If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#571
|
|||
|
|||
Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)
On 20/9/17 2:10 pm, Snidely wrote:
Saturday, Robert Bannister quipped: On 16/9/17 2:56 pm, Snidely wrote: Robert Bannister used thar keyboard to writen: On 15/9/17 3:17 pm, Snidely wrote: Wolf K noted that: On 2017-09-13 11:26, Ken Blake wrote: On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:03:29 +0100, "NY" wrote: Mind you that applies to many senior positions: any Prime Minister of the UK is automatically also First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service. Are those permanent titles or do they go away when they are no longer Prime Minister? Prime Minister is not a title. It's a designation, like 2nd Vice-president or Chief Financial Officer or Assistant Manager. I think you mean, "Prime Minister is not a title in the aristocratic sense; it is instead a job title." (Quick, what's the difference between a book's title and it's designation?) In the USA, AFAICT a President is a President for the rest of his life. That's because he is the Head of State as well as the Head of Government. I'm not sure how that logic applies to Head-of-State (Ret). Historically, heads-of-state were monarchs or tyrants of another kind and they always remained in office until their death (which often occurred sooner than they expected). Retirement wasn't really an option, because while they were alive, they represented a possible danger to their successors. Yes, but remember we have a 200+ year record of mostly retiring our heads of state.* So we're used to it.* Jimmy Carter doesn't operate as a head of state these days.* He does operate as someone who has built up an account of goodwill and respect, but the difference between him and Bill Gates is that the Guy From Georgia does his humanitarian work without being associated with Redmond, Washington. Only four presidents actually killed, but over 30 attempts according to Wiki. And very few of the 30 attempts involved a retired President. True, but that would be locking the stable door too late. Do your ex-presidents receive an enormous retirement package like our Aussie prime ministers and even ordinary parliamentarians do? -- Robert B. born England a long time ago; Western Australia since 1972 |
Ads |
#572
|
|||
|
|||
Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)
On 2017-09-20 8:28 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
On 20/9/17 2:10 pm, Snidely wrote: Saturday, Robert Bannister quipped: On 16/9/17 2:56 pm, Snidely wrote: Robert Bannister used thar keyboard to writen: On 15/9/17 3:17 pm, Snidely wrote: Wolf K noted that: On 2017-09-13 11:26, Ken Blake wrote: On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:03:29 +0100, "NY" wrote: Mind you that applies to many senior positions: any Prime Minister of the UK is automatically also First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service. Are those permanent titles or do they go away when they are no longer Prime Minister? Prime Minister is not a title. It's a designation, like 2nd Vice-president or Chief Financial Officer or Assistant Manager. I think you mean, "Prime Minister is not a title in the aristocratic sense; it is instead a job title." (Quick, what's the difference between a book's title and it's designation?) In the USA, AFAICT a President is a President for the rest of his life. That's because he is the Head of State as well as the Head of Government. I'm not sure how that logic applies to Head-of-State (Ret). Historically, heads-of-state were monarchs or tyrants of another kind and they always remained in office until their death (which often occurred sooner than they expected). Retirement wasn't really an option, because while they were alive, they represented a possible danger to their successors. Yes, but remember we have a 200+ year record of mostly retiring our heads of state. So we're used to it. Jimmy Carter doesn't operate as a head of state these days. He does operate as someone who has built up an account of goodwill and respect, but the difference between him and Bill Gates is that the Guy From Georgia does his humanitarian work without being associated with Redmond, Washington. Only four presidents actually killed, but over 30 attempts according to Wiki. And very few of the 30 attempts involved a retired President. True, but that would be locking the stable door too late. Do your ex-presidents receive an enormous retirement package like our Aussie prime ministers and even ordinary parliamentarians do? I think all politicians have generous pensions, but the real prizes are well-paying sinecures in industry. -- Cheryl |
#573
|
|||
|
|||
Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)
On 21/9/17 6:40 pm, Cheryl wrote:
On 2017-09-20 8:28 PM, Robert Bannister wrote: On 20/9/17 2:10 pm, Snidely wrote: Saturday, Robert Bannister quipped: On 16/9/17 2:56 pm, Snidely wrote: Robert Bannister used thar keyboard to writen: On 15/9/17 3:17 pm, Snidely wrote: Wolf K noted that: On 2017-09-13 11:26, Ken Blake wrote: On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:03:29 +0100, "NY" wrote: Mind you that applies to many senior positions: any Prime Minister of the UK is automatically also First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service. Are those permanent titles or do they go away when they are no longer Prime Minister? Prime Minister is not a title. It's a designation, like 2nd Vice-president or Chief Financial Officer or Assistant Manager. I think you mean, "Prime Minister is not a title in the aristocratic sense; it is instead a job title." (Quick, what's the difference between a book's title and it's designation?) In the USA, AFAICT a President is a President for the rest of his life. That's because he is the Head of State as well as the Head of Government. I'm not sure how that logic applies to Head-of-State (Ret). Historically, heads-of-state were monarchs or tyrants of another kind and they always remained in office until their death (which often occurred sooner than they expected). Retirement wasn't really an option, because while they were alive, they represented a possible danger to their successors. Yes, but remember we have a 200+ year record of mostly retiring our heads of state.* So we're used to it.* Jimmy Carter doesn't operate as a head of state these days.* He does operate as someone who has built up an account of goodwill and respect, but the difference between him and Bill Gates is that the Guy From Georgia does his humanitarian work without being associated with Redmond, Washington. Only four presidents actually killed, but over 30 attempts according to Wiki. And very few of the 30 attempts involved a retired President. True, but that would be locking the stable door too late. Do your ex-presidents receive an enormous retirement package like our Aussie prime ministers and even ordinary parliamentarians do? I think all politicians have generous pensions, but the real prizes are well-paying sinecures in industry. That is the part the really sticks in my throat: they get these 7 figure jobs as a figurehead while they are still receiving thousands of taxpayers' money in superannuation. -- Robert B. born England a long time ago; Western Australia since 1972 |
#574
|
|||
|
|||
Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)
Robert Bannister:
Only four presidents actually killed, but over 30 attempts according to Wiki. A murderous lot, these presidents. Just as well they're not very good at it. -- John |
#575
|
|||
|
|||
Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)
On Wednesday, Robert Bannister pointed out that ...
On 20/9/17 2:10 pm, Snidely wrote: Saturday, Robert Bannister quipped: On 16/9/17 2:56 pm, Snidely wrote: Robert Bannister used thar keyboard to writen: On 15/9/17 3:17 pm, Snidely wrote: Wolf K noted that: On 2017-09-13 11:26, Ken Blake wrote: On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:03:29 +0100, "NY" wrote: Mind you that applies to many senior positions: any Prime Minister of the UK is automatically also First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service. Are those permanent titles or do they go away when they are no longer Prime Minister? Prime Minister is not a title. It's a designation, like 2nd Vice-president or Chief Financial Officer or Assistant Manager. I think you mean, "Prime Minister is not a title in the aristocratic sense; it is instead a job title." (Quick, what's the difference between a book's title and it's designation?) In the USA, AFAICT a President is a President for the rest of his life. That's because he is the Head of State as well as the Head of Government. I'm not sure how that logic applies to Head-of-State (Ret). Historically, heads-of-state were monarchs or tyrants of another kind and they always remained in office until their death (which often occurred sooner than they expected). Retirement wasn't really an option, because while they were alive, they represented a possible danger to their successors. Yes, but remember we have a 200+ year record of mostly retiring our heads of state.* So we're used to it.* Jimmy Carter doesn't operate as a head of state these days.* He does operate as someone who has built up an account of goodwill and respect, but the difference between him and Bill Gates is that the Guy From Georgia does his humanitarian work without being associated with Redmond, Washington. Only four presidents actually killed, but over 30 attempts according to Wiki. And very few of the 30 attempts involved a retired President. True, but that would be locking the stable door too late. Do your ex-presidents receive an enormous retirement package like our Aussie prime ministers and even ordinary parliamentarians do? The point is that out of 44 presidents no longer serving, 36 outlived the terms in office (and I would count Nixon as "retired" even if he didn't complete his term). Most of the 36 outlived the office by more than 4 years. /dps -- I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know any particular reason, but I have always been glad. _Roughing It_, Mark Twain |
#576
|
|||
|
|||
Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)
On 22/9/17 7:28 am, Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-09-21 19:25, Robert Bannister wrote: On 21/9/17 6:40 pm, Cheryl wrote: On 2017-09-20 8:28 PM, Robert Bannister wrote: On 20/9/17 2:10 pm, Snidely wrote: Saturday, Robert Bannister quipped: On 16/9/17 2:56 pm, Snidely wrote: Robert Bannister used thar keyboard to writen: On 15/9/17 3:17 pm, Snidely wrote: Wolf K noted that: On 2017-09-13 11:26, Ken Blake wrote: On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:03:29 +0100, "NY" wrote: Mind you that applies to many senior positions: any Prime Minister of the UK is automatically also First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service. Are those permanent titles or do they go away when they are no longer Prime Minister? Prime Minister is not a title. It's a designation, like 2nd Vice-president or Chief Financial Officer or Assistant Manager. I think you mean, "Prime Minister is not a title in the aristocratic sense; it is instead a job title." (Quick, what's the difference between a book's title and it's designation?) In the USA, AFAICT a President is a President for the rest of his life. That's because he is the Head of State as well as the Head of Government. I'm not sure how that logic applies to Head-of-State (Ret). Historically, heads-of-state were monarchs or tyrants of another kind and they always remained in office until their death (which often occurred sooner than they expected). Retirement wasn't really an option, because while they were alive, they represented a possible danger to their successors. Yes, but remember we have a 200+ year record of mostly retiring our heads of state.Â* So we're used to it.Â* Jimmy Carter doesn't operate as a head of state these days.Â* He does operate as someone who has built up an account of goodwill and respect, but the difference between him and Bill Gates is that the Guy From Georgia does his humanitarian work without being associated with Redmond, Washington. Only four presidents actually killed, but over 30 attempts according to Wiki. And very few of the 30 attempts involved a retired President. True, but that would be locking the stable door too late. Do your ex-presidents receive an enormous retirement package like our Aussie prime ministers and even ordinary parliamentarians do? I think all politicians have generous pensions, but the real prizes are well-paying sinecures in industry. That is the part the really sticks in my throat: they get these 7 figure jobs as a figurehead while they are still receiving thousands of taxpayers' money in superannuation. While "private" business people get several times that much. That's what stick in my throat. Well, at least that money comes from the business, so only indirectly from their customers/clients, whereas politicians' money comes directly from taxpayers, especially from the poorer ones who can't access tax loopholes. There is only one wallet. Ours. -- Robert B. born England a long time ago; Western Australia since 1972 |
#577
|
|||
|
|||
Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)
On 25/9/17 1:56 am, Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-09-22 19:16, Robert Bannister wrote: On 22/9/17 7:28 am, Wolf K wrote: On 2017-09-21 19:25, Robert Bannister wrote: [...] That is the part the really sticks in my throat: they get these 7 figure jobs as a figurehead while they are still receiving thousands of taxpayers' money in superannuation. While "private" business people get several times that much. That's what stick in my throat. Well, at least that money comes from the business, so only indirectly from their customers/clients, whereas politicians' money comes directly from taxpayers, especially from the poorer ones who can't access tax loopholes. So you think when you indirectly pay a CEO $10,000,000, that's OK, While directly paying an MP $150,000 is not? More or less, yes. I'm a socialist, not a communist. I do, however, object to them receiving $10m "bonuses", especially when the share price has gone down. Once, I used to believe that nobody deserved to be paid more than or even as much as a thousand times what the lowest paid worker received, but then I realised that entertainers (which includes so-called sportsmen and -women) will always get what the market dictates and that there is no way of controlling this without totalitarian government. There is only one wallet. Ours. Precisely. Keep that in mind next time you read the business pages. -- Robert B. born England a long time ago; Western Australia since 1972 |
#578
|
|||
|
|||
Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 07:12:09 +0800, Robert Bannister
wrote: On 25/9/17 1:56 am, Wolf K wrote: On 2017-09-22 19:16, Robert Bannister wrote: On 22/9/17 7:28 am, Wolf K wrote: On 2017-09-21 19:25, Robert Bannister wrote: [...] That is the part the really sticks in my throat: they get these 7 figure jobs as a figurehead while they are still receiving thousands of taxpayers' money in superannuation. While "private" business people get several times that much. That's what stick in my throat. Well, at least that money comes from the business, so only indirectly from their customers/clients, whereas politicians' money comes directly from taxpayers, especially from the poorer ones who can't access tax loopholes. So you think when you indirectly pay a CEO $10,000,000, that's OK, While directly paying an MP $150,000 is not? More or less, yes. I'm a socialist, not a communist. I do, however, object to them receiving $10m "bonuses", especially when the share price has gone down. Once, I used to believe that nobody deserved to be paid more than or even as much as a thousand times what the lowest paid worker received, but then I realised that entertainers (which includes so-called sportsmen and -women) will always get what the market dictates and that there is no way of controlling this without totalitarian government. Or, tax it. - When Ronald Reagan was president of his labor union, the income tax rate was 91% on that portion of income above some cutoff. The only people who /paid/ that much were a couple of champion boxers and a few members of his union, the Screen Actors Guild. That was the 1950s, when labor unions were strong and the U.S. economy had its best performance ever. I liked the commentary that blamed those friendships with stars for Reagan's bias against taxing wealth. I don't have any fixed opinion on what entertainers should earn, or keep after taxes. I concluded a dozen years ago that anyone who whose corporate job paid over $1 million was probably breaking the law if he earned it (blood money), or else was screwing his company. Since then, I've tentatively raised that acceptable level to, maybe, $3 million -- not for a good reason, but because so many CEOs get that much. There is only one wallet. Ours. Precisely. Keep that in mind next time you read the business pages. -- Rch Ulrich |
#579
|
|||
|
|||
Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)
On 25/9/17 2:08 pm, Rich Ulrich wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 07:12:09 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote: On 25/9/17 1:56 am, Wolf K wrote: On 2017-09-22 19:16, Robert Bannister wrote: On 22/9/17 7:28 am, Wolf K wrote: On 2017-09-21 19:25, Robert Bannister wrote: [...] That is the part the really sticks in my throat: they get these 7 figure jobs as a figurehead while they are still receiving thousands of taxpayers' money in superannuation. While "private" business people get several times that much. That's what stick in my throat. Well, at least that money comes from the business, so only indirectly from their customers/clients, whereas politicians' money comes directly from taxpayers, especially from the poorer ones who can't access tax loopholes. So you think when you indirectly pay a CEO $10,000,000, that's OK, While directly paying an MP $150,000 is not? More or less, yes. I'm a socialist, not a communist. I do, however, object to them receiving $10m "bonuses", especially when the share price has gone down. Once, I used to believe that nobody deserved to be paid more than or even as much as a thousand times what the lowest paid worker received, but then I realised that entertainers (which includes so-called sportsmen and -women) will always get what the market dictates and that there is no way of controlling this without totalitarian government. Or, tax it. - When Ronald Reagan was president of his labor union, the income tax rate was 91% on that portion of income above some cutoff. The only people who /paid/ that much were a couple of champion boxers and a few members of his union, the Screen Actors Guild. That was the 1950s, when labor unions were strong and the U.S. economy had its best performance ever. This is another problem: the people "earning" the most often pay the least tax either because they can afford really clever accountants or because, like our Prime Minister, they keep their money in an offshore tax haven... or both. I liked the commentary that blamed those friendships with stars for Reagan's bias against taxing wealth. I don't have any fixed opinion on what entertainers should earn, or keep after taxes. I concluded a dozen years ago that anyone who whose corporate job paid over $1 million was probably breaking the law if he earned it (blood money), or else was screwing his company. Since then, I've tentatively raised that acceptable level to, maybe, $3 million -- not for a good reason, but because so many CEOs get that much. There is only one wallet. Ours. Precisely. Keep that in mind next time you read the business pages. -- Robert B. born England a long time ago; Western Australia since 1972 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|