On 4/15/2010 2:40 AM, Benji Z-Man wrote:
> On 15/04/10 15:21, Damaeus wrote:
>> In news:rec.food.cooking, Benji > posted on Wed,
>> 14 Apr 2010 18:58:27 GMT the following:
>>
>>> On 15/04/10 03:46, Damaeus wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, remember the F.B.I. stickers? Female Body Inspector?
>>>
>>> Heh. My primary school used to do that - female teachers would take
>>> female students suspected of "inappropriate dressing standards" aside
>>> for an inspection.
>>
>> In primary school? Like for kindergarten and first-graders? LOL!
>>
>> "Sorry, Missy," said the teacher. "Your mom dressed you too much like a
>> slut today. You'll have to take those clothes off and put these on, right
>> now."
>
> Heh, more the 7th-year students; and it'd be to check to make sure
> they're wearing underwear. Heavens know why, honestly, that they'd care.
>
>>> Used to be something the boys would all snicker about to incredible
>>> depths...
>>
>> One year in high school, I think at Halloween, the older brother of a
>> friend of mine went to school dressed up as an indian, and all he wore
>> was
>> a loincloth. The principal made him go home and change.
>
> Hee =)

I'm reminded of the time that the high school principal announced a new
dress code--girls would no longer be allowed to wear slacks, culottes,
shorts, or anything else except skirts. The reason he gave was that
girls in the front row were sitting with their legs open and it was
distracting the male teachers. Like sitting in the front row with their
legs open in a skirt wouldn't.

What all of us, as students, wondered about was why anybody who couldn't
concentrate when confronted by a girl in pants was allowed to be a teacher.

In news:rec.food.cooking, "J. Clarke" > posted on
Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:00:54 -0400 the following:

> While I agree that it's crazy to expect every person to know all 20 or
> so feet of shelf space of the US Code, Code of Federal Regulations, and
> state and local laws, we are not talking about some obscure subsection,
> we're talking about the sales tax, which _any_ retail business should
> understand.

I was talking about something as harmless as eating a cookie. Good grief.
"You can't eat that cookie here. You didn't pay the right amount of tax
on it."

That's as bad as, "You can't use the restroom here. You didn't buy
anything."

"Okay, I'll go shit on the parking lot."

Damaeus
--
"Marijuana inflames the erotic impulses and leads to revolting sex
crimes"
-Daily Mirror (1924)

In news:rec.food.cooking, "J. Clarke" > posted on
Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:05:11 -0400 the following:

> I'm reminded of the time that the high school principal announced a new
> dress code--girls would no longer be allowed to wear slacks, culottes,
> shorts, or anything else except skirts. The reason he gave was that
> girls in the front row were sitting with their legs open and it was
> distracting the male teachers. Like sitting in the front row with their
> legs open in a skirt wouldn't.

I've always wondered about the whole deal about women and skirts. As I
see it, some skanky man who doesn't want to be impeded nor inconvenienced
by having to pull a pair of pants out of the way might be inclined to
insist that his wife wear skirts so it can just be flipped over her waist
and she can be taken from behind more immediately.

Pentecostal churches are like that. Their women are only allowed to wear
skirts. What kind of scandal do they have going on?

If anything, men should have to wear skirts so their bulges won't make
such obvious outlines in their pants. Women could wear the pants and that
would help protect them from rapists.

Damaeus
--
"Marijuana inflames the erotic impulses and leads to revolting sex
crimes"
-Daily Mirror (1924)

In article >,
"J. Clarke" > wrote:


> If you want to run a business and stay in business then you will enforce
> the sales tax. It's that simple.

Hah! It's actually even simpler than that. After I read this
discussion yesterday, I looked up a simple FAQ from the California BOE
(Board of Equalization, the government agency that collects sales tax).
They don't care whether the seller collects sales tax or not. It's
completely optional. The buyer doesn't owe any sales tax to the BOE.
The SELLER owes the sales tax:

http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/faqpurch.htm

"Although you are required to pay and report sales taxes to the Board,
you may be reimbursed by your customer for the amount of tax you owe on
a sale. For example, if you are required to pay $1.75 in sales tax on a
sale, you may pass that cost on to your customer, provided it is agreed
to as part of the sale."

> we're talking about the sales tax, which _any_ retail business should
> understand.

We have a cheese factory outside of town. We've been going there for
decades. They have a little store there, where they mostly sell cheese,
but they also sell bread, crackers, wine etc. You buy your stuff, they
put it in a bag, and you leave the store. Most people leave the cheese
factory at that point. There are old grungy picnic tables, and it's a
pretty place, so some people eat there. For about three months, before
they would ring up your sale, they would ask if you were going to eat
your stuff on their property, at which point they would charge sales
tax. If you said no, then you didn't get charged. I always said no.
Half the time we hadn't even decided whether to eat it there or take it.
They must have gotten nailed by the BOE.

I got nailed by the BOE, for US$75,000. It wasn't me personally, but
still, that signaled the end of the food coop, for which I was the
treasurer and on the board of directors. Despite the fact that the
people who ran this coop, which had almost a thousand members and gross
sales of about US$1.5 million a year, had decades of experience running
food coops in California, we were all blindsided by this.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 4/15/2010 12:01 PM, Damaeus wrote:
> In news:rec.food.cooking, "J. > posted on
> Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:00:54 -0400 the following:
>
>> While I agree that it's crazy to expect every person to know all 20 or
>> so feet of shelf space of the US Code, Code of Federal Regulations, and
>> state and local laws, we are not talking about some obscure subsection,
>> we're talking about the sales tax, which _any_ retail business should
>> understand.
>
> I was talking about something as harmless as eating a cookie. Good grief.
> "You can't eat that cookie here. You didn't pay the right amount of tax
> on it."

Not paying the penny on a dime candy seems "harmless" too, but tax
collectors don't see it that way. If you have a problem with that take
it up with the tax collectors. Expect to be boned up the
^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H audited.

> That's as bad as, "You can't use the restroom here. You didn't buy
> anything."
>
> "Okay, I'll go shit on the parking lot."

For which you'll be arrested on a plethora of charges.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:22:29 GMT, Benji Z-Man wrote:

> On 15/04/10 08:20, blake murphy wrote:
>> yes, but he made it sound like the u.s. was crawling with tax people doing
>> sting operations on grocery stores with cafés. not that i've heard of.
>
> Hmm. Well, I know that our local equivalent of your ATF enforcement will
> routinely send "undercover investigators" to pubs to make sure that
> things are being done properly. Having worked in security, I'd see one
> about every other month - and the first notice sometimes (not always,
> sometimes they were ****ing obvious) would be their flashing their
> official papers to inspect the office areas under escort.
>
> I could imagine the ATO (IRS: Oz) doing the same thing for that.

but that's more alcohol control (i.e., no service to minors and the like)
than tax enforcement.

your pal,
blake

On 16/04/10 07:44, blake murphy wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:22:29 GMT, Benji Z-Man wrote:
>
>> On 15/04/10 08:20, blake murphy wrote:
>>> yes, but he made it sound like the u.s. was crawling with tax people doing
>>> sting operations on grocery stores with cafés. not that i've heard of.
>>
>> Hmm. Well, I know that our local equivalent of your ATF enforcement will
>> routinely send "undercover investigators" to pubs to make sure that
>> things are being done properly. Having worked in security, I'd see one
>> about every other month - and the first notice sometimes (not always,
>> sometimes they were ****ing obvious) would be their flashing their
>> official papers to inspect the office areas under escort.
>>
>> I could imagine the ATO (IRS: Oz) doing the same thing for that.
>
> but that's more alcohol control (i.e., no service to minors and the like)
> than tax enforcement.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Heh, helluva lot more than alcohol service. Safety standards, number of
employees being applied to different areas, that there's appropriate
lighting...

.... that the booze on shelf is within acceptable prices, and of
appropriate qualities (ie; no homebrew being marked as premium, etc)

The amount that they check sometimes makes me feel as though the ATO
would be happy to do the same. Just randomly rock up and go "So! Let's
see your books, shall we?"

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:22:29 GMT, Benji Z-Man wrote:
>
> > On 15/04/10 08:20, blake murphy wrote:
> >> yes, but he made it sound like the u.s. was crawling with tax people doing
> >> sting operations on grocery stores with cafés. not that i've heard of.
> >
> > Hmm. Well, I know that our local equivalent of your ATF enforcement will
> > routinely send "undercover investigators" to pubs to make sure that
> > things are being done properly.

> > I could imagine the ATO (IRS: Oz) doing the same thing for that.
>
> but that's more alcohol control (i.e., no service to minors and the like)
> than tax enforcement.

Well, you're both wrong!

:-)

In the US, the IRS does federal tax. The kind of stuff in grocery
stores has to do with state laws, so each state has its own enforcement
people.

Similarly, each state has laws about age for drinking alcohol, so each
state has their own enforcement people. They aren't going to deal with
taxes in bars, because the alcohol taxes get collected before that
point. The ATF is federal, and does deal with federal alcohol taxes,
which are very high for distilled spirits.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 16/04/10 09:17, Dan Abel wrote:
> In > ,
> blake > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:22:29 GMT, Benji Z-Man wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/04/10 08:20, blake murphy wrote:
>>>> yes, but he made it sound like the u.s. was crawling with tax people doing
>>>> sting operations on grocery stores with cafés. not that i've heard of.
>>>
>>> Hmm. Well, I know that our local equivalent of your ATF enforcement will
>>> routinely send "undercover investigators" to pubs to make sure that
>>> things are being done properly.
>
>>> I could imagine the ATO (IRS: Oz) doing the same thing for that.
>>
>> but that's more alcohol control (i.e., no service to minors and the like)
>> than tax enforcement.
>
> Well, you're both wrong!
>
> :-)
>
> In the US, the IRS does federal tax. The kind of stuff in grocery
> stores has to do with state laws, so each state has its own enforcement
> people.
>
> Similarly, each state has laws about age for drinking alcohol, so each
> state has their own enforcement people. They aren't going to deal with
> taxes in bars, because the alcohol taxes get collected before that
> point. The ATF is federal, and does deal with federal alcohol taxes,
> which are very high for distilled spirits.

Dan. Read up before your next post, plox.

Hello friends

Violent crime in England and Wales is continuing to rise, while detection rates by police officers are falling.
Home Office figures unveiled on Thursday showed violent crimes increased by 4.3% in the 12 months ending in March, but 31 of the 43 police forces solved fewer cases.There are no quick wins on crime - it is a long term investment
The Home Office says that despite rising crime figures, the rate of the rise is slowing.
But a number of police chiefs have blamed a change in government crime policies for the "soaring" statistics, saying the public would be "unnerved" by the latest findings.

Thanks for all friends