Deficit for 2009 could top $1 trillion

[Sickbag]

I say again, what is there, precisely, to be jealous about ?

And I say again, ask Katie and Gerry.

Even I would want to move to the USA if the pick was between there or Luxembourg

[Verbal]

Even I would want to move to the USA if the pick was between there or Luxembourg

Come on fakebag, admit it. The thought of driving around in one of these beauties gives you a hard on.

nav.jpg (30.18 KiB) Viewed 6474 times

[Putt4Par]

I say again, what is there, precisely, to be jealous about ?

Average person's quality of life: ability to make money, entertainment, convenience, etc...

As for myself, no, I would not leave the US, I have been here too long, have a family here etc. etc., I am too entrenched.

Let me ask you....and please be honest: when you were told or given an offer to move to the U.S.....were you happy? And, was that solely because of the business opportunity or because moving to the U.S. sounded enticing to you? Be honest.

The US today is not the US I knew in my youth and to which I emigrated.

I agree. It is changing at the rate of 5,000 illegals a day, Bill Gates bringing in China and India to live in the U.S. and a lot of bad decisions from our government. Heck, L.A. is not what it used to be in the 50's...a city of glamour, sun, and beaches. Now it is a place where third world countries dump the citizens they can't give jobs to.

Of course, as a business, Microsoft is bound to want, indeed is obliged, to reduce its costs wherever it can. You know, it can't just import people. Visas are approved only when the company and the individual prove there are no Americans who can do the job. Is this requirement breached ? Of course, but not to the extent that Microsoft would fraudulently misrepresent the position for all its foreign employees. That's ridiculous.

The review process for H1B visa approvals is ridiculous. I remember at Nokia most of the new employees where from India and all of them were hired "pending visa approval". And guess what. They were never denied. And I had friends at the time, good qualified engineers who would lose jobs against these guys simply because the company could pay them less. How is that fair to our citizens? Yes, the companies have an obligation to reduce costs but the government has the obligation to protect its citizens.

Like flyboy said, Bill Gates should at least be honest.

There is a shortage in the US of people with the skills and education levels the company needs. Deal with it.

Excuse me....how do you know this? Let's look at a great example....doctors. We are importing all these doctors from...guess where, INDIA, because we "can't find doctors in the U.S." to work in smaller towns. Meanwhile tons of american citizens are rejected from medical schools even with very high grades simply because there is no more room. I say we give americans priority to enroll in med schools and forget about quotas of how many foreigners they must enroll to look "diverse".

If it happens that employing the right people means that as a byproduct wages are lower, so be it.

Yes, like Pancho, Lupe, and Maria at my local Wendy's. It doesn't matter they are illegal as long as Wendy's can pay them less money, right?. How about depressing wages? Do you think the government should turn a blind eye? Bringing in workers may be good for a business but it affects the quality of life of us, citizens (traffic, schools, services, lose of identity, etc...). Why should my highschool son compete with Paco for a job at Wendy's when Paco is illegal? This is my son's country!

Indians also want to work in Canada, Australia, the UK and many other places.

Indeed. As long as they can get out of their god forsaken country and move to the convenience of the first world.

[Sickbag]

Come on fakebag, admit it. The thought of driving around in one of these beauties gives you a hard on.

CurranPoster4.jpg (100.14 KiB) Viewed 6453 times

[David Hilditch]

Who is the first country to send money and food after a natural disaster strikes another country?

I must have missed the US response to the earthquake in Pakistan today.

[David Hilditch]

Let me ask you....and please be honest: when you were told or given an offer to move to the U.S.....were you happy? And, was that solely because of the business opportunity or because moving to the U.S. sounded enticing to you? Be honest.
........
The review process for H1B visa approvals is ridiculous. I remember at Nokia most of the new employees where from India and all of them were hired "pending visa approval". And guess what. They were never denied. And I had friends at the time, good qualified engineers who would lose jobs against these guys simply because the company could pay them less. How is that fair to our citizens? Yes, the companies have an obligation to reduce costs but the government has the obligation to protect its citizens.

I can't deal with all this because of time factors and because we have been through this shit time and again. Just these :

1) Of course I was happy to move to the US. I was at a time in life when it suited me personally and professionally to make a move. My case was fortunate and somewhat unusual, but such moves are not without risk. However, I would have been perfectly happy to go to several other countries if specific opportunities had arisen, or stayed in the UK. Obviously, the US is a fine country which is always going to command attention and interest, no-one denies that. It's a wonderful country blah blah etc. etc. etc. But it's the overall package at the time and how the specifics of one person's life meshes with the opportunities on offer that counts.

2) H-1Bs. Very few are rejected. That reflects both the caliber of the individuals and the fact that the employers have to certify that no American is available for employment in that post. Very few employers are going to misrepresent that situation to the federal government. They also have to certify that wages will be paid at the "prevailing rate" for the position. My understanding used to be that no employment by a foreigner in the US was permitted without a formal visa grant. Indeed, entry to the US is not supposed to be permitted without the visa in the passport. Some of this may have changed, perhaps due to the crap bureaucracy within the immigration agencies, but I doubt it to any serious degree. Of course, you can work the system up to a point, both legally and otherwise, but at the premium H-1B visa level I think fraud is pretty rare. In any event, I would suspect that the condition of the US economy going forward for a year or two is going to make new H-1Bs somewhat more difficult to have approved because of lay-offs around the country in many important businesses. By the same token H-1Bs themselves already here will also be more marketable in this economy.

[flyboy2548m]

H-1Bs. Very few are rejected. That reflects both the caliber of the individuals and the fact that the employers have to certify that no American is available for employment in that post. Very few employers are going to misrepresent that situation to the federal government.

Are you really that naive, David?

[David Hilditch]

H-1Bs. Very few are rejected. That reflects both the caliber of the individuals and the fact that the employers have to certify that no American is available for employment in that post. Very few employers are going to misrepresent that situation to the federal government.

Are you really that naive, David?

Perhaps.

[flyboy2548m]

Perhaps.

That's a shame. I was almost with you until you got to the part where a company would never lie about whether or not John can do what Pratik can do. Oh well....

[Schorsch]

...The bailout plan does not cost direct money.... [{quote]

How come ?

I just wanted to say that not the entire sum is actually spent, but that a good proportion is back-up for inter-institutional loans. Don't nail me on the specific wording, sometimes my English proficiency hits a limit.

Still, a 550 billion increase in spending has to go somewhere, and where is that?

[David Hilditch]

...The bailout plan does not cost direct money.... [{quote]

How come ?

I just wanted to say that not the entire sum is actually spent, but that a good proportion is back-up for inter-institutional loans. Don't nail me on the specific wording, sometimes my English proficiency hits a limit.

Still, a 550 billion increase in spending has to go somewhere, and where is that?

OK, all right. A lot of money, ie. a few hundred billion, has already been spent. Real money. It's true that, in addition, there are a lot guarantees of various kinds floating around, which may never be actioned, over and above the $800bn bailout program, the AIG loans and others. Is that what you mean by "go somewhere" ? The federal budget deficit will probably more than double in 2009. We know that.

If you mean, where will it come from, the answer is it will be borrowed. The US has no problem in the short term in borrowing money. Longer term, things could be more difficult.

[GerryW]

I say again, what is there, precisely, to be jealous about ?

And I say again, ask Katie and Gerry.

Flyboy, why do you think we are jealous about something what you have in the US and we don't have here?

Perhaps it's the opposite? Here in Europe, we have a lot of diversity, every country (still) has its own culture. Every country has to offer something else. The beauty of the nature, the pulsating life in the big cities, the short distances to important places, the history of centuries, "real" castles. We don't have to fear hurricanes or tornadoes (even though sometimes a small tornado appears, but doesn't do much harm).
The cost of living is affordable, if you don't want or have to live at an expensive place. Health care is affordable, even if you stay longer than a week in a hospital you don't need to sell your house. Our cars are better And our food is better too, even though in the US is a trend to more healthier food ingredients (I can't believe it's not butter...)

I could write still more examples about all that stuff which is better here in Europe, but what I wanted to say is that there is no jealousy here in Europe about US. And now you want to ask me, so why the hell I want to move to the USA if everything in Europe is better. You see! That's the love for your country!

[aardvark2zz]

Here is a table I processed from the IRS`s top 400 tax payers from 92 to 06 (07 and 08 not available).
It shows the decrease in tax rate for the top 400 Adjusted Gross Income.
I was expecting Bush Jr. to be responsible for the biggest Tax decreases on the rich, but Clinton is not immune

The 2 lines represent:
- red: (%) point change yr-yr of tax-rate
- blue: % chg of the %-tax-rate (prob not recommended to do %-chg-of-%-tx-rate )

I`m also testing the google docs publish doc feature .

Table 1 -- Selected Items for Taxpayers with the Top 400 Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), 1992-2006 [1] -- Continued



From:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06intop400.pdf

The 400 Individual Income Tax Returns Reporting the Highest Adjusted
Gross Incomes Each Year, 1992-2006

Shown below are four tables from the Statistics of Income Division which contain information from
the top 400 individual tax returns for each of Tax Years 1992 through 2006. These data are based
on the returns with the largest Adjusted Gross Income reported each specific year shown and do not
necessarily reflect the same taxpayers over time. Consequently, tables 1-3 should be used in
conjunction with Table 4, which presents the number of times an individual return appeared among
the 400 largest adjusted gross incomes over the 15-year period.

Table 1 contains frequencies, money amounts, and average dollar amounts for the major income,
deduction, and tax credits reported as part of the Form 1040 (U.S. individual Income Tax Return). It
includes salaries and wages, interest income and capital gains. It also shows net income and net
losses for returns with income from (1) businesses including farms, and (2) partnerships and S
Corporations. Itemized deductions categories include taxes paid, interest paid and charitable
contributions. Finally, the table presents several credit items including the foreign tax and general
business credits, as well as data for the tentative research credit.

.

[aardvark2zz]

Here is an excerpt of the data. Of top 400.

Year Tax-Rate (%)

1992 26.38
1993 29.35
1994 28.57
1995 29.93
1996 27.81
1997 24.16
1998 22.02
1999 22.23
2000 22.29
2001 22.85
2002 22.88
2003 19.53
2004 18.16
2005 18.23
2006 17.17
.

[flyboy2548m]

It's about time Dumbvark404qq starting posting charts again. I've missed them.