tax
return. BTW some retailers such as Amazon, do collect the NY sales tax.
>
> There was an infamous occurance years ago when Ikea opened a store in New
> Jersey, not far from NYC. Ikea advertised in MYC for the new store,
> noting that the sales tax in New Jersey was much lower and the New Yorkers
> could therefore save money. New York State sent tax authorities to the
> store in New Jersey to surevey the parking lot. Any car with a New York
> licens plate was pasted with a warning that they owe the difference in tax
> to New York and that they better pay. This was akin to the state of
> spying on its residents.
>
Yup!
--
Peter
Peter
Even though she has no ability to think. Yes, she is an excellent public
speaker. Excellent public speakers have caused the deaths of millions.
--
Peter
tony cooper
<pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>"Pete Stavrakoglou" <nto...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:hl17f0$k6o$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> A New York State resident is required to pay the difference in sales tax
>> to New York for any item purchased out-of-state. If I buy a camera from a
>> reseller in another state online, they do not charge me the sales tax. I
>> am required by law to pay New York the difference.
>
>You are required to make such a declaraton on your New York Income tax
>return. BTW some retailers such as Amazon, do collect the NY sales tax.
The general rule is if the seller has a presence (store, outlet,
office) in the state, they must charge sales tax, where applicable, to
sales made to residents of that state.
Ritz Camera gets around that by having their stores in Florida owned
by one corporation and their online sales entity owned by a different
corporation.
Savageduck
...and there is the problem for those Californians and Carolina beach
house owners, who live in on risky property. When that hill side, or
cliff home with the million $$$ view slides into the ocean, or into the
next neighborhood, there is no property to rebuild on. Hence the high
premiums or lack of special coverage on those homes.
In California you also have to deal with the Coastal Commission, which
has banned the construction or repair of protective sea walls and/or
buttresses for those cilff top homes, We have quite a few homes in the
Shell Beach & Pismo Beach areas, where the edge of the cliff is eroding
at a steady rate, eating up the real estate, and threatening and
sometimes destroying the homes.
The rebuilding of those beach houses destroyed by hurricane beach
erosion back East is another issue which can leave you scratching your
head.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
tony cooper
<nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Sounds like you are confusing her with Obama. He never had to make a hard
>decision in any facet of his career before becoming president. At least
>Palin has experience running something.
Running away from running something is a better description. With
Palin as President, she'd lose interest in the job if things didn't
go her way and find some other bright and shiny object to play with.
To me, she's like the Bearded Lady in the carnival sideshow...people
will pay to see her, but nobody wants to take her home.
tony cooper
<pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
I'm not on the water, but my house is on a golf course (originally
built in 1926) and faces one of the tees. It's a mixed area with some
homes built there many decades ago, and some built recently. It's not
a sub-division built by one builder; it's all custom homes.
Not recently, due to the housing market, but people were buying the
older one-story, flat-roofed houses and tearing down all but one wall
and re-building. The one wall was left up to qualify as a "remodel"
and avoid the new house impact fees.
C J Campbell
The US has method of its own for milking the stupid. Why have a VAT, too?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Peter
>
> What you are referring to is not the rate of tax involved, but the
> evasion of tax. If you have a boat in Florida (that is kept/used here
> permanently), and don't register that boat in Florida, you are evading
> tax.
I was referring to the difficulty of enforcement.
Similarly, if you purchase a camera on the net and don't pay the sales/use
tax on the transaction you may very well be comitting criminal tax evasion.
>
> You are more likely to be busted by the Marine Patrol than you are the
> tax authorities. Also, you are likely to reported by the marina
> management.
Don't know about marinas in your neck of hte woods, but here, the private
ones did little or no reporting, as it waas not in their interest to do such
reporting. As to the marine patrol, it depends on the use and registration
of the vessel. Why would not e Coast Guard registration be sufficient as a
vessel used n interstate commerce.
For purposes of this discussion I am referring only to ordinary pleasure
craft. There is a wholly different set of rules for commercial boats.
>
> If you are using your boat in Florida while visiting Florida, you can
> do so for 90 days without registering it. Longer than that, you must
> register it.
>
Suppose I take weekly trips to Bimini and stay there for a few days. Do I
have an obligation to pay the use tax?
>>As to cars? Are there no out of state cars in FL?
>
> Sure, but if you are visiting Florida you need not register your
> automobile in Florida. If you move here, you do, and you will be
> charged sales tax if the car was purchased less than six months prior
> to your move, but you only pay the difference (if any) from what you
> paid in the other state. You must register the auto within 10 days of
> moving here if you (a) are employed in Florida, and/or (b) enroll a
> child in a Florida school. You must also insure the auto with a
> company licensed in Florida (most national companies are) and obtain a
> Florida driver's license.
>
> The gray area is the snowbird who lives in Florida part of the year
> and lives in another state the rest of the year. Usually, a retiree.
> They can usually get away with not registering the car in Florida
> unless they get a ticket or are reported by someone. If they are
> stopped by the police for a traffic infraction, and either don't have
> a Florida driver's license or Florida license plates, they may have to
> prove in court that they are not residents of Florida.
>
> BTW, these are just Florida rules. Every state has a different set of
> rules, and nothing above may pertain to other states.
Absolutely true.
--
Peter
Peter
AFAIK Amazon has no presence in NY. Our tax authorities are proactively
attempting to encourage online retailers to collect and turn over the sales
tax. For several years there have been ongoing negotiations between the
various States for an inter-state compact, regarding collection of sales
taxes. There are lots of constitutional and business difficulties with such
a compact. (most states have lots of problems being paid sales taxes
collected by their resident businesses.) Though some inter-state compacts
have been working well, at least in the income tax area.
--
Peter
Peter
news:201002110816031393-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
Actually, my wallet. I resent subsidizing the lifestyle of these people. the
rebuilding is done by the Army Corps of Engineers. then after the dunes are
restored and the homes rebuilt, I am not even allowed to walk on the beach I
paid for. O.I I can walk on the beach, I am just not allowed to park my car
or bicycle anywhere near it, unless I am, or know a resident. I had to beg
to get permission to stop and take pictures of an osprey nest.
--
Peter
tony cooper
<pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:jqa8n5150cgkug13k...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:03:46 -0500, "Peter"
>> <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Pete Stavrakoglou" <nto...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>news:hl17f0$k6o$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>> A New York State resident is required to pay the difference in sales tax
>>>> to New York for any item purchased out-of-state. If I buy a camera from
>>>> a
>>>> reseller in another state online, they do not charge me the sales tax.
>>>> I
>>>> am required by law to pay New York the difference.
>>>
>>>You are required to make such a declaraton on your New York Income tax
>>>return. BTW some retailers such as Amazon, do collect the NY sales tax.
>>
>> The general rule is if the seller has a presence (store, outlet,
>> office) in the state, they must charge sales tax, where applicable, to
>> sales made to residents of that state.
>>
>> Ritz Camera gets around that by having their stores in Florida owned
>> by one corporation and their online sales entity owned by a different
>> corporation.
>>
>
>
>AFAIK Amazon has no presence in NY.
I know. I said "generally" because the usual situation where sales
tax is collected by the seller is when the seller does have presence.
The tax authorities in the states would like to see the exclusion of
the requirement of presence, and are therefore pressing for *any*
sales being delivered to their state subject to sales tax. They want
the Ritz-type of evasion of tax collection eliminated as well as
non-evasive tactics where the seller clearly has no presence.
Businesses will fight this because it would require them to file in
every state where something they sell has been purchased. That's a
massive increase in paperwork for them. As the former owner (now
retired) of a business that sold to customers in other states, I can
personally attest that this would be a major PITA for the business.
Each state with a sales tax has a different reporting system, a
different set of sales-tax-exempt products, and a different rule for
sales-tax-exempt customers.
Savageduck
<christophercam...@hotmail.com> said:
The problem in the US is sales tax is a State tax, and in some cases
has County and/or city enhancements. If the Federal government should
impose a VAT as it is implemented in the EU or UK, there would have to
be major rewrites of every State tax code.
Bringing a VAT into the mix, could well have the product sitting on the
store shelf tagged with a Federal VAT, and a State sales tax added at
checkout. Replacing State sales tax with a Federal VAT, would entail
building another bureaucracy for assessing, collecting and distributing
those revenues.
...and since VAT is a "value added tax" an imported item arriving a
port of entry would have the taxed "added value" of the freight costs
to move it from port of entry to point of distribution or sale. That
would also apply to the cost of transport on domestic products. That
could be considerable for some landlocked states. That is unless
transport is given a VAT exemption
--
Regards,
Savageduck
tony cooper
<pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:1298n5l0sgjvjrbr8...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> What you are referring to is not the rate of tax involved, but the
>> evasion of tax. If you have a boat in Florida (that is kept/used here
>> permanently), and don't register that boat in Florida, you are evading
>> tax.
>
>
>I was referring to the difficulty of enforcement.
>Similarly, if you purchase a camera on the net and don't pay the sales/use
>tax on the transaction you may very well be comitting criminal tax evasion.
And I have. I'd say that 99% of the people who purchase items on the
internet are guilty of evading sales tax if they live in a state that
imposes sales tax.
Criminal, though? I don't know. If caught, you might be required to
pay the tax, interest, and a fine...but I doubt if criminal charges
would be brought.
>> You are more likely to be busted by the Marine Patrol than you are the
>> tax authorities. Also, you are likely to reported by the marina
>> management.
>
>Don't know about marinas in your neck of hte woods, but here, the private
>ones did little or no reporting, as it waas not in their interest to do such
>reporting.
If you owned a marina, would you want your customers harassed by state
officials looking for violators? If you were a state official,
though, a word to the marina owner to either report violations or be
subject to repeated visits could make it to your interest to
self-report.
>As to the marine patrol, it depends on the use and registration
>of the vessel. Why would not e Coast Guard registration be sufficient as a
>vessel used n interstate commerce.
>For purposes of this discussion I am referring only to ordinary pleasure
>craft. There is a wholly different set of rules for commercial boats.
The "marine patrol" in Florida is the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Commission. They inspect private watercraft for safety regulation
compliance, licenses, violations of fishing laws, boating operation,
and boating in restricted zones
Any private boater in Florida can expect to be stopped by the marine
patrol at some time if even for a safety inspection.
>>
>> If you are using your boat in Florida while visiting Florida, you can
>> do so for 90 days without registering it. Longer than that, you must
>> register it.
>>
>Suppose I take weekly trips to Bimini and stay there for a few days. Do I
>have an obligation to pay the use tax?
What's Bimini have to do with it? Florida hasn't annexed Bimini.
What pertains is where you dock your boat between trips and where you
have your primary residence. Where you go when you are on the water
is irrelevant in this case.
Ray Fischer
>It's considered a regressive tax because poor people pay VAT at the same
>rate as rich people, but that's not really true. They pay the same rate,
>but rich people pay much more of it because they are able to afford more
>items that are not excempt.
Smirk. Orwellian logic at its best.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>"Peter" <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>> money, I'll vote for her.......
>>
>> You are even more scary than I thought.
>
So, when Bush puts the country into the worst recession since the
depression, runs up trillions of dollars of debt, and kills hundreds
of thousands of people in multiple wars that's god, but trying to get
the country out of the mess while not creating a depression is bad.
No wonder you people are called rightards.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
J�rgen Exner
>On 2010-02-09 14:12:21 -0800, J�rgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>> C J Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
>>> has no VAT.
>>
>> know about other countries in America.
>> 2: I am quite certain I prefer a flat simple straightforward VAT over
>> the impenetrable jungle of local, state, county and other sales taxes
>> that are slapped on in the US and sometimes vary just across the street.
[...]
>If you like this oppressive, extremely regressive tax, fine with me.
???
You see me mystified and scratching my head.
How is a system that charges exactly the same percentage from
everyone[*] regressive, or even worse "extremely regressive", in
absolute terms?
And how is it more regressive in relative terms (if that's what you
meant) than sales tax where rich cities, which are rich because rich
people are living there, don't leverage sales tax while poor cities have
no other choice?
*: In reality there are typically 3 or 4 different levels of VAT, none
or reduced for basic needs like e.g. food, standard, and high for luxury
items, thus actually making it a rather progressive tax because
low-income people are unlikely to buy large amounts of the high-taxed
luxury items.
jue
Peter
This type of avoidance of responsibility by Ritz, is not evasion, although
it may be assisting its customers to commit tax evasion. That being said, in
certain areas that issue has somewhat been solved in the income tax area
through use of the Federal related party transaction rules. In the foreign
tax area we have subpart F in the Internal Revenue code. California has the
unified entity concept. That concept has not been applied in the area of
sales tax. I doubt that without a change in the Interstate Commerce Clause,
that the concept could be applied.
>
> Businesses will fight this because it would require them to file in
> every state where something they sell has been purchased. That's a
> massive increase in paperwork for them. As the former owner (now
> retired) of a business that sold to customers in other states, I can
> personally attest that this would be a major PITA for the business.
> Each state with a sales tax has a different reporting system, a
> different set of sales-tax-exempt products, and a different rule for
> sales-tax-exempt customers.
>
I think that any requirement by one state attempting a business with no
connection with that state, other than shipments into that state, would be a
violation of the Instate Commerce Clause, absent some reciprocal agreement
between the different states. Any interstate compact must provide for a
uniform reporting system. The record keeping requirements and exemption
issues would be a definite PITA.
--
Peter
Peter
> If you owned a marina, would you want your customers harassed by state
> officials looking for violators? If you were a state official,
> though, a word to the marina owner to either report violations or be
> subject to repeated visits could make it to your interest to
> self-report.
Here, the Tax Department harassed the marinas and collected information
about vessels docked that did not have NY registration.
>
>>As to the marine patrol, it depends on the use and registration
>>of the vessel. Why would not e Coast Guard registration be sufficient as a
>>vessel used n interstate commerce.
>>For purposes of this discussion I am referring only to ordinary pleasure
>>craft. There is a wholly different set of rules for commercial boats.
>
> The "marine patrol" in Florida is the Florida Fish and Wildlife
> Commission. They inspect private watercraft for safety regulation
> compliance, licenses, violations of fishing laws, boating operation,
> and boating in restricted zones
>
> Any private boater in Florida can expect to be stopped by the marine
> patrol at some time if even for a safety inspection.
Same thing here. Any vessel can be stopped by any one of several enforcement
organizations.
>>> If you are using your boat in Florida while visiting Florida, you can
>>> do so for 90 days without registering it. Longer than that, you must
>>> register it.
>>>
>>Suppose I take weekly trips to Bimini and stay there for a few days. Do I
>>have an obligation to pay the use tax?
>
> What's Bimini have to do with it? Florida hasn't annexed Bimini.
> What pertains is where you dock your boat between trips and where you
> have your primary residence. Where you go when you are on the water
> is irrelevant in this case.
>
I dock my boat in Bimini for 30 days, FL for 10 days, well under the 60 day
requirement, then in Bmini for 200 days and FL for 59 days. I then come back
into FL for supplies and go back to, wherever.
BTW the real incentive for the marina to report the boats is the expectation
of getting a pass on their own sales tax violations. Yes, that does happen
and more often than most think.
Unlike criminal law, if there is any rational basis for the tax department's
determination the taxpayer now has the burden of proving the department
wrong. This is a very difficult burden.
--
Peter
Peter
> And I have. I'd say that 99% of the people who purchase items on the
> internet are guilty of evading sales tax if they live in a state that
> imposes sales tax.
>
> Criminal, though? I don't know. If caught, you might be required to
> pay the tax, interest, and a fine...but I doubt if criminal charges
> would be brought.
>
Don't know the statistics. However, that is why the question is being asked
on our income tax returns. Making a knowingly false statement on an income
tax return is a crime. As to enforcement, that sometimes depends on what
else is on the return.
--
Peter
Lucas
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> schreef in bericht
news:2010021109404619336-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
Just for your information: the EU does NOT impose VAT, that is the reserved
right of each member country (until now that is...).
However, there are some EU-regulations regarding VAT, but, as far as I know,
there are no 2 EU member countries that have the same VAT regulations.
There can be several tariffs, over here we have 0% (e.g. medical
products/services); 6% (essentials, e.g. food); and 19% (luxury products).
Only 10 km's from my place, in another counRty (we don't have counties
US-style), you have 0%, 6%, 12% and 21%. Denmark and Sweden even have 25%.
(Same as Norway, but that is not a EU-member.)
And we have about 30 different countries... take your pick...
And, be advised, you will be milked dry: 40 years ago, when VAT was
introduced, over here we had only 4% and 12%.
Funny thing is, when (as a customer/end-user!) you buy a product in any
EU-country, you can freely bring it to any other EU-country without having
to pay extra VAT (or, for that matter, get any VAT-return), that was the
basis of establishing the EU: free traffic of goods and services.
Mind you we have plenty of other taxes and excises, people with an average
income pay roughly 65% of their gross income to all kinds of different
taxes.
...and yes, we do complain ;-)
BTW (pun: BTW is Dutch for VAT), OK, BTW: shall we go back tot talking
photo/equipment?
L.
Pete Stavrakoglou
New York's logic was that if a New York State resident while in New York
could "click-through" to a website, then that is akin to having a physical
prescence (or some logic of the sort). This would apply to any out-of-state
reseller but thus far, NY is going after the big ones like Amazon and
Buy.com.
Pete Stavrakoglou
I don't see much evidence that Obama is much of a thinker. Take away the
teleprompter and he's lost for words.