From: Ohioguy on 8 Nov 2009 10:05
>and you don't beleive that that corporation will pass that cost on to
>you/us as consumers?
>You should put the crack pipe away
What cost? As I said, the upcoming and now delayed corporate tax
change would have ENCOURAGED companies to send jobs overseas and build
plants out of the country. Now that change will not occur for another 8
years. So there are no changes in the short term.
If you actually thought that we would benefit from lower prices,
think again. The main benefactor 8 years from now would be corporate
shareholders, at a cost to the US government.
From: Rod Speed on 8 Nov 2009 13:33
> As I said, the upcoming and now delayed corporate tax change would have ENCOURAGED companies to send jobs overseas and
> build plants out of the country.
Wont make any difference in practice, because they do
that because of the massive difference in labor costs.
> Now that change will not occur for another 8 years. So there are no changes in the short term.
And even you should have noticed that few low
cost consumer goods are made in the US anymore.
> If you actually thought that we would benefit from lower prices,
Corse we do.
> think again.
No need, I know we do.
> The main benefactor 8 years from now would be corporate shareholders,
Pig ignorant lie. The hordes that buy low priced consumer goods ALL benefit dramatically.
> at a cost to the US government.
From: "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" on 8 Nov 2009 14:01
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com>
> Ohioguy wrote:
> >> Having kids does not guarantee that they will help you.
> > I much prefer the Amish method in some ways. When the Amish parents get
> > old enough, their house goes to a child or
> > grandchild. (they typically have 6 or 7 kids) Then one of their kids
> > builds on an addition to their house, called the
> > "doddering house". The parents move in to spend their old age there.
> > While they are still able, they help with the
> > grandkids, chores around the house, etc. Later, their kids and grandkids
> > help take care of them. It also ensures
> > that family history and beliefs get passed down.
> No it doesnt. Hordes of them give up on that way of life instead.
> They're dying out.
That must be the australian Amish
Population Trends 1992-2008
Population. In the 16-year period from
1992 to 2008, the Amish of North America
show an overall estimated population
growth of 84 percent, increasing from
125,000 in 1992 to 231,000 in 2008.
(Figures include adults and children.)
This pattern of vigorous growth reflects
the group�s longer term trend of
doubling about every 20 years. See
Population Change 1992-2008 tables for
States. Amish communities appear in 27
states and the Canadian province of
Ontario. Over the 16-year period, six
new states (Arkansas, Colorado, Maine,
Mississippi, Nebraska, and West
Virginia) welcomed Amish residents.
However, the newcomer states have a
total of just 13 districts
(congregations)�less than 1 percent of
the total 1,710 districts in 2008.
Settlements. In the 16-year period, the
Amish show a net gain of 184 settlements
(geographical communities). This is an
increase of 81 percent, from 226
settlements in 1992 to 410 in 2008. New
settlements are typically small with a
few families in one congregation
(district). Older settlements such as
that in the Holmes County, Ohio, area
include over 200 districts. Larger
settlements may have several different
subgroups (affiliations), whereas
smaller settlements typically have just
Districts. The number of local districts
(congregations of 20 to 35 families)
grew from 929 to 1,710, an increase of
781 (84 percent) in the 16-year period.
See Population Change 1992-2008 summary
tables for details.
Big Three States. Historically, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Indiana have claimed
about two thirds of the North American
Amish population. Their share of the
Amish pie declined since 1992, from 69
percent to 63 percent in 2008. All three
of them (Ohio: 60 percent, Indiana: 72
percent, Pennsylvania: 73 percent) had a
lower rate of increase than the
state/provincial average of 84 percent.
High Growth States. Ten states enjoyed
increases over 100 percent in their
Amish population during the 16-year
period: Virginia (400 percent), Kentucky
(200 percent), Minnesota (156 percent),
New York (150 percent), Montana (150
percent), Kansas (140 percent), Illinois
(133 percent), Missouri (131 percent),
Wisconsin (117 percent), and Tennessee
(117 percent). All of these statewide
increases were above the
state/provincial average of 84 percent.
Slow Growth States. Several states had
sluggish growth, significantly below the
country-wide average of 85 percent:
Maryland (67 percent), Oklahoma (25
percent), and Delaware (13 percent).
Texas, with three districts in 1992,
dropped to one in 2008, a decline of 67
Reasons for Population Growth. The
primary forces driving the growth are
sizeable nuclear families (five or more
children on average) and an average
retention rate (Amish children who join
the church as young adults) of 85
percent or more. A few outsiders
occasionally join the Amish, but the
bulk of the growth is from within their
Reasons for New Settlement Growth. The
Amish establish new settlements in
states that already have Amish
communities as well as in �new� states
for a variety of reasons that may
include: 1) fertile farmland at
reasonable prices, 2) non-farm work in
specialized occupations, 3) rural
isolation that supports their
traditional, family-based lifestyle, 4)
social and physical environments
(climate, governments, services,
economy) conducive to their way of life,
5) proximity to family or other similar
Amish church groups, and sometimes to 5)
resolve church or leadership conflicts.
1. Population figures (which include
adults and children) are estimates
calculated by using a conservative
average of 135 people per church
district. The number of people per
district varies by region, community,
affiliation, and age of the district;
therefore, the actual number of people
in a specific district may be higher or
lower than the average used in these
tables. Population estimates are rounded
to the nearest 1,000.
2. The data includes all Amish groups
(Old Order and New Order) that use
horse-and-buggy transportation, but
excludes car-driving groups such as the
Beachy Amish and Amish Mennonites.
3. Stephen Scott, Young Center for
Anabaptist and Pietist Studies, gathered
and compiled the data.
Sources: For 1992 data, David Luthy in
Kraybill and Olshan, eds., The Amish
Struggle with Modernity (Hanover, NH:
University Press of New England, 1994),
243-259. For 2008 data, The Young Center
for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies.
To cite this page: �Amish Population
Growth 1992-2008 Highlights.� Young
Center for Anabaptist and Pietist
Studies, Elizabethtown College.
Save This Page
> > Plus, there are no huge health care bills for a nursing home, and no
> > expectations for sending people away when they
> > become a burden.
> It doesnt always work out like that.
> > The parents took care of the kids when they had to be fed all the time, had
> > to have diapers
> > changed, and all of that. The roles reverse when the parents need those
> > same things later on.
> It doesnt always work out like that.
> In spades with the hordes that decide that the amish way of life is not for
From: Les Cargill on 8 Nov 2009 14:47
> > You really don't mind that your perceived windfall is someone
> >else's money?
> Nope. The money in question - that being used to fund the new $6,500
> home tax credit - comes not from anyone's personal income taxes.
> Instead, it comes from pushing back a change in corporate taxes that was
> supposed to take effect next year, and pushing back that change another
> 8 years or so.
> In other words, the bill was supposed to make it so that companies
> that had moved facilities overseas, and were paying taxes there and
> here, were able to deduct the taxes they paid to foreign governments,
> and lessen their corporate US taxes. Instead, they won't be able to
> take that deduction for another several years, and will continue paying
> the same US tax rate they have been for now.
> I don't see it as such a bad thing, because it lessens the benefits of
> building a plant elsewhere or sending jobs overseas for a while longer.
But that cost will be passed on in the price of goods. Sure, this is
a "hall of mirrors" of subsidies, but that's the net effect of this
And the overseas plant is so incredibly subsidized already....
From: Napoleon on 8 Nov 2009 20:05
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:17:59 -0500, Ohioguy <none(a)none.net> wrote:
> The child tax credit is designed to encourage people to have kids.
>Although kids do take up resources in the short term, they also become
Hey OGuy, I thought you were against govt interference in your life?
You know, socialized medicine and all that. But you're willing to suck
at the teat of the govt for the tax credit? Seems a little
No matter, the crappy health bill passed the house. Let's hope it's SO
BAD, that we can get real socialized medicine here someday. It
certainly would be more useful than a child tax credit. At least
socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have kids.