Frugal Living: 25 new messages in 12 topics

Monday, July 30, 2007

25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photo scanning service?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9f598948386130fc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 11:16 am
From: "lee houston"

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:mj2sa3t78s72ju8dosmvvu7u2jq4p6csa8@4ax.com...
>I have abt 100 family photos of various shapes and
> sizes (old) that Id like to have scanned and digitized
>
> I don't have the time or equip to do myself.
>
> Any advise on services that can do this?

WalMart and Walgreens often have 'self-scan' kiosks
to scan photos to CD. Call 'em and check prices.

lee

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 3:00 pm
From: "www.Queensbridge.us"

On Jul 30, 11:58 am, m...@privacy.net wrote:
> I have abt 100 family photos of various shapes and
> sizes (old) that Id like to have scanned and digitized
>
> I don't have the time or equip to do myself.
>
> Any advise on services that can do this?

Why not buy a scanner on sale and do it yourself?

I bought a scanner for ten dollars after rebate from Staples and am
very happy with it.

Scan at 300DPI if you want to keep photos at same size.

--
Incredibly low long distance phone rates. As low as USA-Canada 1.9CPM!
Works as prepaid phone card. PIN not needed for calls from home or
cell phone. Compare the rates at https://www.OneSuite.com No monthly
fee or minimum. Use Promotion/SuiteTreat Code: "FREEoffer23" for FREE
time. Works FROM many other countries.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Anti-Tax guys won -- round 2
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b15b2290838aeb55?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 11:32 am
From: watcher@moog.netaxs.com

In article <x3lri.264$rG7.75@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, Tockk wrote:
>
> "Chloe" <justsayno@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:46ac6ed2$0$20619$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> "Tockk" <tock1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:XZUqi.29924$2v1.22147@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>>> I've done some more digging around, and it looks like there might
>>> actually be something to all this anti-income tax business. This link
>>> is to a video (almost 2 hours long) that I found quite curious.
>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80303867390173
>>>
>>>
>>> But then, I found this site:
>>> http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#income
>>> which seems to answer many of the issues raised by the video. But then,
>>> I'm no lawyer, so maybe it does, maybe it doesn't . . . I dunno . . .
>>>
>>>
>>> What do y'all think about this? I can't tell if the anti-tax guys are
>>> crackpots or not, or if the IRS is the Great Satan.
>>
>> Mull this over. What would happen if--legal or not--everyone suddenly quit
>> paying income tax?
>
> Well, a lot of stuff would have to be paid for by each individual state,
> like highway construction, and social services, etc. It's not like the
> federal government would suddenly go bankrupt; I'm sure they have lots of
> other sources of income.

Yep; as long as they have the printing presses running, they can make all the
money they want to buy whatever they want. :-) Oh, and let's not forget
T-Bills, U.S. bonds of all types and all the other borrowing instruments the
Feds have available to them to generate a little pocket money.

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 11:43 am
From: Peter Bruells

watcher@moog.netaxs.com writes:

> In article <x3lri.264$rG7.75@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, Tockk wrote:
> >

> > Well, a lot of stuff would have to be paid for by each individual state,
> > like highway construction, and social services, etc. It's not like the
> > federal government would suddenly go bankrupt; I'm sure they have lots of
> > other sources of income.
>
> Yep; as long as they have the printing presses running, they can make all the
> money they want to buy whatever they want. :-)

Who would take that money?

> Oh, and let's not forget T-Bills, U.S. bonds of all types and all
> the other borrowing instruments the Feds have available to them to
> generate a little pocket money.

All these assume that the government is able to create *income* to pay
off the debt. Or would you lend money to someone who has no income
and spends the money you give him on automatic weapons, street lights
and gives it to charity? How do you think can he ever pay it back?

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 12:20 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)

In article <evlri.18311$GO6.5575@newsfe21.lga>, clams casino wrote:
>Chloe wrote:
>
>>Mull this over. What would happen if--legal or not--everyone suddenly quit
>>paying income tax?
>>
>Guess George would have to stop his war in Iraq (about 50-60% of Federal
>income goes to military / national security),

How do you get that figure? I have seen figures like that before, but
when I saw the calculations I saw such things as blaming national debt
interest entirely on past military spending and a suspiciously large chunk
of the Department of Energy's budget being claimed to be used for nuclear
weapons.

Not that I'm big on big defense spending, but those making claims easy
to shoot down do a disservice to their side.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 12:24 pm
From: "dfr"

Dennis <dgw80@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:12:51 -0400, clams casino
> <PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>
>> Dennis wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I understand what you're saying, but I have never understood what
>>> value is added to my tax money by having it leave my state, go to
>>> Washington DC and then come back to my state.
>>>
>>
>> Most of the money that gets returned to states (in the widely
>> published statistics) is for the military / homeland security.
>> States with a high military presence (bases, R&D contracts, etc)
>> tend to get more back from the government than they send to the
>> federal government.
>>
>> Next highest return is probably for schools & roads.
>
> So what is the value added by the round trip for this money?

The states which dont collect as much revenue are
supported by the states that collect more per head etc.

You'd have a problem with the 'poor' states being
able to collect enough taxation revenue otherwise.

And someone has to pay for some central functions like the defense system etc.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 2:34 pm
From: clams casino

dfr wrote:

>The states which dont collect as much revenue are
>supported by the states that collect more per head etc.
>
>You'd have a problem with the 'poor' states being
>able to collect enough taxation revenue otherwise.
>
>

In the case of defense (50-60% of the Federal budget) , states with a
high military presence should not have to fund that presence locally,
when in fact, it's for national defense. That should be funded equally
around the country. Most federal road money probably goes for the
building / maintenance of the interstate network which is also for the
benefit of all.

IMO, schools should be entirely funded by state & local taxes. I
don't see why CT / NJ, NY, etc tax payers should be subsidizing schools
in MS, KY, etc.

Then again, the states where complaining is highest against Federal
income taxes tend to be the states that receive the highest tax
subsidizes (Bush / red states vs, blue states).

http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/conference/Lacy-OSUConf.PDF

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 2:58 pm
From: "dfr"

clams casino <PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
> dfr wrote:
>
>> The states which dont collect as much revenue are
>> supported by the states that collect more per head etc.
>>
>> You'd have a problem with the 'poor' states being
>> able to collect enough taxation revenue otherwise.
>>
>>
>
> In the case of defense (50-60% of the Federal budget) ,

That claim is WAY out.

> states with a high military presence should not have to fund that presence locally, when in fact,
> it's for national defense. That should be funded equally around the country.

And that is what paying for it out of income tax does quite effectively.

> Most federal road money probably goes for the building / maintenance of the interstate network
> which is also for the benefit of all.

Thats harder to argue when some use it a lot more than others do.

> IMO, schools should be entirely funded by state & local taxes.

The problem with that approach is that the 'poor' states have
to slug their locals a lot more per head to fund it like that.

> I don't see why CT / NJ, NY, etc tax payers should be subsidizing schools in MS, KY, etc.

Essentiallly because states with a poor tax base cant afford to
provide the same education facilitys etc that the richer states can.

> Then again, the states where complaining is highest against Federal income taxes tend to be the
> states that receive the highest tax subsidizes (Bush / red states vs, blue states).

Sure, but thats an entirely separate question to what makes rational sense.

> http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/conference/Lacy-OSUConf.PDF

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ?? Why
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/51f43ffffb99ddf7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 11:32 am
From: James

On Jul 30, 11:52 am, Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 1:43 pm, Derald <der...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > do some folks seem to believe that the retail price of an item when new has some
> > relationship to its secondhand price?
>
> Yes. That's why I won't pay more than half of what the retail price
> was for a "used" item...and at garage sales less than half. But that
> only applies to relatively new items; obsolete technology, for
> example...you may have to pay me to take it. Forget that you paid
> $3G's for a laptop in 2000...it's work $50 or less now.

Thats a big point. Particularly with technology, the market drops with
every new improvement.

I see a lot of posters on craiglist or the forsale newsgroups trying
to get 2/3 of the retail price for 4 year old equipment.

Similarly I see people selling stuff thats just a few weeks old for
90%. They argue that since its used, I won't pay taxes and I will save
more. Well since I may not be able to use the warranty or exercise the
return priveleges that original buyer had, I think maybe the discount
should be a little higher.

I check prices with a store that sells refurbished computer equipment
and offers a 30 day warranty. If I buy used from a stranger, it has to
be much less that the refurbished with warranmty version would cost.

James

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 2:14 pm
From: Steve

Derald <derald@invalid.net> wrote:
>do some folks seem to believe that the retail price of an item when new has some
>relationship to its secondhand price?

It clearly doesn't. On ebay, stuff is routinely sold for more than
retail...

I have such poor vision I can date anybody.

...Garry Shandling

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 3:15 pm
From: "ChairMan"

In news:63lsa35ccqoscfq3e1f5ofagqo5998obkm@4ax.com,
Steve <dbn@whc.inv>spewed forth:
> Derald <derald@invalid.net> wrote:
>> do some folks seem to believe that the retail price of an item when
>> new has some relationship to its secondhand price?
>
> It clearly doesn't. On ebay, stuff is routinely sold for more than
> retail...

which brings us back to the original ?, WHY?<g>
Stupidity?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal Bicycle Thread
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/d41b1df9b2f5565b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 12:07 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)

In <Pine.OSX.4.64.0707301039130.29295@ucfilespace.uc.edu>, Zuke wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Skyblue wrote:
>
<EDIT FOR SPACE>
>> In the Book Divorce your Car, the Author describes in great detail the
>> enormous savings of using a bicycle as opposed to a Car, in the few
>> instances that a car is needed, one can rent a Can. This situation
>
>Like the few times it rains or dips below 40 degrees during the year?
>
>Stay tuned for my thread on how you can save money by never leaving
>your house.

I ride bikes just fine in temperatures well below freezing. I sometimes
even commute by bike when it rains, though sometimes I leave the bike at
work and take mass transit home and back in the next day if rain is in the
forecast.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How long to build a house from Craigslist "free" materials?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/009019a2521ac2e0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 12:19 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I've been pondering this recently. I'm just wondering...let's say
> you inherited an acre of land, free and clear. Presuming it already
> has plumbing/sewer/electrical coming to it...how long it might take
> to build a house out of just craiglist 'free" items.

Impossible to say, how long depends on how fussy you are
about the house being built and what is discarded in your area.

> I often seen construction/remodel leftovers.

We often see old houses free for removal. It isnt that hard to shift
an entire house from one place to another when its timber framed.

> I just wish I had a free acre of land to test my idea.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 1:45 pm
From: "lee houston"

"Seerialmom" <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185811024.737064.209200@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> I've been pondering this recently. I'm just wondering...let's say you
> inherited an acre of land, free and clear. Presuming it already has
> plumbing/sewer/electrical coming to it...how long it might take to
> build a house out of just craiglist 'free" items. I often seen
> construction/remodel leftovers. I just wish I had a free acre of land
> to test my idea.

why not cut to the chase and presume the acre already has a
house on it? and cable tv, and natural gas, trash pickup,
and a swimming pool? And that your inheritance was in the
millions? If you're mentally masturbating, why
not aim higher? ;-)

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 2:58 pm
From: Al Bundy

On Jul 30, 11:57 am, Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've been pondering this recently. I'm just wondering...let's say you
> inherited an acre of land, free and clear. Presuming it already has
> plumbing/sewer/electrical coming to it...how long it might take to
> build a house out of just craiglist 'free" items. I often seen
> construction/remodel leftovers. I just wish I had a free acre of land
> to test my idea.

I like to dream too, unassisted by foreign substances.
I see all types of vehicle parts along the road. Some core items like
an engine would be difficult to acquire unless you found an abandoned
vehicle. I wonder if some supreme being could take a snapshot of the
world or country's inventory of road kill parts and assemble something
that resembled a vehicle. If he/she/it's a supreme being, they could
make the parts fit and even run, but that would be violating the rule
of my dream.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: College books are a SCAM!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/312c157bf4f70b4b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 12:32 pm
From: Brian Elfert

jes <jesmith100@msn.com> writes:

>Although I've heard of an industry racket that publishers year after
>year declare current textbooks obsolete, and it's imperative they be
>replaced.

I don't think they delcare books obsolete. They just put out a new
edition and don't print more of the old ones. The used book dealers
refuse to buy old editions so the professors really have no choice but to
use the new edition.

Brian Elfert

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Huh -- the Anti-IRS tax people actually won in court -- what now?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/877317972c660109?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 12:40 pm
From: "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"

<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:f8f5j2$728@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> Don Klipstein <don@manx.misty.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm sure that the "Internal Revenue Code" says we have to pay it. Try
>>getting a court to saw we don't have to obey the "Internal Revenue Code".
>
> One local guy has avoided paying taxes for many years by claiming
> the income tax was only intended for UNearned income, as with landlords
> and stockholders. He spends lots of time in law libraries.
>
> Nick

he's partially right. corporations, corporate officers, residents of d.c.,
employees
of the u.s. govt and business owners have to pay on earned income, as well.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Miniature Frozen Pizzas
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/f50f543cc0dc2653?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 1:06 pm
From: Sir Frederick

Any suggestions for relatively inexpensive
food purchases in the San Diego area.
Wholesale is of interest, especially miniature
frozen pizzas. I have been paying 50 cents
each in packs of 24, but my supplier quit providing
them.
Thanks.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How does one Reduce or Suspend thier Child Support
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ec155f2ae812643f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 1:24 pm
From: Abe

>> "The Child Support Battle" by John Christopher
>> Learn to Reduce or Suspend Child Support
>
>and if can't or won't support what you produce, keep it it your damn pants
>or STFU
>
I don't support the OPs spamming, but that aside, do you have any idea
of the absolute abuse some women put their former husbands through
when it comes to excessive child support? Women who have moved on to
land rich lifestyles, but continue to insist on large child suppport
payments, even though the father has no portion of custody or even
visitation?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 2:51 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Abe <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> "The Child Support Battle" by John Christopher
>>> Learn to Reduce or Suspend Child Support
>>
>> and if can't or won't support what you produce, keep it it your damn
>> pants or STFU
>>
> I don't support the OPs spamming, but that aside, do you have any idea
> of the absolute abuse some women put their former husbands through
> when it comes to excessive child support? Women who have moved on to
> land rich lifestyles, but continue to insist on large child suppport payments,
> even though the father has no portion of custody or even visitation?

They get to pay for their brats regardless. Why should anyone else pay for them ?

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 3:13 pm
From: "ChairMan"

tIn news:4vhsa39ubung0699g4v8121n2lncs2hhop@4ax.com,
Abe <noone@nowhere.com>spewed forth:
>>> "The Child Support Battle" by John Christopher
>>> Learn to Reduce or Suspend Child Support
>>
>> and if can't or won't support what you produce, keep it it your damn
>> pants or STFU
>>
> I don't support the OPs spamming, but that aside, do you have any idea
> of the absolute abuse some women put their former husbands through
> when it comes to excessive child support?

Yes I am, and there is just as many fathers that don't pay as much as they
should if anything at all.
My ex son in law for one.

> Women who have moved on to
> land rich lifestyles, but continue to insist on large child suppport
> payments, even though the father has no portion of custody or even
> visitation?

Then that's the fathers fault. It's a % of what the father makes here in
Tejas and if the father was stupid enough not to get at least visitation in
the final divorce, he's obviously not smart enough to have the kids for
visitation.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Swap
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/04984ce59b5c8fe3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 2:12 pm
From: clams casino

Phil wrote:

>Hey frugral users, want to swap anything for free
>
>

Posted via gmail / google groups using a UAL (United Air Lines)
network = OBVIOUS SCAM

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 3:07 pm
From: Al Bundy

On Jul 30, 11:26 am, Phil <phil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey frugral users, want to swap anything for free... the E-Bay style?
>
> The site is loaded with alot of things to swap for. You'll save alot
> of money.
>
It's a wonderful world Mr' Rodgers, but you ain't bumping off
Craigslist with this little ploy.
Most of the items are free at the curb where I live. The 3 MPX camera
is valued at $100 or about double what is available at Wal-Mart or
Meijers.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Say, what happened to...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/42c30428ffd84afe?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 2:49 pm
From: Rick

Gordon wrote:
>
> The frugal sex guy? I havn't seen him around here
> in a while. Did he finally get arrested??

He probably got bounced by his ISP for the tasteless, off topic posts,
assuming complaints were filed. (Unless he really was being more than an
*ss and actually did try to do some of that stuff.) He was posting for a
while in a.b.pictures.radio - on topic there and with the same name and
e-mail address - but suddenly disappeared from that group as well.

Rick

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What's a good Small Claim book
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5142ce9a64e0e08e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 3:04 pm
From: "www.Queensbridge.us"

On Jul 27, 5:29 pm, A Veteran <geor...@humboldt1.com> wrote:
> I know Nolo press has one. any better?
>
> --
> when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer.
> All problems look like nails.

In NYC the court itself used to give, upon request, a free booklet,
explaining what to do before and after court.

Contact ad ask your local jurisdiction.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Monday, July 30, 2007

25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

No comments: