in the 80's

With other retirement and investments, enough. I don't plan on having a mortgage or any other large bills, so yes, enough. Unless, of course, Obama gets another two years unrestrained.

I certainly have a lot more than the zero rich was saying preferable to saving.

It's not really "multiple users simultaneously". We already had that (five full-duplex mobiles per base). This optionally splits one, or more, of these channels into a "listen-mostly" channel, with a push-to-talk on the "split" channel(s). Customers seem to like it. ;-) We have another fairly major announcement coming shortly, I think.

It happens. You can't guaranty that any individual will never have a liability claim.

If you include "You don't have to drive", perhaps.

It's an 2.4GHz ISM band digital intercom system intended for studios, concerts, and other production work.

Oh, well. Why didn't you say so?

Wireless full-duplex intercom systems, like you see the coaches on the NFL sidelines using to talk with the defensive coordinator or whomever. Most systems are set up so that, while you have upwards of a dozen or so users, everyone is constantly listening to one guy talk, but only one other guy at a time can hit "talk" to respond on that same channel.

On a short wired connection this is actually pretty much a non-problem -- wired "party line" intercom systems have been around for ages. The problem is the delay between when you speak and any echo that returns -- as that delay gets longer and longer, it's harder for the echo cancellers to perform. You still occasionally have this problem on, e.g., phone connections -- when I dial up my mother in New Zealand from the states, it often takes the echo cancellers a second or two to train and during that time you can still hear your own echo a bit, and on rare occasion the entire system breaks down for some reason and I have to re-dial.

Adding multiple parts just makes this all that much harder of a problem. Keith's systems now let you have up to 5 simultaneous talkers, which is a noteworthy achievement.

---Joel

Ah, OK, ignore part of my response to Rich then, I was clearly a bit confused. :-)

Funny how the bulk of what really sells products today is all in the software!

---Joel

he

I don't think so. There are many references on the web indicating a small percentage of the population pays most of the tax. 50% of the population pays nothing.

Notice it indicates 25% of the population pays 86% of the tax, and the bottom 50% pay less than 3%.

-Bill

Except that the NFL uses an all analog VHF system. ;-) All the colleges use ours, though.

Five per base. Up to ten bases can be strung together for fifty talkers. The connection between bases is (2-wire) analog, however. The largest system I know of has eight base units (I think they actually use five).

"The

-)

And notice that if you gross $66.5K you're in top 25%, paying 87% of the tax.

Total income tax revenue is/was roughly $900B in recent years. Multiply by 87% and you get roughly $800B paid by the top 25%.

We need roughly $1.4 extra trillion to pay for today's spending.

So, to pay for today's spending by taxing alone we'd have to roughly triple the income tax of everyone making less than $67K.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

? "The

x.

;-)

There are several ways of looking at it. Don't forget the guy making

66K probably has a 300K mortgage and deducts 15K or more in interest, so he probably makes 80K or more and scams the rest of us for the mortgage and other BS deductions. He might also contribute 5K to a 401K plan and another 5K to a health savings plan (HSA), so now he's making 90K, plus a bunch of tax free interest from municipal bonds, and the list goes on.

And the top earners pay less than 20% of income.

14692

"Their effective income tax rate fell to 16.62 percent, down more than half a percentage point from 17.17 percent in 2006, the new data show. That rate is lower than the typical effective income tax rate paid by Americans with incomes in the low six figures, which is what each taxpayer in the top group earned in the first three hours of 2007."

We may have a 1.5 trillion deficit from a 3.5 trillion budget, but it's only 10% of GDP. So, if everybody paid 10% more, problem is solved.

-Bill

"The

A $300K mortgage on $66K income is a bit excessive, don't ya' think? At 5% interest that's P&I > $1600, with taxes that could easily top $2K, on $5,500 gross or a debt to income ratio of 36%. Doable, but certainly asking for trouble.

Who, in this situation, has munis? IOW, you're building a fine strawman.

Why doesn't government spend less instead of stealing more? Static analysis is only used by Demonicrats and other fools.

Technogeezer wrote

The Minnesota Zoo put solar thermal panels on part of their monorail system. They didn't work worth a hoot and were eventually removed.

I cannot imagine the freakin' Minnesota Zoo ripping them out without giving them every possible chance of working. Liberal institution in an extremely liberal state.

Degree days in Minnesota are a killer for solar thermal.

Ahem, don't you mean triple the tax on _everybody_??

You could probably run the taxes on everybody receiving less than $100,000 to 80% and not impact the deficit.

eme? "The

tax.

ir. ;-)

he

% 500

or

n.

How about 6.65% yield? Didn't you know the cities are going broke?

Southern Calif Logistics Arpt Parity-airport Proj-ser A CUSIP: 842472BD3 2030-Dec 4.500% 76.235 6.650 $5,000 Investor bought

lysis

"The

;-)

So what? What does this have to do with your asinine strawman?

You could triple the tax on the bottom two quintiles and raise, um, $0.

me? "The

tax.

r. ;-)

e

"more than", of course.-----------------------------------------^^^^^

But none of that matters. Whatever situation we imagine for the typical person reporting >$67K in adjusted gross income, we'd have to triple their taxes.

No, total income tax revenue was about $900B. If everyone paid 10% more that'd be $990B, leaving us $1,310 B short.

GDP's not _profit_, that's gross. GDP includes your house being wrecked by a hurricane so that you had to buy a new one. Should we triple that guy's taxes too? No, of course not.

More to the point is "Why on earth are we spending all this money, and what the heck are we getting for it?" Answers: buying votes, and nada, respectively.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

e? "The

ax.

. ;-)

Everyone earning more than $67K, I meant. Which, actually, is just about everyone who pays significant tax.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

heme? "The

e tax.

air. ;-)

the

What about the 21% military budget for palaces like Afghanistan? Why not pull out and let the drug lords throw stones at each other? Who cares who wins?

And your figure of 900B is a little low. According to wiki, tax revenue was over 2 trillion in 2009.

ta

"During FY 2009, the federal government collected approximately $2.1 trillion in tax revenue. Primary receipt categories included individual income taxes (43%), Social Security/Social Insurance taxes (42%), and corporate taxes (7%).[6] Other types included excise, estate and gift taxes. Tax revenues have averaged approximately 18.3% of gross domestic product (GDP) over the past 40 years, generally ranging plus or minus 2% from that level.[7]"

-Bill