joefromchicago wrote:Setanta wrote:I believe, Mr. Mayor, that it is an immutable law of the universe that Irish-American candidates in Chicago never lose . . .
True dat.
Thus ever has it been, thus ever shall it be.
Oh whatever. I hope Timberlandko that you do not mind I borrowed the website you gave to Ticomaya and posted it. I would have asked you prior, but did not know where you were. I really like it. It is sad, but someone needs to remember. Anyway sorry for the interruption and I hope you don't mind.
Go back to arguing about the validity of taxes. How many more pages can you talk about and to think what guys say about women and talking.
OCCOM BILL wrote:parados wrote:In light of all your research Bill, please explain why this is correct..
Quote:The issue is actually quite simple. A direct tax is direct. The tax falls directly on the person or the thing taxed. The one who is obligated to pay such a tax is not in a position to shift it to another.
On the contrary, an indirect tax may either be avoided or shifted to another. A trucking company shifts the excise tax on fuel to the customer who ships his product by way of the trucking company. The excise tax on cigarette is avoided by choosing not to smoke. How is the wage earner going to shift the taxes deducted out of his paycheck to another? He can't. Therefore the tax imposed directly by the government on the wage earner is a direct tax. A direct tax is direct.
Perhaps you'd be good enough to show me how it's incorrect. It certainly appears logical, does it not?
It might appear logical if you ignore every ruling on the meaning of "direct"
In Pollock the judges cite this from Hamilton
Quote:'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes; taxes on lands and buildings; general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'
And this was considered the opinion of Madison
Quote:A tax upon one's whole income is a tax upon the annual receipts from his whole property, and as such falls within the same class as a tax upon that property, and is a direct tax, in the meaning of the constitution.
These thoughts by Madison and Hamilton were the basis for the reasoning in Pollock where they stated that a tax on the entire income is a tax on the property and as such becomes a direct tax. I can find no legal or constitutional basis to say that "direct tax" in the constituiton refers to a tax that can't be shifted. You have provided none other than to claim an argument without any basis "appears logical."
Quote:
And precisely how do you interpret "century of error" in regards to Hylton to Pollock?
The same way Findlaw does. Which is not the way you interpreted it. You stated they found Hylton was in error on ruling a carriage tax was constitutional. That would be a nonexistent fact in spite of your claim you got it from Findlaw. Pollock ruled that a tax on all income from property was the same as a tax on property. They certainly did not rule that a tax on a single piece of property was unconstitutional. They found no conflict with their reasoning and Hylton since the carriage tax was essentially ruled an excise tax. What Pollock overturned was the opinion of 2 of the judges in Hylton that a direct tax had to be on property itself. Pollock broadened the definition to include income from that property. The 16th amendment was passed to restrict the definition back to just property and upheld in Brushaber as doing just that.
Quote:
I see you're still reaching to paint me with charge I proved you guilty of... still without merit... still without admitting your obvious error...
Bill, Perhaps you missed this..
Quote:I was parphrasing Brushaber where it says..
Quote:
that in any event the class of direct taxes included only taxes directly levied on real estate because of its ownership.
When you go read the rulings in Hylton they include capitation and property.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=88080&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=150
Quote:and amazingly still thinking you're being clever in the process. Is incite really that much more fun than insight?
I could never be as clever as you think you are Bill.
I am sure I am correct when I say, at no time has Bill agreed with any tax evasion scheme, only the right to discuss, test and debate the points raised. If free speech is to be derided, so be it, spend your life in servitude. For those who want to be free remember:
"The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law."
~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819. "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb, vol. 15, p. 213 (1904).
One dark night outside a small town, a fire started inside the local chemical plant. Before long it exploded into flames and an alarm went out to fire departments from miles around.
After fighting the fire for over an hour, the chemical company president approached the fire chief and said, "All of our secret formulas are in the vault in the center of the plant. They must be saved! I will give $50,000 to the engine company that brings them out safely!"
As soon as the chief heard this, he ordered the firemen to strengthen their attack on the blaze. After two more hours of attacking the fire, the president of the company offered $100,000 to the engine company that could bring out the company's secret files.
From the distance a long siren was heard and another fire truck came into sight. It was a local volunteer fire company composed entirely of elderly men. To everyone's amazement the little fire engine raced through the Chemical plant gates and drove straight into the middle of the inferno. In the distance the other firemen watched as the old timers hopped off of their rig and began to fight the fire with an effort that they had never seen before.
After an hour of intense fighting the volunteer company had extinguished the fire and saved the secret formulas. Joyous, the chemical company president announced that he would double the reward to $200,000 and walked over to personally thank each of the volunteers. After thanking each of the old men individually, the president asked the group what they intended to do with the reward money.
The fire truck driver looked him right in the eye and said, "The first thing we're going to do is fix the dang brakes on that truck!"
Good luck Timber!
"Humor is the great thing, the saving thing. The minute it crops up, all our irritations and resentments slip away and a sunny spirit takes their place."
Mark Twain (pseud. of Samuel Langhorne Clemens) US humorist, novelist, short story author, & wit. (1835 - 1910)
tryingtohelp wrote:Ticomaya wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Since you have the backing of A2K's favorite attorney Joefromchicago, ....
Hold on ..... did we have a vote on this?
No, but I vote you are nice Ticomaya and Setanta should be.
Sorry Tico; the A2K scales are more heavily weighted on the left, so I suspect my assumption is accurate. But, I agree with TTH 100% including, but not limited to, her brilliant articulation. :wink:
I still say Madison had it right, and the courts have steadfastly ignored the facts out of necessity and self sustenance. Imagine the ramifications if they were to ever seriously entertain the possibility of the Income Tax being the Direct Tax that it is.
Why has my point about the $600 threshold being either a grave error or suspicious plot to dupe the American Public being ignored? Clearly this was a provision to protect the everyday worker with results that are 180 degrees from Congress's supposed intention. Is it not the SC's job to interpret Congress's intention
and if so, why hasn't this obvious shortcoming been addressed? Am I to believe that the SC's refusal to review it is synonymous to it not having been objected to? (Like Justice White in Brushaber pretending that no one had questioned the constitutionality of the Income Tax other than in Pollock, which is flat out false).
Does anyone here believe that talk of scraping the Income Tax System in favor of an alternative (like a National Sales Tax for instance) has any possibility of being passed into law? For as long as the Balanced Budget Amendment remains absent, can anyone honestly assert the will of the people have control over the fiscal actions of our government?
OCCOM BILL wrote:tryingtohelp wrote:Ticomaya wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Since you have the backing of A2K's favorite attorney Joefromchicago, ....
Hold on ..... did we have a vote on this?
No, but I vote you are nice Ticomaya and Setanta should be.
Sorry Tico; the A2K scales are more heavily weighted on the left, so I suspect my assumption is accurate. But, I agree with TTH 100% including, but not limited to, her brilliant articulation. :wink:
I still say Madison had it right, and the courts have steadfastly ignored the facts out of necessity and self sustenance. Imagine the ramifications if they were to ever seriously entertain the possibility of the Income Tax being the Direct Tax that it is.
Why has my point about the $600 threshold being either a grave error or suspicious plot to dupe the American Public being ignored? Clearly this was a provision to protect the everyday worker with results that are 180 degrees from Congress's supposed intention. Is it not the SC's job to interpret Congress's intention
and if so, why hasn't this obvious shortcoming been addressed? Am I to believe that the SC's refusal to review it is synonymous to it not having been objected to? (Like Justice White in Brushaber pretending that no one had questioned the constitutionality of the Income Tax other than in Pollock, which is flat out false).
I ignored the $600 threshold because it had no relevence to the argument of direct vs indirect. The $600 threshold and the lumping of all income into one pot is interesting in that it is in direct opposition to the argument that we should lower taxes on capital gains. The point as you noted was to "tax the rich." The tax was repealed. It didn't exist after 1872 so there was no reason to rule on its desire to tax the rich.
I don't believe White was pretending. The only case he had to deal with where the income tax was declared unconstititional was Pollock. That was the only case that needed to be overturned. All other cases upheld the income tax or declared such a tax an indirect one so they would have supported the argument that it is constitutional. White cited several of those cases in his argument.
Quote:
Does anyone here believe that talk of scraping the Income Tax System in favor of an alternative (like a National Sales Tax for instance) has any possibility of being passed into law?
Good things and bad things about a national sales tax.
Good thing - tax on consumption. It rewards people that save
Bad thing - tax on consumption. It drives consumption down hurting the economy.
Good thing - It scraps the convoluted Income tax system which people often cheat on.
Bad thing It will create an underground economy so people can cheat the tax system.
Quote: For as long as the Balanced Budget Amendment remains absent, can anyone honestly assert the will of the people have control over the fiscal actions of our government?
I don't know that a Balanced budget amendment will give us any more control. Imagine if such a budget amendment had been in place prior to the invasion of Iraq. Taxes would have had to increase dramatically for the invasion. Bush would have had to budget the war. The administration claims that the reconstruction would be paid for by oil revenues would have meant they probably would have badly under budgeted. We would have seen emergency surtaxes to support the war. You think people don't like it now. What if you were seeing $2000 a year added to your tax bill to pay for it? The balanced budget idea is nice but it would require exceptions for emergencies. Everything would become an emergency. Just look at all the pork thrown into the supplemental off budget military spending bills.
oh,
And thanks for the joke Tryagain. I enjoyed it.
parados wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Why has my point about the $600 threshold being either a grave error or suspicious plot to dupe the American Public being ignored? Clearly this was a provision to protect the everyday worker with results that are 180 degrees from Congress's supposed intention. Is it not the SC's job to interpret Congress's intention
and if so, why hasn't this obvious shortcoming been addressed? Am I to believe that the SC's refusal to review it is synonymous to it not having been objected to? (Like Justice White in Brushaber pretending that no one had questioned the constitutionality of the Income Tax other than in Pollock, which is flat out false).
I ignored the $600 threshold because it had no relevence to the argument of direct vs indirect. The $600 threshold and the lumping of all income into one pot is interesting in that it is in direct opposition to the argument that we should lower taxes on capital gains. The point as you noted was to "tax the rich." The tax was repealed. It didn't exist after 1872 so there was no reason to rule on its desire to tax the rich.
Perhaps, but White made quite a thing about it being unchallenged as if the SC's failure to hear it meant it was universally considered AOK... when this isn't simply isn't so. The new laws included this same error, or sneaky method circumventing public objection as well. Once one considers the affect of the Federal Reserve (which isn't Federal and has no reserve), is it unfair to say the public was sold a bill of goods... to the extent they were consulted at all?
parados wrote:I don't believe White was pretending. The only case he had to deal with where the income tax was declared unconstititional was Pollock. That was the only case that needed to be overturned. All other cases upheld the income tax or declared such a tax an indirect one so they would have supported the argument that it is constitutional. White cited several of those cases in his argument.
Yes, but:
[URL=http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/irs%20commissioner%20letter%20on%20income%20tax%201871.pdf]In 1871, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue[/URL] wrote:There is some question as to its constitutionality, but as to that I express no opinion.
Clearly, there was some question over it, but it was repealed before the court ever
chose to address it. White claimed it had NEVER been questioned, which simply isn't true.
parados wrote:Quote:
Does anyone here believe that talk of scraping the Income Tax System in favor of an alternative (like a National Sales Tax for instance) has any possibility of being passed into law?
Good things and bad things about a national sales tax.
Good thing - tax on consumption. It rewards people that save
Bad thing - tax on consumption. It drives consumption down hurting the economy.
Good thing - It scraps the convoluted Income tax system which people often cheat on.
Bad thing It will create an underground economy so people can cheat the tax system.
I don't believe consumption would be dramatically affected by increased sales tax. Contrarily, I think overall revenues would increase because Americans in general are lousy savers. Cheaters, IMO would be more than offset by the collection of taxes from illicit Income that currently goes unreported. Marijuana, for instance, is by far America's biggest cash crop... and dealers like TVs, Stereos, and boats as much as the next guy.
parados wrote:Quote: For as long as the Balanced Budget Amendment remains absent, can anyone honestly assert the will of the people have control over the fiscal actions of our government?
I don't know that a Balanced budget amendment will give us any more control. Imagine if such a budget amendment had been in place prior to the invasion of Iraq. Taxes would have had to increase dramatically for the invasion. Bush would have had to budget the war. The administration claims that the reconstruction would be paid for by oil revenues would have meant they probably would have badly under budgeted. We would have seen emergency surtaxes to support the war. You think people don't like it now. What if you were seeing $2000 a year added to your tax bill to pay for it? The balanced budget idea is nice but it would require exceptions for emergencies. Everything would become an emergency. Just look at all the pork thrown into the supplemental off budget military spending bills.
All true, except this money is getting paid eventually anyway. Should it be our expense; or our grandchildren's burden to pay it with interest? Oh, and I wasn't suggesting the amendment would
give us any control; I was suggesting it would mean we had some... which earlier you alleged we do.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Yes, but:
[URL=http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/irs%20commissioner%20letter%20on%20income%20tax%201871.pdf]In 1871, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue[/URL] wrote:There is some question as to its constitutionality, but as to that I express no opinion.
Clearly, there was some question over it, but it was repealed before the court ever
chose to address it. White claimed it had NEVER been questioned, which simply isn't true.
But the USSC did hear the case in 1881 and expressed the opinion, that the income tax in 1865 later repealed in 1872, was constituitonal.
Springer v US
What White says in Brushaber is
Quote:That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine. And it has also never [240 U.S. 1, 13] been questioned from the foundation, without stopping presently to determine under which of the separate headings the power was properly to be classed, that there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes. Again, it has never moreover been questioned that the conceded complete and all-embracing taxing power was subject, so far as they were respectively applicable, to limitations resulting from the requirements of art. 1, 8, cl. 1, that 'all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,' and to the limitations of art I., 2, cl. 3, that 'direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states,' and of art 1, 9, cl. 4, that 'no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.'
White says it has never been questioned that an income tax is included in the taxation possibilities. That has never been questioned. What has been questioned is which part of the limitations is it included under. Is it an excise or a direct tax? If it were to be a direct tax it would still be constitutionally permited as long as it was in proportion to the census.
Quote:
parados wrote:Quote:
Does anyone here believe that talk of scraping the Income Tax System in favor of an alternative (like a National Sales Tax for instance) has any possibility of being passed into law?
Good things and bad things about a national sales tax.
Good thing - tax on consumption. It rewards people that save
Bad thing - tax on consumption. It drives consumption down hurting the economy.
Good thing - It scraps the convoluted Income tax system which people often cheat on.
Bad thing It will create an underground economy so people can cheat the tax system.
I don't believe consumption would be dramatically affected by increased sales tax. Contrarily, I think overall revenues would increase because Americans in general are lousy savers. Cheaters, IMO would be more than offset by the collection of taxes from illicit Income that currently goes unreported. Marijuana, for instance, is by far America's biggest cash crop... and dealers like TVs, Stereos, and boats as much as the next guy.
It might seem that way until you look at the 22% tax rate probably required under the sales tax. People complain about the 6-8% state sales tax. People would be looking at that extra 30% every time they bought something. It would probably change buying habits. People might eventually forget about it or become used to it but that first shock is going to last for a while.
Quote:
parados wrote:Quote: For as long as the Balanced Budget Amendment remains absent, can anyone honestly assert the will of the people have control over the fiscal actions of our government?
I don't know that a Balanced budget amendment will give us any more control. Imagine if such a budget amendment had been in place prior to the invasion of Iraq. Taxes would have had to increase dramatically for the invasion. Bush would have had to budget the war. The administration claims that the reconstruction would be paid for by oil revenues would have meant they probably would have badly under budgeted. We would have seen emergency surtaxes to support the war. You think people don't like it now. What if you were seeing $2000 a year added to your tax bill to pay for it? The balanced budget idea is nice but it would require exceptions for emergencies. Everything would become an emergency. Just look at all the pork thrown into the supplemental off budget military spending bills.
All true, except this money is getting paid eventually anyway. Should it be our expense; or our grandchildren's burden to pay it with interest?
Yeah, but it is so much easier to pretend we don't have to pay it back. It will just mysteriously go away when the economy grows. I agree we should pay as we go. I just don't think a balanced budget amendment will change anything about spending. It will just give the Congress and President the opportunity to call the annual budget an "emergency." No one can be against emergency spending, can they?
Quote:Oh, and I wasn't suggesting the amendment would give us any control; I was suggesting it would mean we had some... which earlier you alleged we do.
Our control wouldn't change. It would still be the election every 2 years. The problem is that there are too many other issues that people see as more important so they are willing to look past the budget shenanigans. I think Dys kind of hit it on the head when he said..
Quote:Okie, never will you or I ever represent the majority other than accidentally.
The balanced budget will only become a majority issue accidently. Both parties have run on that issue when they weren't in power. It will never on it's own draw enough people to create a third party capable of winning compared to the multitude of issues the 2 parties represent to their constituents. There are too many issues and too many narrow issue voters to break the hold the 2 party system presently has. Each party only has to define themselves for those 20-30 issues and demonize the other party to get 20-30 different groups to vote their way. It could well be that the movement of 2 or 3 groups of those voters is enough to tip an election one way or another.
parados wrote:Quote:Does anyone here believe that talk of scraping the Income Tax System in favor of an alternative (like a National Sales Tax for instance) has any possibility of being passed into law?
Good things and bad things about a national sales tax.
Good thing - tax on consumption. It rewards people that save
Bad thing - tax on consumption. It drives consumption down hurting the economy.
Good thing - It scraps the convoluted Income tax system which people often cheat on.
Bad thing It will create an underground economy so people can cheat the tax system.
I was surprised that you missed the most obvious objection to sales tax, or any other form of tax on consumption--they are regressive. A man who makes $500,000 per annum, who buys consumer goods which can be described as necessities (food, clothing, personal hygiene products), spending $5,000 per annum, and paying a 5% sales tax pays $250. A man who makes $25,000 per annum, and buys the same consumer goods which can be described as necessities, spending $5,000, and paying a sales tax of $250 has spent one percent of his income in sales tax--and has, proportionately, paid twenty times as much in sales tax. This is why, for example, many states exempt food from the sales tax; and very complex codes arise from that. In Ohio, for example, food eaten in a restaurant is taxed, but "take-away" food is not taxed, whether you pick up your dinner at a restaurant and take it home, or buy food at the market to prepare at home.
A simple, flat-rate sales tax will in many cases, and a good many people argue, in most cases, will be a regressive tax.
I don't think any national sales tax will come into being without an allowance for basic items. How they will do that is another difficulty.
Ultimately a sales tax could end up being as complicated as the present income tax with rebates and exclusions. Pity the poor people that sell items on ebay if a national sales tax comes into being.
As much as I hate to sound like a communist (:wink:), I favor a National Sales Tax, exempting food, Diapers, medicine and other necessities augmented by a massive, and I mean massive, DEATH TAX.
I know damn skippy I'd rather pay a larger portion of my burden after I'm croaked!
This system simultaneously encourages savings for those who need it, discourages it for those who don't, keeps the money flowing, and through it's inherent redistribution value insures that 'rags to riches' will continue to be an achievable dream for every American. It lowers the burden on everyone alive, which should create a windfall of opportunity and job-creation and the only losers are those who stand to inherit windfalls of unearned wealth. Poor, poor pitiful Paris is the only victim... but not really. The law should also include allowances for massive annual pre-death gifting at a much reduced Tax rate to encourage the rich to do their own redistributing earlier (and we all know how people who don't actually earn the money like to spend it) while simultaneously encouraging larger families for people of means (more gift recipients/ tax payers!). Rich kids get a little less money, but get it sooner, while everyone else just gets to pay less while they're alive. Hell, even the outside world benefits as a Sales Tax based system encourages out of country spending! Who loses?
Quote Tryingtohelp, AKA: TTH "I vote you are very, very nice Ticomaya"
Reply Ticomaya, AKA: Tico "Thank you, TTH. Do you want I mosey over to discuss your particulars?"
TTH, "You are very welcome, big guy"
Sheesh! You two, get a room why don't yah.
Wait! There's more; BILL AKA women keep coming on to me: "I agree with TTH 100% including, but not limited to, her brilliant articulation."
Dagnabit we got ourselves a manage a trois
Sound like a communist Bill? With a scheme like that you MUST be a communist..
I'm sure certain people will be along shortly to make sure you know you are.
Interesting plan there Bill - Savings for the poor and forced spending by the rich. If only the details could be all worked out and it was implemented.
Tryagain wrote:Wait! There's more; BILL AKA women keep coming on to me: "I agree with TTH 100% including, but not limited to, her brilliant articulation."
Come on Riddler; surely you of all people can read between the lines, hers and mine. :wink:
parados wrote: Sound like a communist Bill? With a scheme like that you MUST be a communist..
I'm sure certain people will be along shortly to make sure you know you are.
Nope
die hard capitalist. You don't see where the plan benefits me as well?
parados wrote: Interesting plan there Bill - Savings for the poor and forced spending by the rich. If only the details could be all worked out and it was implemented.
I'll be damned.
I said something you like?
What's to work out? Every decent cash register made in the last 20 years knows the difference between goods/pre-made food (taxed) and unmade food (untaxed). Software is always ready for another tax addition/separation (for ballparks and what not)
and we already have a Death Tax. Simply raise it, scrap the IRS and call it the most aggressively capitalistic, yet poverty sympathetic, system mankind has ever known! Imagine the growth potential of an America unhindered by business stifling Income taxes with a public with more cash in their collective pocket! Go ahead... try and poke holes. I triple dog dare ya! :cool:
(This is usually where people start ignoring me for being hopelessly idealistic :sad:)
OCCOM BILL wrote:Tryagain wrote:Wait! There's more; BILL AKA women keep coming on to me: "I agree with TTH 100% including, but not limited to, her brilliant articulation."
Come on Riddler; surely you of all people can read between the lines, hers and mine. :wink:
parados wrote: Sound like a communist Bill? With a scheme like that you MUST be a communist..
I'm sure certain people will be along shortly to make sure you know you are.
Nope
die hard capitalist. You don't see where the plan benefits me as well?
I do, but some communist paranoids on here wouldn't be able to.
Quote:
parados wrote: Interesting plan there Bill - Savings for the poor and forced spending by the rich. If only the details could be all worked out and it was implemented.
I'll be damned.
I said something you like?
What's to work out? Every decent cash register made in the last 20 years knows the difference between goods/pre-made food (taxed) and unmade food (untaxed). Software is always ready for another tax addition/separation (for ballparks and what not)
and we already have a Death Tax. Simply raise it, scrap the IRS and call it the most aggressively capitalistic, yet poverty sympathetic, system mankind has ever known! Imagine the growth potential of an America unhindered by business stifling Income taxes with a public with more cash in their collective pocket! Go ahead... try and poke holes. I triple dog dare ya! :cool:
(This is usually where people start ignoring me for being hopelessly idealistic :sad:)
Like all plans Bill, the devil is in the details. Is it a tax just on the end user or is it applied each time something changes hands? Is everything you sell at your garage sale taxable? How about on ebay? If you exempt anything it becomes a loophole to exploit. If you include everything it becomes a nightmare to administer.
Not all businesses use cash registers and cash is a nice incentive to cheat. You can pay 110% of the cost of the item with cash or 130% of the cost by paying taxes. There will always be those willing to flout the law. No matter what the tax is you will never lose the need for an agency to enforce the tax laws. You can change the name but you will still have a tax agency.
I came up with a more detailed plan, Parados, but it's too long and tangential anyway so I started a new thread
HERE.
OK, thanks Bill.
I'll check it out later today.
