Tipping in USA/Canada

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


Craig Welch wrote:


Greg Procter wrote:



A small lesson in the english language:
- If you wish to indicate an abreviation you write it in a form like
'o.f.a.c.' The full stops indicate abreviations.

Why then do you refer to New Zealand as NZ instead of n.z.?


It's a name and therefore gets capital letters.

You often write it without capital letters.



I'm lazy.

And stupid.


Yeah, I am exchanging posts with you!

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

Craig Welch wrote:

Mr. Travel wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

No, the law cannot apply _in_ other countries.

If the action is committed in another country, the law could still
apply. The action taken against the violator would probably wait until
they are back in the US, but the law APPLIES for the offense committed
in the other country. Maybe your dictionary doesn't have this word?

The best example is Taxation Law ... the IRS extends its reach to 'us
yanks' the world over, does it not?



I'm a New Zealander living in New Zealand - why would I know what the US
tax department does???
In New Zealand the NZIRS only concerns itself with wages or salaries
earned while the individual is resident in NZ.

US law concerns itself with the earnings of people in the US, as well as
the earnings of US Citizens and US Permanent Residents, inside and
outside of the US. There is a hefty exclusion of income, probably
90,000 USD by now, and there are also some credits for foreign taxes
paid. Additionally, IRS probably won't find out any income was earned.
However, that doesn't mean the law doesn't apply.


Any yank working outside the US is going to be paying taxes in the
source country - then the thieving yank government taxes them on already
taxed income - I feel sorry for you all!

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


Craig Welch wrote:


Greg Procter wrote:


Craig Welch wrote:


Greg Procter wrote:



But again I ask (as your answer had nothing to do with the subject),
given that you know nothing about me, on what basis can you claim to
have read more legislation that I?

On the basis that you continually make unfounded conclusions about me.

Which is of course no basis at all.

The only basis on which you could make that call would be that you knew
enough about me to make a reasonable assessment of how much legislation
I had read.

As you don't, you can't.

That's ok Craig, you've done the same sort of thing in regard to me,
numerous times. You're a prick - I just thought I try it to see what
it's like. It doesn't do anything for me even if it makes you cream your
nappies.

Huh?

Again I ask (as your answer had nothing to do with the subject), given
that you know nothing about me, on what basis can you claim to have read
more legislation that I?


On the basis that you don't know that an Act stands on it's own.

You have failed to point out the Act you have been referring to.

The restrictions on Cuba involves multiple things, not a single Act.


None of those "multiple things" can take away from the Act. They can
only add further restrictions.

Man, you are an idiot.


LOL, you think I'm the idiot! You stick with that thought.

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


"Imperial quart bottles".
The US uses "US quarts".

They are not the same measurement by a wide margin.

The US quart is 32 ounces
I believe the Imperial quart would be 40, since I think you said 20 oz
made a pint.


It was 1969!!! - I haven't had any use or connection with a "gallon"
since.
sheesh


So, how would this changed the context original question, which was
basically if I bought insert small quanity of a product, would it
always be better to buy it from the source?

I used "quart" as an example.
Surely you knew it meant a quarter of a gallon.



A "Quarter" was 8 "Bushels", or 32 "Pecks", or 64 "gallons".


Did quart mean something different than a quarter of a gallon?


It was pre-1969 - 39 years ago! Should I really remember that???
We may well have had "quart" milk bottles somewhere, sometime, before
that, but I never saw one.
I did see "pints" (the standard), "half-pints" (school milk and cream)
and "quarter-pints".(cream)

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


Craig Welch wrote:


Greg Procter wrote:


Craig Welch wrote:


Greg Procter wrote:



Craig Welch wrote:


I'm just trying to understand your bile directed towards the USA.

Ahh, I see!
I frequent this ng (antu) in an attempt to understand the US's bile,
violence and terrorist actions against the rest of the world.

You're not posting into any 'this' newsgroup, Greg. You're posting into
*two* newsgroups.

Did you not know that?

Sure - you obviously feel the need to direct my postings to
rec.travel.air but I don't download that ng. As such I don't see the
yank reactions to my postings there.

You really don't understand this Usenet thing, do you Greg.

*YOU* are posting to two newsgroups. *YOU* are sending posts out into
the ether with the following header:


Certainly I am knowingly posting to two newsgroups - the second purely
out of respect to you.


You KNOW this, but made the statement, you quoted above, about
"As such I don't see the yank reactions to my postings there."

Our reactions are being sent to both groups, why would you not see the
reaction?



You and Craig are the only yanks on rec.travel.air???

No, the conversation is on both newsgroups, not because you "Knowingly"
post to both, but because you reply and don't change the current settings.



You do eventually catch on - but it takes a _l_O_N_G_ time.

I don't download rec.travel.air so I don't know what goes on there.

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

Craig Welch wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


What would I care about your "Green Cards"???
I didn't bring "Green Cards" into the discussion, but I was asked my
opinion about them in regards to our discussion.

We were talking about the law regarding buying stuff from Cuba.
In that discussion, green card holder/permanent resident/resident alien
would be relevant.


Only if the hopeful buyer is a green card holder/permanent
resident/resident alien of the USa..
Given that Craig is presumably resident in Singapore, all those options
can almost certainly be discounted as applying to him.

Are you not aware that one can be a Permanent Resident of more than one
country?

It's not necessary for a Permanent Resident to permanently reside in the
country of permanent residence.



LOL - did you actually read what you wrote???

I understood it, didn't you.


There are numerous meanings I could take for it.



The problem is you are taking individual words out of a dictionary,
rather than using a legal or goverment defintion of the terms.

As we just recently found with "US Green Card", I may not understand
what you understand with any yank term. Remember I've been educated in
things yank by yank idiots!



It's like having "Leave To Remain" in the UK.
It's doesn't mean you can never leave.


Well, it makes sense in English.


If you have green card status in the US, you can live there.
You can live there and elsewhere.
You can live elsewhere, and not live in the US for a period of time, and
not lose your US immigration status if certain conditions are met.

It's not really difficult to look up, if you don't understand something,
intead of making comments about such status that don't match the truth.


Why would I look up something I don't want to know?

Craig Welch wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:
Craig Welch wrote:
Greg Procter wrote:
"Mr. Travel" wrote:
Greg Procter wrote:

What would I care about your "Green Cards"???
I didn't bring "Green Cards" into the discussion, but I was asked my
opinion about them in regards to our discussion.
We were talking about the law regarding buying stuff from Cuba.
In that discussion, green card holder/permanent resident/resident alien
would be relevant.

Only if the hopeful buyer is a green card holder/permanent
resident/resident alien of the USa..
Given that Craig is presumably resident in Singapore, all those options
can almost certainly be discounted as applying to him.
Are you not aware that one can be a Permanent Resident of more than one
country?

It's not necessary for a Permanent Resident to permanently reside in the
country of permanent residence.


LOL - did you actually read what you wrote???

Yes. I wrote: "It's not necessary for a Permanent Resident to
permanently reside in the country of permanent residence".

You really don't have a clue about this stuff, do you?


Very true, but you certainly make me laugh with your brainwashed
statements. :-)

If a person (whether or not a "Permanent Resident) isn't permanently
residing in the country of permanent residence, then he/she obviously
isn't a permanent resident in that country.
sheesh

Craig Welch wrote:

Mr. Travel wrote:
Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


What would I care about your "Green Cards"???
I didn't bring "Green Cards" into the discussion, but I was asked my
opinion about them in regards to our discussion.

We were talking about the law regarding buying stuff from Cuba.
In that discussion, green card holder/permanent resident/resident alien
would be relevant.



Only if the hopeful buyer is a green card holder/permanent
resident/resident alien of the USa..
Given that Craig is presumably resident in Singapore, all those options
can almost certainly be discounted as applying to him.

Again... and again..

A Green Card Holder/permanent resident/resident alien, does have to
remain in the US. So, Craig being in Singapore doesn't mean he isn't a
US Resident Alien.

Nor does it interfere with my British Right of Abode.

For someone whom Greg thought he was insulting by calling me 'Asian',
how am I doing?


Very badly, because your argument is based on a false premise.

Craig Welch wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:
Craig Welch wrote:
Greg Procter wrote:
Craig Welch wrote:
Greg Procter wrote:
"Mr. Travel" wrote:
Greg Procter wrote:

What would I care about your "Green Cards"???
I didn't bring "Green Cards" into the discussion, but I was asked my
opinion about them in regards to our discussion.
We were talking about the law regarding buying stuff from Cuba.
In that discussion, green card holder/permanent resident/resident alien
would be relevant.
Only if the hopeful buyer is a green card holder/permanent
resident/resident alien of the USa..
Given that Craig is presumably resident in Singapore, all those options
can almost certainly be discounted as applying to him.
Are you not aware that one can be a Permanent Resident of more than one
country?

It's not necessary for a Permanent Resident to permanently reside in the
country of permanent residence.

LOL - did you actually read what you wrote???
Yes. I wrote: "It's not necessary for a Permanent Resident to
permanently reside in the country of permanent residence".

You really don't have a clue about this stuff, do you?


Very true, but you certainly make me laugh with your brainwashed
statements. :-)

If a person (whether or not a "Permanent Resident) isn't permanently
residing in the country of permanent residence, then he/she obviously
isn't a permanent resident in that country.
sheesh

So what? You've tried to draw out a distinction between 'permanent
resident' and 'Permanent Resident', so allowing that distinction, read
the sentence again.


Yes, I've done that - you're effectively saying that a person can be a
permanent resident in two countries at once. That's obviously not
possible, and it has nothing at all to any distinction between the term
and the words.
Assuming equal time in each country and some travelling time between,
the person cannot be in either country for even half the year.

Craig Welch wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:
"Mr. Travel" wrote:
Greg Procter wrote:

Craig Welch wrote:

Mr. Travel wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

No, the law cannot apply _in_ other countries.
If the action is committed in another country, the law could still
apply. The action taken against the violator would probably wait until
they are back in the US, but the law APPLIES for the offense committed
in the other country. Maybe your dictionary doesn't have this word?
The best example is Taxation Law ... the IRS extends its reach to 'us
yanks' the world over, does it not?


I'm a New Zealander living in New Zealand - why would I know what the US
tax department does???
In New Zealand the NZIRS only concerns itself with wages or salaries
earned while the individual is resident in NZ.
US law concerns itself with the earnings of people in the US, as well as
the earnings of US Citizens and US Permanent Residents, inside and
outside of the US. There is a hefty exclusion of income, probably
90,000 USD by now, and there are also some credits for foreign taxes
paid. Additionally, IRS probably won't find out any income was earned.
However, that doesn't mean the law doesn't apply.


Any yank working outside the US is going to be paying taxes in the
source country - then the thieving yank government taxes them on already
taxed income - I feel sorry for you all!

So to add to the large (and seemingly growing) number of things you
don't understand ... you've never heard of tax treaties?

Of course I've heard of tax treaties.