 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsElectronicsBasicsRepairDesignCADComponentsEquipmentElectrical Engineering ElectronicsKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Electronics Forum / Design / August 2008Waste heat as heat source [was Re: Energy 101 [was Re: OT Hydrogen economy, not?]}
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:06:07 -0400, Neon John <no@never.com> wrote: >Even if all they did was circulate warm condenser cooling water to the city to >be used as the heat source for water-source heat pumps, one still has to >figure out how to pay for the plumbing. It surely would not compete with >simple ground-sourced heat pumps on an economic basis. I wrote the above as it popped into my head during a previous post. I've given it a couple hours' thought and I see some possibilities. A large power plant has a condenser cooling water flow rate measured in the millions of gallons per minute. The temperature rise through the condensers is in the 5 to 15 deg range, typically. Lots of slightly warmed water. The water is not hot enough to be useful for comfort heating but it DOES contain lots of low quality energy. A heat pump is a device that takes low quality heat and turns it back into higher quality heat. An idea is born. Suppose that a portion of or all of this water were diverted into canals, open or closed topped, that carry the warmed water to a nearby town. Homes and businesses along the canals could pump the water to water-sourced heat pumps. Or an alternative would be to put the refrigerant coil directly in the water if the house isn't too far away. For houses farther away from the main canals, the water is diverted into neighborhood feeders. Again, warm water is pumped or siphoned to the heat pump or else the refrigerant coils are immersed in the water. The flow would go through the town and then back into the river or lake. This could be a very interesting system, depending on some details. Even in the dead-cold of winter, the condenser cooling water would probably be (or could arrange to be by the plant) in the 50s. That is a MUCH more suitable heat source for a heat pump than trying to pull heat out of below-freezing air! Other features could include cold weather swimming, hot tubs, etc., and Venice-like canal navigation around town for those who want to. A few questions: - Would this be economically feasible with either concrete-lined or dirt canals? - Would there be too much heat loss with an open canal or would it have to be covered? - Would it be economical for the plant to alter its operations such that the water is allowed to warm more than necessary for optimum plant operation? Increasing the condenser temperature and therefore pressure has a negative effect on plant efficiency. Given the low cost of fuel, it probably would not matter much for a nuke but for other plants, it might. - Would the amount of heat extracted be sufficient to result in too cool water near the end? Would a "return" canal be necessary? Maybe a divided canal, with one side carrying hot water and the other cold. - Would it be economical to lift-pump the water a few feet to reach neighborhoods say, 10, 20, 50 ft above the canal? By "economical" I mean, would the energy content of the warm water be sufficient to offset the cost of pumping? - Could the system be adequately protected from storm water ingress? - Would a water velocity too high for swimming or boating be acceptable if that was required to minimize the amount of land used for the canals? - Would this energy be too cheap to meter? That is, would a flat user fee adequately compensate the power company for the energy and the operation of the system? - Would the NIMBYs favor or fight such a system? - Would the "have nots" (those too far away or too high in elevation to use the water) scream and shout and try to stop the system from being built? Would they succeed? I'm thinking about my old town of Cleveland, TN. There is a network of creeks criss-crossing the town, including one behind my parents' old home. (I had long wanted to install them a water-sourced heat pump drawing heat from the creek but they were old-fashioned....) A similar system exists in nearby Chattanooga, a city that has the Sequoyah NP not too far from its population centers. If those paths were carrying hot water from a power plant..... I guess that I could spend a few hours calculating this out using some typical numbers but I thought that I'd instead toss out the idea and see what others have to say. John -- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net! Tellico Plains, Occupied TN Better remain silent and be thought a fool than to cite Wikipedia and remove all doubt. The most obvious and significant problem is infrastructure. Now if you could pump that water down a street, you might have something. But digging brand new canals across the city? Never gonna happen. Maybe, just maybe, a repurposing of the storm drains, for cities that have seperate storm and sewer lines. But then, what handles the rain? Underground pipes would have to be pressurized to push enough flow, no storm grates could remain. Tim  SignatureDeep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms >>Even if all they did was circulate warm condenser cooling water to the >>city to [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > Better remain silent and be thought a fool than to cite Wikipedia and > remove all doubt. > The most obvious and significant problem is infrastructure. Now if you > could pump that water down a street, you might have something. But digging [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Underground pipes would have to be pressurized to push enough flow, no storm > grates could remain. Cogeneration - district heating with the exhaust heat from a local electricity generating station - is common in the Netherlands. Rotterdam was the pioneer, shortly after WW2, and Amsterdam and Almere have large scale schemes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegten On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:56:24 -0700, bill.sloman wrote: ... > Cogeneration - district heating with the exhaust heat from a local > electricity generating station - is common in the Netherlands. Rotterdam > was the pioneer, shortly after WW2, and Amsterdam and Almere have large > scale schemes. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating Rotterdam may have pioneered Netherlands systems in the 1940's, but there are numerous systems in use in the US dating from the 1880's to 1910 period. [1]. Some of these have been modified recently to use biomass fuels; see [2] re updates to 1905 Virginia MN system. Except for Indianapolis, the biggest systems around the world [3] are all pretty far north, where economy of scale in heating counts. -jiw [1] http://www.energy.rochester.edu/us/comdhlst.htm [2] http://www.nextstep.state.mn.us/res_detail.cfm?id=2028 [3] http://www.energy.rochester.edu/dh/largest.htm >The most obvious and significant problem is infrastructure. Now if you >could pump that water down a street, you might have something. But digging >brand new canals across the city? Never gonna happen. They said the same thing about underground power and telephone and lately, fiber optic service. Canals have certainly been built in the past. In fact, if enough people want something done, just about anything is possible. I was hoping to start some serious discussion instead of having the whole thing glossed over with a "can't be done". John -- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net! Tellico Plains, Occupied TN I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain to eat vegetables! > A large power plant has a condenser cooling water flow rate measured in the > millions of gallons per minute. The temperature rise through the condensers [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Or an alternative would be to put the refrigerant coil directly in the water > if the house isn't too far away. ... > John It might make more sense to split the condenser and circulate only the hotter water from the first stage. Around here taking a narrow strip of land for a sidewalk is frequently too contentious and disruptive; the buildings went up when the road was much narrower and losing any setback makes the lots non- compliant. If we could install separate European-style paths for bicycles and small personal electric vehicles like the Segway and power wheel chairs, the pipe could be under it. At the university I attended the heating pipes ran through tunnels under the sidewalks and incidentally melted the ice on them. Of course those roads could never be widened. >>Even if all they did was circulate warm condenser cooling water to the city to >>be used as the heat source for water-source heat pumps, one still has to [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > numbers but I thought that I'd instead toss out the idea and see what others > have to say. There would also be the problem of everyone becoming dependent on the one source of heat. If the plant is shut down for maintainence, can everyone still get the necessary heat? >> I guess that I could spend a few hours calculating this out using some typical >> numbers but I thought that I'd instead toss out the idea and see what others [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of heat. If the plant is shut down for maintainence, can everyone still get the >necessary heat? Ahh, finally someone addresses a directly related issue instead of going off on tangents. The answer is "it depends but probably yes". A couple of different situations. One, the plant is built with numerous smaller units instead of one or two very large ones. That's a fairly common practice with coal-fired plants. TVA's Widow's Creek, for example has around 13 units (I'm unsure of the number because they were talking about decommissioning the oldest one(s)) units on one site. One or more are always down for maintenance but the plant always makes power and thus warm condenser water. Routine outages can be planned for mild weather. Emergency outages are not likely to affect both/all units on a site. In the event all units are down, river water can still be diverted into the canal system. 39 degree water (where water is the densest and thus the typical temperature underneath ice) still contains a LOT more heat than, say, 20 degree air. Or -20 deg air where a heat pump would not function at all. Ultimately, everyone would fall back to their resistance heating that is built into every heat pump. Or use an alternative heat source for the duration of the outage. Propane, wood stove or whatever. In any event, I don't think that this would be a show-stopper. That does bring up an interesting question. What do large cities do when the district heating plant has an un-planned outage? Is there sufficient excess capacity and plumbing to pipe heat from another district? John -- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net! Tellico Plains, Occupied TN There is much pleasure in useless knowledge. Bertrand Russell In alt.energy.homepower Neon John <no@never.com> wrote: |>> I guess that I could spend a few hours calculating this out using some typical |>> numbers but I thought that I'd instead toss out the idea and see what others [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | Ahh, finally someone addresses a directly related issue instead of going off | on tangents. Tangents are way too common on Usenet. Sometimes they are useful, but most of the time not. | The answer is "it depends but probably yes". A couple of different | situations. One, the plant is built with numerous smaller units instead of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | Routine outages can be planned for mild weather. Emergency outages are not | likely to affect both/all units on a site. Are there any aspects of "single point of failure" that would take the plants entirely down? How about their connection to the grid? In a local plant I was looking at, although there were 6 transmission lines leaving the plant, it all came out of one single largish switchyard. I did not note how many transformers were there as I was also doing the driving at the time and had to have my eyes on the road for at least part of the time. | In the event all units are down, river water can still be diverted into the | canal system. 39 degree water (where water is the densest and thus the | typical temperature underneath ice) still contains a LOT more heat than, say, | 20 degree air. Or -20 deg air where a heat pump would not function at all. That would then be the likely worst case. But you'd have to have a lot of water flow if there is a lot of heat extraction, to keep it above 32. | Ultimately, everyone would fall back to their resistance heating that is built | into every heat pump. Or use an alternative heat source for the duration of | the outage. Propane, wood stove or whatever. If a community were built with central distribution heating would they have this already? Still, I like the idea of extracting heat from 39F through 50F water as opposed to -20F air. I also like the idea of warming water instead of air in summer. | In any event, I don't think that this would be a show-stopper. It is likely to be the infrastructure that would be a show-stopper. That and acquiring all the right of ways. | That does bring up an interesting question. What do large cities do when the | district heating plant has an un-planned outage? Is there sufficient excess | capacity and plumbing to pipe heat from another district? When I was working in Pittsburgh, my parking area was near a steam release pipe. The parking attendant told me there used to be a building where the parking lot is, and that was its steam pipeline to heat it. It was always releasing steam. Apparently is it non-trivial to shut it off. I'm guessing that non-flowing branches pose a condensation issue. Maybe that's an issue with steam heat. If the system were based on just a flow of hot water, I wonder how they might do that. |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance | | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to | | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. | | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) | > Still, I like the idea of extracting heat from 39F through 50F water as > opposed > to -20F air. I also like the idea of warming water instead of air in summer. Some fish aren't so happy with it, however. >> Still, I like the idea of extracting heat from 39F through 50F water as >> opposed >> to -20F air. I also like the idea of warming water instead of air in summer. > >Some fish aren't so happy with it, however. Most are. There is continuing tension between the sport fishermen and the eco-nazis over water temperature. Fishermen love it because the warm water spurs bait fish breeding which attracts the game fish. A power plant water outlet is a very popular place to fish. The eco-nazis are against it because, well, they're against everything. John -- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net! Tellico Plains, Occupied TN You can't turn [MS] shovelware into reliable software by patching it a whole lot. -Marcus Ranum > >> Still, I like the idea of extracting heat from 39F through 50F water as > >> opposed [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > outlet is a very popular place to fish. The eco-nazis are against it because, > well, they're against everything. I like to call these types "CAVE" people - Citizens Against Virtually Everything -cj >> >> Still, I like the idea of extracting heat from 39F through 50F water as >> >> opposed [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -cj Newfoundland and cod comes to mind, a few CAVE's might of helped martin >> Most are. There is continuing tension between the sport fishermen and the >> eco-nazis over water temperature. Fishermen love it because the warm water [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I like to call these types "CAVE" people - Citizens Against Virtually >Everything Damn, I LIKE that. "CAVE" has now entered my lexicon. :-) John -- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net! Tellico Plains, Occupied TN Ever stop to think, and forget to start again? On Jul 23, 2:31 pm, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote: > In alt.energy.homepower Neon John <n...@never.com> wrote: > |>|>"Neon John" <n...@never.com> wrote in message > ... > | That does bring up an interesting question. What do large cities do when the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Maybe that's an issue with steam heat. If the system were based on just a > flow of hot water, I wonder how they might do that. Part of downtown Concord, NH used to be heated by steam from a central plant. When a pipe broke in winter everyone lost heat and closed until it was fixed. I suppose modern, better-insulated buildings could manage on the electric supplement to the heat pump. >Are there any aspects of "single point of failure" that would take the plants >entirely down? Oh, I guess that if a Stealth Bomber launched an attack on the switchyard.... There isn't much of anything short of a widespread disaster that could take a unit down. There have been a few instances where a cascading series of failures has taken a plant "black" but they're so rare that they make the trade press. >How about their connection to the grid? In a local plant I >was looking at, although there were 6 transmission lines leaving the plant, >it all came out of one single largish switchyard. I did not note how many >transformers were there as I was also doing the driving at the time and had >to have my eyes on the road for at least part of the time. Physical separation between trains are deemed sufficient to protect against any single failure taking out all sources of power. That holds for nuclear as well as fossil plants. It doesn't look like it from the outside but the various trains are grouped in logical layout with much space between them. In all such discussions, though, one has to zoom back out to the big picture. If the plant happens to go down for, say, a week once every generation or two then is the benefit of very inexpensive energy the rest of the time worth the slight inconvenience of having to heat with resistance or alternative heat? I think that most folks would say so. >| Ultimately, everyone would fall back to their resistance heating that is built >| into every heat pump. Or use an alternative heat source for the duration of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Still, I like the idea of extracting heat from 39F through 50F water as opposed >to -20F air. I also like the idea of warming water instead of air in summer. This concept isn't district heating. I haven't made up a descriptive name for it but perhaps "district heat sourcing" or something similar. People participating in this system would have some form of heat already. Or in the case of new developments, the comfort heat would be standard resistance backed water-sourced heat pumps. It wouldn't be like in a district hot water or steam heating situation where if the plant went down, there would be no planned alternative source of heat. I've been curious to know what people who live in district heating cities do when the steam fails. Probably space heaters. >| In any event, I don't think that this would be a show-stopper. > >It is likely to be the infrastructure that would be a show-stopper. That and >acquiring all the right of ways. It might be in the beginning for existing communities. But suppose a community were planned around a power plant the same way aviation communities are built around a common runway and marine communities are built around a canal. Once the word got out about how much cheaper it was to heat and cool, some other community, perhaps a low density one where infrastructure would be easy to build, would give it a shot. More positive results would spur more positive interest. No new concept like this gains widespread adoption overnight. Look how long it took for electrification to become widespread. Edison built his NYC lighting plant in the 1800s but it was many decades before electricity was common. Heck, 5 miles up the road from where I live, electricity didn't come until the 70s. Or for that matter, look how long it took the Internet to become common. >| That does bring up an interesting question. What do large cities do when the >| district heating plant has an un-planned outage? Is there sufficient excess [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >releasing steam. Apparently is it non-trivial to shut it off. I'm guessing >that non-flowing branches pose a condensation issue. Condensation is something to be dealt with but it's a known problem and the solutions are long since well-engineered away. Proper pipe slope and steam traps at the low spots handle removing the condensation from steam pipes and conducting it either to waste or to the condensate return pipe, depending on architecture. The major concern is the waste of heat represented by the condensation. >Maybe that's an issue with steam heat. If the system were based on just a >flow of hot water, I wonder how they might do that. Water is hugely less efficient, because it has to be pumped, because there is much more drag on flowing water than gas and last but most important, water transfers heat only by simple specific heat while steam transfers heat by heat of vaporization and condensation. Steam is 60-something times more effective in transferring heat than water. I don't recall the number but it's easy to look up. The specific heat of water is 1 BTU/pound. The heat of vaporization of water is sixty-something BTU/pound. A little bit of steam goes a long way :-) John -- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net! Tellico Plains, Occupied TN You can't turn [MS] shovelware into reliable software by patching it a whole lot. -Marcus Ranum Maybe the first place to do this would be one of those planned communities, like the Sun City retirement communities. I don't know if they go so far as to do their own power generation but putting your idea into the infrastructure at the beginning would definitely be the cheapest way and I think they pretty highly control all the necessary infrastructure choices so the demand would be guaranteed. Then they could use the cheaper utilities cost as a selling point. -- Regards, Carl Ijames carl dott ijames aat verizon dott net (remove nospm or make the obvious changes before replying) In alt.energy.homepower Neon John <no@never.com> wrote: | The answer is "it depends but probably yes". A couple of different | situations. One, the plant is built with numerous smaller units instead of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | typical temperature underneath ice) still contains a LOT more heat than, say, | 20 degree air. Or -20 deg air where a heat pump would not function at all. Would this be "free heat" or would the users have to pay for it somehow? If it had to be paid for, there might not be as many takers. That and the cost of the equipment to measure the energy actually taken. If it is free heat, who pays to build the infrastructure? I'm guessing that to the power plant that wants to just get rid of the heat, the existing way is the least cost way. 100+ years ago when we didn't have the comforts of home central heat like we do today, taking off excess heat that somehow was present and distributing it would be such a good idea everyone would approve. Today we have to consider it not as a comfort issue, but as an energy savings issue, which is partly financial, partly environmental, and to a limited degree partly international political where ones heat source could be repurposed to reduce oil importation. Getting they money for it might be the show-stopper (as sad as that is given our complex energy situation). |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance | | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to | | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. | | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) | >In alt.energy.homepower Neon John <no@never.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >Getting they money for it might be the show-stopper (as sad as that is given >our complex energy situation). I will be poluting the Earth and contributing to global warming. I have a lot of wood trees out back which I will be amputating over the next years. I am going to put the coal/wood stove in the garage this year. next year I will add a stove to the existing house chimey the last owners installed. I was looking at that Harbor Freight stove last winter. We used to buy stoves at Montgomery Wards. Those are long gone as is the old house. greg >> In alt.energy.homepower Neon John <no@never.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > greg One could sequester an awful lot of carbon by cutting down trees, storing the wood until used, and let new trees grow in their place. If the rate of growth exceeds the rate of rot+burn, then you have a net sequesteration. B. Farmer > In alt.energy.homepower Neon John <no@never.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Getting they money for it might be the show-stopper (as sad as that is given > our complex energy situation). I was in Finland a couple of years ago and was impressed with the district heating in the house I was staying at. The floors were warm, the hot water hot, and the rooms quite comfortable. I would suspect there is a long tradition of co-operation (in the sense of Co-ops. The district plant would be owned by the people it serves. Profits are distributed as dividends at year end. Like many credit unions here in the US. B. Farmer >I was in Finland a couple of years ago and was impressed with the district heating >in the house I was staying at. The floors were warm, the hot water hot, and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The district plant would be owned by the people it serves. Profits are distributed >as dividends at year end. Like many credit unions here in the US. Did you happen to notice how much the heat cost? My impression from chatting with my many European and British friends is that they spend a much larger portion of their income on energy (and other necessities, for that matter) than we do. Point I'm making is, they may be paying a price for that district heating that we'd find intolerable. Maybe if you're in e-contact with them, you could ask? John -- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net! Tellico Plains, Occupied TN You can't turn [MS] shovelware into reliable software by patching it a whole lot. -Marcus Ranum > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:17:20 -0500, Bit Farmer <bit.farmer@yahoo.com> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Maybe if you're in e-contact with them, you could ask? From what I hear, there's a lot of socialism in Scandahoovia; it seems to work because they're all essentially genetic clones of each other, so they all agree on everything. And, of course, with the socialism, all the costs are absorbed by the exorbitant taxes. Cheers! Rich > From what I hear, there's a lot of socialism in Scandahoovia; it seems to > work because they're all essentially genetic clones of each other, so they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Cheers! > Rich Rich; There are plenty of Co-ops outside of socialistic countries. Many of the farm marketing associations are still co-ops, as are most credit unions. If you go into the rural ND, MI, MN and WI, you will find these alive and well. As for taxes, this is an easy target. But if you look at it not from the viewpoint of rumor or legend, I think you would find the tax rates are not very different. The biggest difference is they actually get something for their Euros. Tax rates: 25% to 33% US income tax for most folks. 8 to 8.5% State tax (Minnesota) 7.65 % Employee side of FICA 7.65 % Employer side of FICA. ---------------------------------- Result is 48.3 % to 56.8 % This number is before any sales tax (6.5 % in MN) and property taxes, about 2% of property value for primary residence. These figures do not include the deductions, nor do they include hidden taxes such as Federal, state gasoline taxes. From what I find on the web for Finland: http://www.nordisketax.net/main.asp?url=files/suo/eng/i07.asp&c=suo&l=eng&s=1&w= 3&m=02 23% to 31% on earned income. 15% to 20% paid to city or towns.(In lieu of our property tax) 1% to 2% paid to the church (now that has to hurt!) 2% Health insurance fee. (major bargin!) ----------------------------------------- 39% to 55% total taxes. Rather than sales taxes, much of Europe uses a Value Added Tax. VAT in Finland is 22% and this applies to everything. Now that has to put some pain in your wallet, but only because it is so visible. But in Finland you get: 1) Good health care system 2) Good educational system 3) Great roads In the US you get: 1) 9 trillion dollar debt for your children 2) The world's largest military aggessor. 3) 200 K college education bills for your each of your children. 4) Crumbling infrastructure (witness the bridge collapse we had in Minneapolis) 5) Soaring health care costs. It would be interesting to see the quality of life that a 100K income produces in the Scandinavia and Finland in available cash flow compared to the that in the US. I do not think it is so different. b. Farmer >As for taxes, this is an easy target. But if you look at it >not from the viewpoint of rumor or legend, I think you would >find the tax rates are not very different. The biggest difference >is they actually get something for their Euros. Perfect example of "figures lie and liars figure". >Tax rates: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >---------------------------------- >Result is 48.3 % to 56.8 % Why don't we look at someplace more realistic than perhaps the most socialist state in the union. Let's look at TN, for instance. I'm a single guy with no dependents who made about $20k last year piddling with part time work plus small investment income. After my standard deduction, the earned income tax credit and a few medical deductibles, I paid zero federal tax. Nothing. Nada. In fact, I got my withholdings back plus a little. Toss in a wife with the same income and a couple of yard apes and the "refund" is much more. So let's figure this new reality 0% to -2% federal Income tax 0 State income tax - we don't have one. 7.65% My side of FICA. 4% Medicare - can't remember the exact number but 4%'s close enough 9.25% State sales tax (for the sake of simplification, we assume one spends everything he earns. ========= 18.9-20.9% Total tax exclusive of property tax which amounts to 0.67% where I live. We don't include the employer side of FICA because I don't pay that. (yeah, I know I do indirectly but accounting for all the secondary taxes would take forever.) >These figures do not include the deductions, nor do they include >hidden taxes such as Federal, state gasoline taxes. Gasoline taxes are hardly hidden since they're printed on every pump - at least in TN. > From what I find on the web for Finland: >http://www.nordisketax.net/main.asp?url=files/suo/eng/i07.asp&c=suo&l=eng&s=1&w= 3&m=02 Now let's re-figure Findland's taxes, again, assuming that the person spends what he earns. 19% on earned income. (assuming 20,000 euro bracket) 15% to 20% paid to city or towns.(In lieu of our property tax) 1% to 2% paid to the church (now that has to hurt!) 2% Health insurance fee. (major bargain!) 22% VAT ----------------------------------------- 60% to 65% total taxes. That's a hell of a difference in taxes for the people who need the income the most - the typical blue collar worker. >But in Finland you get: >1) Good health care system >2) Good educational system >3) Great roads It's easy to have good health care when the nation is the size of a small US state and they can benefit from mainly US medical research while paying little. It's easy to have great roads and so on when NATO (Primarily USA funded) provided most of the national defense. >In the US you get: >1) 9 trillion dollar debt for your children. No kids here so no worry. >2) The world's largest military aggessor. Not even close. Tally up where the US is actively conducting armed meddling (Iraq and Afghanistan) and then compare it to say, China (Burma, Tibet, Viet Nam are a few off the top of my head.) and then tell me again how the US is the world's largest aggressor. >3) 200 K college education bills for your each of your children. Only an idiot would run up that kind of debt. Here in TN one can get a 4 year degree essentially free, other than room and board which he'd be paying anyway, thanks to the Hope Scholarships funded by ignorant who tax themselves with the Lottery system. Same situation in Ga. My brother worked his way through dental school and owed not a penny when he got his DDS. That was before Hope. Yeah, it was hard but he enjoyed the results of that hard work from the first day of his practice. A few years ago I decided to get a CDL which meant going to truck driving school. I went to the local community college where the state picked up half the cost right off the bat. My side was $1200. After my Hope Scholarship reimbursement, my out of pocket was around $150. If I'd applied using my true income at the time (zero, retired), I'd have not had to pay even that. >4) Crumbling infrastructure (witness the bridge collapse we had in Minneapolis) Our infrastructure seems to be doing just fine. Perhaps y'all shouldn't tolerate so much corruption and waste in your state's transportation department. >5) Soaring health care costs. Can't argue there. You got one out of 5 correct. Try harder next time. Something else you seem to neglect is the cascading effect of VAT, which is paid at every step of the manufacturing process where value is added. Not only does the customer get to pay VAT at the point of sale, the price he pays for the item has previous VATs figured in. Talk to a Brit sometime about the effect of their lower VAT. If you look at Brit online stores, the prices for gadgets has about the same numerals as here in the US, only their pound is worth about half again as much as our dollar. Something that we pay $50 for, they pay 50 pounds. Even if their real income were similar to ours (it isn't), it would buy perhaps a little more than half what it would buy here. >It would be interesting to see the quality of life that a 100K income produces >in the Scandinavia and Finland in available cash flow compared to the that >in the US. > >I do not think it is so different. Instead of jerking off with made-up numbers, perhaps you ought to get to know a recent european immigrant, particularly a professional such as an engineer. I'm most familiar with German immigrants since I used to consult to a German medical company but they're probably representative of Europeans. They're certainly less taxed than the Scandinavians. I used to love to volunteer to pick up new German visitors from the airport in Atlanta and drive them across Atlanta to our offices on the north side. Invariably, by the time we hit I-285, their eyeballs were like saucers as they experienced the real wealth that even the working man has here. It's in stark contrast to Germany. The most commented on aspect is the number of privately owned houses, followed closely by comments on our cheap energy prices. Most of the German employees who came here for TDY but subsequently became immigrants didn't intend to at all. They intended to do 6 months or a year here and then go back. Inside 6 months, they'd do anything to stay here because the difference in real wealth was so great. One of my formerly-German, now-naturalized-US-citizen good friends has been here over 15 years and he STILL marvels at the wealth available for the earning compared to where he came from. There's a reason why the immigration lines form to come INTO this country and not out. The huge difference in real taxes and disposable income is THE major reason, as you'd know if you actually talked to immigrants. People no longer come here from Europe to escape religious or political persecution because there isn't any, at least no more than there is here. They come here to make money, enjoy freedoms and get rich by the standards of where they came from. John -- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net! Tellico Plains, Occupied TN I'm going crazy. Wanna come along? > Invariably, by the time we hit I-285, their eyeballs were like saucers as > they experienced the real wealth that even the working man has here. And yet, we still have poor- some of the poorest of developed countries! With so much opportunity, how can this be? Tim SignatureDeep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms >> Invariably, by the time we hit I-285, their eyeballs were like saucers as >> they experienced the real wealth that even the working man has here. > >And yet, we still have poor- some of the poorest of developed countries! >With so much opportunity, how can this be? "We" don't have anything. As for "poor", first we'd have to agree on a definition. The government's definition of "poor" is anything but. They've pushed "poor" into lower middle class so that they can hand out more sugar and buy more votes. It still chaps my a.s to see some fat bitch driving a late model car and sporting a pack of cigs in her pocket plop down a food stamp card in the grocery line in front of me. The second part is attitude. By government definition, I'm "poor". Early medical-related retirement (NOT "drawing" any government money!), living on savings and what little work I can still do. Yet I consider myself anything but poor! I live a comfortable if simple life, a life many "middle class" folks only dream of. Trout stream 100 yards away, game everywhere, some of the most beautiful mountains in America, etc. It's all in how one sees himself. The third part is behavior. I see very few "poor" who don't smoke, drink, breed like rabbits, hock themselves up to their ears in debt and all the other familiar bad behavior. I also see very few "poor" who have high school diplomas, something that's freely given to anyone who wants one. I employed far too many "poor" in my restaurants not to know this behavior by heart. I learned from hard experience that you can't help these "poor" (a better term is "trash") because they squander any help and then quickly regard it as an entitlement. I wonder how many "middle class" from most any place in Africa would change financial places with most any of the "poor" in the US? There'd be riots in the street as those folks fought for position in line. Then there is the very small percentage with insufficient mental capacity, ranging from borderline retarded to the non-psychopathic mentally ill who really are poor. Ironically, those are the ones that the great welfare state almost completely ignores. Many end up as street bums. Some are happy in that condition and can't be helped. I can think of half a dozen from my old home town that fit that category. Do-gooders spent thousands trying to put 'em up in decent housing and feed 'em. They'd end up right back on the street where they were happiest. Finally there are the stark raving mad, people who should be in institutions but thanks to the ACLU suit and the Supreme's wet dream of a ruling, those people have "rights". Instead of being comfortably confined in metal institutions, they're on the street, yelling at their demons, arguing with the voices, sh.tting in doorways and all the other familiar bad behavior. I recall an academic paper I read a few years ago where the researcher added up all the dollars spent on "social programs for the poor" and divided that number by the number of "poor" taken from census data. The result was that if that money were simply handed out to each "poor" person, bypassing the welfare industry, each "poor" person would receive something like $50,000 per year. That illustrates what is obvious to anyone capable of rubbing two thoughts together. It's isn't about the "poor". It's about the welfare/industrial complex. All those fine middle and upper class people inside of government and out who claim to be "helping the poor" while sucking down nice comfortable salaries paid from "poor peoples' money". I won't even go into the whole scum industry that has risen up in later years to prey on the ignorance of low income people. Title pawns, payday loan sharks, usurious small loan sharks, "tote the note" used car dealers and all the others. In previous times, most these practices were simply outlawed because the wiser politicians of the past realized precisely THAT low income people can't manage their money - a major cause for being low income in the first place. I had an employee who wanted to buy a car from me. I offered to "tote the note" at no interest until he had it paid for using payroll deduction. Great deal, eh? What he didn't like is that I insisted that the car continue to sit in my garage until paid for. I would even let him back out if he wanted to and I'd refund the money he'd paid. A sort of "layaway" as it were. We weren't taking about a lot of money, a couple of thousand. What a deal, eh? Not! That wasn't good enough. He wanted it "now" instead of in a couple of months. So he went to one of the local finance companies and borrowed $2000 on a 2 year note. When he handed me the money I asked to look at his loan agreement. About 10 pages of lawyer type front and back on legal size paper. This for a loan to a guy who was barely literate. I set up a spreadsheet to total up everything he way paying (too complicated to track by hand). It worked out to 39% APR! And of course, it was a "rule of 78" loan which meant that he obligated himself to all the interest up front. Even if he paid off the loan the next day, he'd have to pay ALL principle and interest for the entire two years. Any clue in there for you as to why this guy might be "poor"? Many states have outlawed "Rule of 78" loans but not TN, the state that happens to be home of two of the largest loan sharking operations in the nation. Check-into-Cash is one. Tim, I know that it's easier to spout a slogan that gives you the warm fuzzies and reaffirms your leftist credentials than to actually think and educate yourself but why not give it a try every so often? Yeah, I know, it's a lot of work but doing so helps make you not look quite so stupid in public. John -- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net! Tellico Plains, Occupied TN If stupidity hurt then there'd be Aspirin in the salt shakers. >>And yet, we still have poor- some of the poorest of developed countries! >>With so much opportunity, how can this be? > > "We" don't have anything. As for "poor", first we'd have to agree on a > definition. The government's definition of "poor" is anything but. So you suggest the federal standard should change? To what? > The second part is attitude. By government definition, I'm "poor". Early > medical-related retirement (NOT "drawing" any government money!), living [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the most beautiful mountains in America, etc. It's all in how one sees > himself. Okay, sure, but you're an exceptional case. Statistics is all about averages. What's the average condition of an average person who qualifies as federally poor? > I learned from hard experience that you can't help these "poor" (a > better term is "trash") because they squander any help and then quickly > regard it as an entitlement. Okay, so there's some amount of people who are too stupid (or too egotistical, or...) to make any progress as such. Are there truely 16% of this country that are so poorly educated and disciplined (between home, school and the street) that they are no better than this? > I recall an academic paper I read a few years ago where the researcher > added [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > industry, each "poor" person would receive something like $50,000 per > year. I'm not surprised about that. There is plenty nonsense to gripe about concerning welfare. > Tim, I know that it's easier to spout a slogan that gives you the warm > fuzzies > and reaffirms your leftist credentials than to actually think and educate > yourself but why not give it a try every so often? Yeah, I know, it's a > lot > of work but doing so helps make you not look quite so stupid in public. Gee, how did I attack you? My post: I can't imagine any offensive content, maybe the "how can this be" felt a little too leading?? Your post: "spout a slogan", "leftist", "stupid". Three slights intended to offend me and my question. Now why would you go and get so emotional over a factual question? The fact is, for ~whatever~ reason, the federal poverty rate says ~16%, while most European countries have less than this, and several have less than half. These are numbers, why are you getting emotional about it? You don't seem to know anything about me (which you wouldn't, but over the last crossposted thread at least), a fact proven by your use of "leftist" and "stupid". In fact, I think you recognize by now that I am anything but stupid, and am trying to defeat my question, not by facts but by ad hominem attack. Which still seems odd as it was a factual question. So please, can you reply with a purely logical argument without slander? Tim SignatureDeep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms > You don't seem to know anything about me (which you wouldn't, but over the > last crossposted thread at least), a fact proven by your use of "leftist" > and "stupid". In fact, I think you recognize by now that I am anything but > stupid, and am trying to defeat my question, not by facts but by ad hominem > attack. Which still seems odd as it was a factual question. So please, can > you reply with a purely logical argument without slander? Best of luck there. Just to be provocative: despite having the world's most expensive health system, the US only manages the 29th longest life expectancy in the world. > Just to be provocative: despite having the world's most expensive > health system, the US only manages the 29th longest life expectancy in > the world. And yet we have the best outcomes for just about all the major medical conditions you could name. Like cancer. And heart disease. Our average lifespan is shorter mostly because a) we count infant deaths that other countries don't (the high-scoring countries don't count premature babies, low-weight births, or births otherwise judged "non-viable"), b) obesity. (Averaging in those extra "zeros" quickly takes a toll on the national average.) It's hard to tell exactly what you intended to say--you've listed several unrelated things as if we're supposed to assume some relation. Cheers, James Arthur > > Just to be provocative: despite having the world's most expensive > > health system, the US only manages the 29th longest life expectancy in > > the world. Too much animal fat I expect. Graham >> > Just to be provocative: despite having the world's most expensive >> > health system, the US only manages the 29th longest life expectancy in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Graham A lot of the health problems in the US are among minorities and immigrants. Obesity and its side effects are especially bad. If you are of european descent and born in the USA (as most europeans are of european descent and born in europe) life expectancy is excellent. I personally think that euros are genetically adapted to a diet high in animal fats, wheat, oils, alcohol, and dairy products. Make unlimited amounts of that available to people without the appropriate history and enzymes, and bad things happen. Even I, german-irish and full of lactase and such, have to make an effort to eat my veggies and go easy on bbq ribs and ice cream and cheesecake. And as James points out, the accounting rules may be different. My dad is 90 and doing well. I know people in their high 70's who still work in their own businesses, or ski, or snorkle in the Carribean, and enjoy it. My company provides superb medical and dental care for all employees. Most Americans are doing fine. John >> > Just to be provocative: despite having the world's most expensive >> > health system, the US only manages the 29th longest life expectancy in >> > the world. > >Too much animal fat I expect. Lack of universal healthcare and racial inequality are factors. Here is a useful analysis: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/12/AR2007081200113.html Regards, Bob Monsen >>>> Just to be provocative: despite having the world's most expensive >>>> health system, the US only manages the 29th longest life expectancy in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Regards, > Bob Monsen The article did not say those things, though it used weasel phrases to allow you to think that if you wanted to. Almost all the excess morbidity is from lifestyle choices, but it's unfashionable to blame people for the consequence of their actions. That's what they were skirting. Example: "It really reflects the social conditions in which African American women grow up and have children," said Dr. Marie C. McCormick, professor of maternal and child health at the Harvard School of Public Health. "We haven't done anything to eliminate those disparities." Fact: 3.4% of all babies are born to mothers under 18 years of age, but 6.2% black mothers giving birth are under 18. (Health, United States, 2007, Table 9) That's HUGE. And it's a personal choice. It's not racism, and it's not healthcare. Younger mothers produce lower birthweight, less viable babies, more commonly premature, and generally vastly more prone to problems. That's just a plain, physical, unbiased fact. Cheers, James Arthur > Our average lifespan is shorter mostly because ... > b) obesity. What about Australia? Tim SignatureDeep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms >> Our average lifespan is shorter mostly because > ... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Tim That's a mess, but you asked... If you want to compare, you have to compare outcomes for same-aged people, equally sick, with the same condition. Compiling meaningful comparisons is work. You can't just say, for example, country X has more deaths. You have to examine what people are dying from, and why, what the prevalence of the condition is, contributing factors, etc. For example, Australia has a high skin cancer rate, but that's not especially lethal as cancers go. So bulk cancer-survival stats would be rosy. And it's from sun and light-skinned people, not a bad medical system. The U.S. has a high rate of obesity and its complications; it's therefore expected that tubby U.S. patients will have poorer outcomes via-a-vis heart disease than slimmer, fitter patients in other countries. To examine just one topic (the leading cause of death in both countries), consider cardiovascular disease. Australia has a slimmer, significantly more active, less diabetic population than the U.S.--big advantages-- yet slightly more people die from cardiovascular disease (CVD): =========================== (view this table in Courier, or other fixed font) Australia United States ------------ ------------- Total deaths due to CVD 39%[1] 36.3% [2] Overweight 60%[1] 66% Obesity, adult 21%[1] 32% Sedentary[3] 43%[1] 69% [8] Smokers 20%[1] 21% [7] Hypertensive 29%[1] 27% [9] Diabetes rate 20+ yrs old[4] 7.4%[6] 10.7% (14.7% among blacks)[5] ~~~~ [1] 1999 data, http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/document/NHF/Current_Trends.pdf [2] http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4478 [3] doubles risk of a CV 'event' [4] increases CVD risk 200-300%, http://www.diabetesnsw.com.au/about_diabetes/factsheet.asp [5] http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/statistics/ [6] (25 yrs and older) http://www.healthinsite.gov.au/expert/Diabetes_Mellitus___One_of_Australia_s_top _six_health_priorities [7] http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5644a2.htm#fig [8] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/exercise.htm [9] Health, United States, 2007 (a 567 page .pdf available from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf) =========================== Genetics has a great effect on numerous conditions and must also be included in comparisons. For example, indigenous Australians have a diabetes rate 4x that of the general Australian population. American Pima Indians have the highest rate of diabetes in the world. Blacks and Hispanics have much higher rates, though it's not clear to me whether this is genetic or life-style (cultural). And lastly, to damn the medical care you have to show that improved medical treatment would've had any effect on outcome (it often doesn't). Check out these confounders: Australian aboriginals have much worse outcomes, lower incomes, smoke much more, are more sedentary, and have much poorer diets. All those habits GREATLY increase CVD risk, and CVD patients with those habits have MUCH worse outcomes. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4831.0.55.001 A typical US-accuser would cite this inequality as proof of racism, lack of access to healthcare, race-based poverty, inequal access, or whatever. But "better" medical care can't compensate; if the incoming patients are more damaged, it can't all be fixed. These people will have worse outcomes, period. So, add all that up, and you decide. Cheers, James Arthur > So, add all that up, and you decide. That was way off topic for the group and the thread title, but an amazingly well done and even-handed post. Sometimes it really pays to keep reading these old threads. Thanks!-- Vaughn Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program. You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time $3.95 setup fee. Will poofread for food. >> So, add all that up, and you decide. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thanks!-- > Vaughn Sorry for the OT. It's kind of a tradition in s.e.d., tolerated if marked O.T. in the subject. We have lots of interesting discussions on all sorts of topics. Very enlightening. I'd normally trim the followups, but t'was to an a.e.p. post that I was replying. Cheers, James Arthur > Sorry for the OT. Nothing to be sorry for! Vaughn >>>And yet, we still have poor- some of the poorest of developed countries! >>>With so much opportunity, how can this be? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >So you suggest the federal standard should change? To what? To nothing. The federal government has no constitutional authority to be meddling in that area. >> The second part is attitude. By government definition, I'm "poor". Early >> medical-related retirement (NOT "drawing" any government money!), living [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Okay, sure, but you're an exceptional case. Statistics is all about >averages. No I'm not. I'm about average for a rural resident in a low income part of the country. The difference is, rural people know how to live good lives with less and without sticking their hands out. >What's the average condition of an average person who qualifies >as federally poor? If my employees were any example, two people living together unmarried (so they can draw more), several bastard kids with different and sometimes unknown fathers, heavy smokers and drinkers, many also pot smokers (no problem with the pot, just the buying it on my nickel), deeply in debt, one or two cars from the "pay-by-the-week tote-the-note" used car lot. Hundred dollar sneakers on the kids' feet, of course, purchased with the credit card debt that they intended bankrupting out from under. One or both are drawing "disability" in addition to the various welfare draws. Disability has become such an industry, especially for chiroquacks, that it is practically impossible to hire restaurant help and pay them on the books. They have to be paid "under the table" so that they can "draw". They will, of course, have a large screen TV (rent-to-own) and in many cases a bass boat (finance company). Many run up as much debt as they can and then bankrupt every time they become eligible. I've sat and listened to them swap notes about how to survive "the man" until their next bankruptcy eligibility date arrives. >> I learned from hard experience that you can't help these "poor" (a >> better term is "trash") because they squander any help and then quickly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >this country that are so poorly educated and disciplined (between home, >school and the street) that they are no better than this? They're neither stupid nor egotistical. They're ignorant (defined as lack of education) and lacking in moral grounding. They're using the system as it was set up. A few pennies go to them while thousands go to the welfare/industrial complex. 16%? No idea where you got that number from. If pressed to make an educated guess, I'd put it much higher. In the local schools, "AP" (advanced placement) is about at or a little below the level of mainstream education 30 years ago. How do I know? Some of my employees had REALLY smart kids (two minuses sometimes do make a plus!) Whenever the opportunity presented itself (primarily when the parent could be bothered to bring them to me after work), I tutored them in math and the sciences. Even now, thinking back on some of the AWFUL coursework makes me sick. These were kids who were in AP already. There was one boy in particular who was so smart it was scary. Both parents were plain old common white trash. She was a waitress in one of my restaurants. I paved the way for the kid to get a full boat scholarship at a prestigious private school in Chattanooga. All she had to do was take the kid down to take the entrance exam which he would probably have aced. She couldn't be bothered. If ever there were a definition of child abuse.... >Gee, how did I attack you? You didn't, and I didn't you. But I'm old enough and experienced enough to tell when someone has bitten at the whole welfare state argument, hook, line and sinker. It frustrates me to the point of anger to see people such as yourself with no real experience, either in the welfare world or in the world of government lying via statistics, present things that you've merely read as fact. Anger because so many people believe in and vote to support this fiction of "poor in America" that only the federal welfare state can address. Here's a hint that will help you be more credible in your arguments. If you want to quote or cite something that you've read, preface the statement with "I read that" or something similar. My dad's family was about as poor as it gets. His father died when he was about 6. His mother raised 4 kids by taking in sewing. Think about that. Sewing dresses for the wealthy factory owners in town. That was all she could do and be home to raise her kids. Note that I said "raise" and not "hand them off to child care or relatives or a baby sitter". No government handouts at all. Even if there had been any, they'd not have accepted any. They WERE supported by their community and by their church which is how it's supposed to work. Dad was a CPA in private practice, one brother was a pharmacist that founded a surgical supply company, another a very successful real estate broker and his sister, a successful painter. With the exception of Dad's GI bill (he got his a.s blown off in France so I figure he earned that money), not a penny of federal or state money was ever taken by the family. Just before he died, Dad found out the they were going to tear down his childhood home to make way for some sort of development. He asked me to go with him and photograph the place. He'd often described what a wonderful childhood he'd had in that house but I'd never seen it. When we arrived, I was stunned. Here was this little bungalow not even as large as a single car detached garage. Two tiny bedrooms and a third, combination kitchen and living room. I have the tiny little bed that Dad grew up sleeping on. It is just about right for my black Lab to sleep on when I had her. I didn't realize that the bed almost filled the room. Bottom line: They were worse than dirt-poor by today's (or even back then) standards. Today the welfare/industrial complex would be all over them, convincing them that they were so poor that only the government could help. When you're told that you're poor often enough, you begin to believe it. Nobody told them and so they weren't. Photos of Grandmother show her always dressed in a clean and neat, if plain, dress. The yard was always neat and clean. I'd figured that the corner of the building that appeared in some of the photos was the garage. It was their house. It's ALL about attitude. John -- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net! Tellico Plains, Occupied TN Democracy is three wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper. > And yet, we still have poor- some of the poorest of developed countries! > With so much opportunity, how can this be? > > Tim Hire one and find out yourself. > Why don't we look at someplace more realistic than perhaps the most socialist > state in the union. Well, the most socialistic state in the Union has the worst roads, and a no health care. > Let's look at TN, for instance. I'm a single guy with no dependents who made > about $20k last year piddling with part time work plus small investment [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I don't pay that. (yeah, I know I do indirectly but accounting > for all the secondary taxes would take forever.) Now unless you are independantly wealthy, I would think you would have trouble living on that amount. But it may be all you need. Leading a minimalist life is a rather good thing from my point of view. But you are probably one of the few. Using your life style to discount the life of a family of 4 with dual incomes trying to make their ends meet is an apples and oranges comparison. > Now let's re-figure Findland's taxes, again, assuming that the person spends > what he earns. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ----------------------------------------- > 60% to 65% total taxes. Now you have to get your facts tuned a little better: First, your 20K salary, sorry to say, is only 12,738 Euros. Or your 20K Euros is really 31,500. So your base is off. At 12,738 Euro income level, you income tax on earned income is 8.00 Euros plus 8.5 % of the amount over 12,600 or (12,738 - 12,600) = 138 * .085 = 11.73 Euros. This translates to (8 + 11.73)/12,738 = .17 % > That's a hell of a difference in taxes for the people who need the income the > most - the typical blue collar worker. Since the tax is graduated, people on the low end, like yourself pay a very small amount of tax. >> But in Finland you get: >> 1) Good health care system [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's easy to have great roads and so on when NATO (Primarily USA funded) > provided most of the national defense. Well, Finland is roughly the size of Minnesota and Iowa combined. And the population is equal to that of Minnesota (4.5 M). And, by your argument, MN is comparable in its socialism: We do not have great roads - arguably the worst in the nations. We have had a major bridge collapse and 4 other bridges closed until repairs can be made. We, like just about everyone else in the US have no health care. As the owner of a small company, I can not afford a company health plan. We have none. I pay close to 15K a year in insurance premiums for my family of 3. I can't even change insurers because I have a cancer survivor in the policy. That premium goes out independent of my income. >> In the US you get: >> 1) 9 trillion dollar debt for your children. > > No kids here so no worry. Again, you are not the representative case. >> 2) The world's largest military aggessor. > > Not even close. Tally up where the US is actively conducting armed meddling > (Iraq and Afghanistan) and then compare it to say, China (Burma, Tibet, Viet > Nam are a few off the top of my head.) and then tell me again how the US is > the world's largest aggressor. The US military budge is larger than the rest of the world combined. The war in Iraq will cost close to 800 Billion dollars when it is over. When the US increased its military budget 10% a few years ago, that amount was larger than the entire budget for the Brits. >> 3) 200 K college education bills for your each of your children. > > Only an idiot would run up that kind of debt. Here in TN one can get a 4 year > degree essentially free, other than room and board which he'd be paying > anyway, thanks to the Hope Scholarships funded by ignorant who tax themselves > with the Lottery system. Same situation in Ga. Nice thing about actually earning an income is that you don't run up debt. Now, I may not be thrilled about paying that amount, nor do I think it is even reasonable, and I might even be an idiot for doing so, but a good college probably does make a difference. Besides, you can give your kids their inheritance now on things that might matter to them, or after you die. But then without having kids, you do not have the basis to understand this. > My brother worked his way through dental school and owed not a penny when he > got his DDS. That was before Hope. Yeah, it was hard but he enjoyed the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > tolerate so much corruption and waste in your state's transportation > department. Oh, I agree. The Republican Governor appointed his Lt Gov as the head of transportation department to ensure that spending was kept to a minimum. That was after the no tax pledge. Problem is, I can't through a 100 bill out the window to make the roads better. But it does buy some new shocks, (not installed). >> 5) Soaring health care costs. > > Can't argue there. Me either. > You got one out of 5 correct. Try harder next time. Well, you only got one right. Your income numbers were just plain wrong. Simplistic arguments. At 20K, you do not represent the 100K family. > I used to love to volunteer to pick up new German visitors from the airport in > Atlanta and drive them across Atlanta to our offices on the north side. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > here over 15 years and he STILL marvels at the wealth available for the > earning compared to where he came from. Very cosmopolitan of you. There is incredible opportunity for wealth in this country. No argument there. The original post was about the horrible tax structure in Scandinavia as a point made about Co-operatives. Where, again, the people being served, are the owners of the service. > There's a reason why the immigration lines form to come INTO this country and > not out. The huge difference in real taxes and disposable income is THE major > reason, as you'd know if you actually talked to immigrants. People no longer > come here from Europe to escape religious or political persecution because > there isn't any, at least no more than there is here. They come here to make > money, enjoy freedoms and get rich by the standards of where they came from. Amazing that you know who I know and deal with. Guess Neon Jaw'n is watchin. b. Farmer >>> 2) The world's largest military aggessor. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The US military budge is larger than the rest of the world combined. No. It isn't. US defense spending is roughly 45% of the world total. But even that figure is misleading. Other countries, notably Russia and China, call Nuclear, missile, and fighter weapons expenditures "Scientific expenses", military training as "Educational spending", and veteran pensions as "Welfare spending". > The war in Iraq will cost close to 800 Billion dollars when it is over. How much random destruction will those 800 Billion have prevented? Containing and concentrating the "fundamentalist Muslim terrorist organizations" to Iraq and Afghanistan has kept a hell of a lot of big a.s bombs from going off in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas. How much did the bombing in Spain cost? Britain? Bali ? How much did the Muslim uprising in France cost? The USA has anti terrorist military units operating all over the world trying to keep those things from happening again. > When the US increased its military budget 10% a few years ago, that amount > was larger than the entire budget for the Brits. So what. How much would it cost to fight the bombing bastards in the USA? We are at war. We didn't start it. Prior to the USA being attacked on 9-11-2001 the "problem" was treated as a simple matter of "Law Enforcement". Now it is life and death. That you can't see that fact doesn't make it less of a fact. SignatureDon Thompson Stolen from Dan: "Just thinking, besides, I watched 2 dogs mating once, and that makes me an expert. " There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. ~Goethe It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom; it is another sight finer to fight for another man's. ~Mark Twain > > The war in Iraq will cost close to 800 Billion dollars when it is over. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in France cost? The USA has anti terrorist military units operating all over > the world trying to keep those things from happening again. I concur largely with your broad objectives but have they really been good value for money compared say to good intelligence for example and what did Iraq have to do eith it ? Graham >> > The war in Iraq will cost close to 800 Billion dollars when it is over. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > value > for money compared say to good intelligence for example <snip> I don't know. History will judge that one. and what did Iraq have > to do eith it ? > > Graham I know that a number of "plots" have been foiled by various country's intelligence services -since- 9-11 and that al-qaida's own "press releases" stated that Iraq was the central fight against the "infidels". Iraq started long before 9-11. Iraq started when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The various acts of criminality and contempt under Saddam Hussein prior to the "invasion", including mass murders, and attempts at WMD production ( remember, Bill Clinton's reason for bombing the sh.t out of Baghdad and cetera were explained as attempts to destroy WMD facilities. ) were ongoing, several high ranking, wanted by international police forces, terrorists were living openly and freely in Baghdad, and terrorist training camps were on the Iraq side of the Iraq/Iran border. Violations of the UN Cease-fire agreement. Blatant violations with, it seems, collusion from high ranking UN officials. Escalating violations after the war in Afghanistan was initiated. I can't, in a short posting, teach you things about 18 years of history that, if your awareness was active during those years, you ought need no lesson to know. But it is apparent that you don't know those things or you wouldn't have asked "what did Iraq have to do with it ?". I suggest you look it up. Get more than one source. Be aware that it will take you a while because the answer is not simple at all. SignatureDon Thompson Stolen from Dan: "Just thinking, besides, I watched 2 dogs mating once, and that makes me an expert. " There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. ~Goethe It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom; it is another sight finer to fight for another man's. ~Mark Twain > . I suggest you look it up. Get > more than one source. Be aware that it will take you a while because the > answer is not simple at all. Aint that the truth. It took the neocons 6 six years of trial and error to come up with a rough draft of 'The Grand Rationalization' > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I don't know. History will judge that one. Amd I'm sure it will judge it very badly. > and what did Iraq have to do eith it ? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the Iraq side of the Iraq/Iran border. Violations of the UN Cease-fire > agreement. Minor violations. A nation saying "we're not broken yet. No more than that. > Blatant violations with, it seems, collusion from high ranking UN > officials. Escalating violations after the war in Afghanistan was initiated. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > look it up. Get more than one source. Be aware that it will take you a while > because the answer is not simple at all. Almost entirely pure intelligemce myth planted in the heads of the neocons by Saddam's opponents who hoped to run the country after it was over-run by US (and UK) troops. You were HAD. Read up about Dr David Kelly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert) "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons" Rumour has it he was 'eliminated' lest he tell the truth. It was to look like suicide but it doesn't look right. I strongly suggest you read that article in depth. And there's so much more. Also. http://25by4.channel4.com/chapter_3/article_7 http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/G/government_inspector/ http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0449030/ Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century And READ their site (oh it seems to have vanished). Along with the evidence. "As of July 8, 2008, The Project for the New American Century website is inoperable. A message saying that the account has been suspended and to contact the billing department was put on the site's page." Now why would they do that ? Graham >>>> 2) The world's largest military aggessor. >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Containing and concentrating the "fundamentalist Muslim terrorist >organizations" to Iraq and Afghanistan has kept a hell of a lot of big a.s AFAIK: Those organizations are founded from Saudi Arabia and operates from Afghanistan. Iraq was a secular state, with some rebel groups in the north. Those rebel groups probarbly had connections to Afghanistan, but were actively fought by the goverment. SignatureSEE YA !!! Trygve Lillefosse AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King >>>>> 2) The world's largest military aggessor. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Those organizations are founded from Saudi Arabia and operates from > Afghanistan. AFAIK, you're right. There was no evidence of eith er WMDs, or Al Quaida, in Iraq, until after we'd gone went in - after Saddam was toppled, a power-vacuum was cerated and, due to poor planning, we simply did not have enough of a presence there to control the situation. > Iraq was a secular state, with some rebel groups in the north. Those > rebel groups probarbly had connections to Afghanistan, but were > actively fought by the goverment. Saddam didn't cotton to anyone who didn't swear fealty to him and him alone. He'd struck me as being very much like Stalin, and for that and other reasons, I was in agreement with the UN inspectors. Whjich, of course, got me called "a traitor" (by people who, unlike myself, had never taken an oath to "protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic...") > "Don T" <-painter-@louvre.org>wrote: > >"Bit Farmer" <bit.farmer@yahoo.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > rebel groups probarbly had connections to Afghanistan, but were > actively fought by the goverment. Those in the North are the Kurds, fighting for an independent Kurdistan. They also have an argument with Turkey over borders. It was some of them who were notoriously gassed by Saddam's forces. Graham >> The war in Iraq will cost close to 800 Billion dollars when it is over. > How much random destruction will those 800 Billion have prevented? Containing > and concentrating the "fundamentalist Muslim terrorist organizations" to Iraq [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > has anti terrorist military units operating all over the world trying to keep > those things from happening again. Considering that there was virtually no "al queda" in Iraq before we invaded, I would suggest that we have "contained" nothing. What we have done is everything Osama wanted. We've moved our bases out of Saudi arabia. We've seen the price of oil tripple. We've given 10s of thousands of people reasons to hate and mistrust the U.S., and a perfect training ground for Osama's efforts. That training is now reflected in the change of tactics in Afganistan (You know - where Al Queda origionated) where attacks are increasing. Al Queda is stronger than ever. The U.S. is hated around the world. U.S. citizens are far less safe anywhere else in the world than they were pre-bush. Iraq had nothing of significance to do with terrorism. But it does now. > "Bit Farmer" <bit.farmer@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> The war in Iraq will cost close to 800 Billion dollars when it is over. > > How |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message