"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


All in someone else's name of course.



A trust or a corporation do not constitute having something in
"someone
else's name."

A living trust simply presestablishes the future ownership of one's
assets
upon death, with the objective being the avoidance of probate and the
resultant delays and costs.

A corporation is not a person. It is a legal entity for an enterprise
that
shields the owners or shareholders from personal liability. There are
corporations that are 100% owned by one individual, where all shares
are
in
one name... and the shares are nominative.

And yet another moment to LMFAO!


In other words, you disagree with the need for living trusts and
shielding
personal assets through incorporation?

No, I'm LMFAO because you dodged the whole 'inverted jenny' thing...

I don't collect stamps, and could certainly not have more of the surviving
examples of an issue than have been sold in the last 5 years.

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


All in someone else's name of course.



A trust or a corporation do not constitute having something in
"someone
else's name."

A living trust simply presestablishes the future ownership of one's
assets
upon death, with the objective being the avoidance of probate and the
resultant delays and costs.

A corporation is not a person. It is a legal entity for an enterprise
that
shields the owners or shareholders from personal liability. There are
corporations that are 100% owned by one individual, where all shares
are
in
one name... and the shares are nominative.

And yet another moment to LMFAO!


In other words, you disagree with the need for living trusts and
shielding
personal assets through incorporation?

No, I'm LMFAO because you dodged the whole 'inverted jenny' thing...

I don't collect stamps, and could certainly not have more of the surviving
examples of an issue than have been sold in the last 5 years.

In other words, if you did collect stamps you'd find something to lie about!

On Jan 7, 2:37*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

...
On Jan 7, 11:42 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:





"Steve" wrote in message

...

Yes, but this doesn't imply that those with brokerage accounts
necessarily tell the truth 100% of the time. Even if you're only
trying to throw up a smoke screen here, you'll have to be more subtle
than this.

Investment accounts are subject to 1099 reporting. Any brokerage account
1099 will show distribution of dividends, long and short term capital
gains
and any other taxable transaction, with the data being transmitted to the
IRS electronically. I even have an account that I closed but which ended
up
with about $30 left sine some kind of dividend was in processing when I
closed the account and I get an annual 1099 for a couple of cents of
dividends and occasional capital gains of a dollar or two. I have to put
that on my tax return, too.

I can't see how anyone could hide income or capital gains from a brokerage
account since the IRS gets all the data automatically on every such
account.
The IRS computers can instantly note a mis-match of income reported at the
source and income declared on a return. Heck, even the interest on
checking
and savings accounts gets reported to the IRS.

I don't see how your remarks above are relevant. You aren't trying to
hide anything from the IRS, so far as I know. You're simply lying to
the readers of this group about how much money you have.

You don't have to have much money to find advantages in a living trust. Even
if a family's only wealth is in home equity, it is appropriate.

Have you ever thought about taking up a hobby, like stamp collecting?

My hobby and profession are the same, radio.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You mean business, don't you? You appear to be a businessman who has
nothing but disdain for radio.

"Steve" wrote in message
...
You mean business, don't you? You appear to be a businessman who has
nothing but disdain for radio.

Radio, except for government run facilities, is a business. Even private
sector non-commercial stations, like HCJB, are businesses with budgets and
systems intended to make them run efficiently.

Most broadcasters know that they can not have a successful business without
listeners. So I have considerable respect for the listener and spend most of
my time finding out at the street level what they want from radio stations
in their market. MW and FM stations' markets are, today, the metropolitan
area where they operate, not someplace far away... so for such cases,
"listener" is synonymous with "local listener."

Having lived and worked many decades ago in a nation where, at one time,
domestic SW was the only "local" radio for a significant part of the
population, I can still remember when SW might have fit a commercial
station's business model. Today, in most places, it does not. Any disdain I
feel is for those who think that yesterday's radio is relevant today.

David Eduardo wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
...
You mean business, don't you? You appear to be a businessman who has
nothing but disdain for radio.

Radio, except for government run facilities, is a business. Even private
sector non-commercial stations, like HCJB, are businesses with budgets and
systems intended to make them run efficiently.

Most broadcasters know that they can not have a successful business without
listeners. So I have considerable respect for the listener and spend most of
my time finding out at the street level what they want from radio stations
in their market. MW and FM stations' markets are, today, the metropolitan
area where they operate, not someplace far away... so for such cases,
"listener" is synonymous with "local listener."

Having lived and worked many decades ago in a nation where, at one time,
domestic SW was the only "local" radio for a significant part of the
population, I can still remember when SW might have fit a commercial
station's business model. Today, in most places, it does not. Any disdain I
feel is for those who think that yesterday's radio is relevant today.

Ain't that the nation that tossed your lying ass out?

On Jan 7, 4:53*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

...

You mean business, don't you? You appear to be a businessman who has
nothing but disdain for radio.

Radio, except for government run facilities, is a business.

Again you are incorrect. Radio can be a business, but it need not be
so. There is a transceiver sitting on my desk. I have never attempted
to earn money with it.

Even private
sector non-commercial stations, like HCJB, are businesses with budgets and
systems intended to make them run efficiently.

Most people who read this group are probably already aware that non-
commercial stations exist and have budgets.



Most broadcasters know that they can not have a successful business without
listeners.

And most of them know that they can't have listeners without
interesting programming. And most of them know that they can't
broadcast interesting programs when they're drowing in interference
from the station down the road.

So I have considerable respect for the listener and spend most of
my time finding out at the street level what they want from radio stations
in their market.


Interesting ellipsis. What you meant to say was "I have considerable
respect for the listener (who happens to share my misconceptions and
biases)..."


MW and FM stations' markets are, today, the metropolitan
area where they operate, not someplace far away... so for such cases,
"listener" is synonymous with "local listener."


This is a nice statement of the problem. Here's hoping we find a
workable solution.


Having lived and worked many decades ago in a nation where, at one time,
domestic SW was the only "local" radio for a significant part of the
population, I can still remember when SW might have fit a commercial
station's business model. Today, in most places, it does not. Any disdain I
feel is for those who think that yesterday's radio is relevant today.

Except of course for your disdain for those who aim to make radio
better, more relevant and better able to meet the needs of listeners.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
...
You mean business, don't you? You appear to be a businessman who has
nothing but disdain for radio.

Radio, except for government run facilities, is a business. Even private
sector non-commercial stations, like HCJB, are businesses with budgets
and
systems intended to make them run efficiently.

Most broadcasters know that they can not have a successful business
without
listeners. So I have considerable respect for the listener and spend most
of
my time finding out at the street level what they want from radio
stations
in their market. MW and FM stations' markets are, today, the metropolitan
area where they operate, not someplace far away... so for such cases,
"listener" is synonymous with "local listener."

Having lived and worked many decades ago in a nation where, at one time,
domestic SW was the only "local" radio for a significant part of the
population, I can still remember when SW might have fit a commercial
station's business model. Today, in most places, it does not. Any disdain
I
feel is for those who think that yesterday's radio is relevant today.

Ain't that the nation that tossed your lying ass out?


When you have risked your life and property to defend democracy, let me
know.

"Steve" wrote in message
...
On Jan 7, 4:53 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

...

You mean business, don't you? You appear to be a businessman who has
nothing but disdain for radio.

Radio, except for government run facilities, is a business.

Again you are incorrect. Radio can be a business, but it need not be
so. There is a transceiver sitting on my desk. I have never attempted
to earn money with it.

You are being obtuse. We are talking about MW and FM broadcast stations and
such, not point to point communications devices.

Specifically, stations between 530 AM and 1700 AM and 88 and 108 MHZ in this
Hemisphere, not CB transcievers.

Even private
sector non-commercial stations, like HCJB, are businesses with budgets and
systems intended to make them run efficiently.

Most people who read this group are probably already aware that non-
commercial stations exist and have budgets.

Then they are aware that radio broadcasting is a business, whether for
profit or not, with the possible exception of state run facilities, which
are a totally different animal.

Most broadcasters know that they can not have a successful business
without
listeners.

And most of them know that they can't have listeners without
interesting programming. And most of them know that they can't
broadcast interesting programs when they're drowing in interference
from the station down the road.

Local stations in their local service areas are not being drowned by
interference in the US.

So I have considerable respect for the listener and spend most of
my time finding out at the street level what they want from radio stations
in their market.


Interesting ellipsis. What you meant to say was "I have considerable
respect for the listener (who happens to share my misconceptions and
biases)..."

Actually, my opinions and actions are based almost totally on listener
input.

MW and FM stations' markets are, today, the metropolitan
area where they operate, not someplace far away... so for such cases,
"listener" is synonymous with "local listener."

This is a nice statement of the problem. Here's hoping we find a
workable solution.

Since there is no problem, no solution is needed.


Having lived and worked many decades ago in a nation where, at one time,
domestic SW was the only "local" radio for a significant part of the
population, I can still remember when SW might have fit a commercial
station's business model. Today, in most places, it does not. Any disdain
I
feel is for those who think that yesterday's radio is relevant today.

Except of course for your disdain for those who aim to make radio
better, more relevant and better able to meet the needs of listeners.

When you have talked with about 10,000 listeners a year, get back to me on
this. Most people who claim to be making radio "better" really want to make
radio better for their individual tastes or opinions. The rest of us who
work with real and successful radio stations don't look at "better" and
"worse" but at what the listener wants today.

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
...
You mean business, don't you? You appear to be a businessman who has
nothing but disdain for radio.

Radio, except for government run facilities, is a business. Even private
sector non-commercial stations, like HCJB, are businesses with budgets
and
systems intended to make them run efficiently.

Most broadcasters know that they can not have a successful business
without
listeners. So I have considerable respect for the listener and spend most
of
my time finding out at the street level what they want from radio
stations
in their market. MW and FM stations' markets are, today, the metropolitan
area where they operate, not someplace far away... so for such cases,
"listener" is synonymous with "local listener."

Having lived and worked many decades ago in a nation where, at one time,
domestic SW was the only "local" radio for a significant part of the
population, I can still remember when SW might have fit a commercial
station's business model. Today, in most places, it does not. Any disdain
I
feel is for those who think that yesterday's radio is relevant today.

Ain't that the nation that tossed your lying ass out?


When you have risked your life and property to defend democracy, let me
know.

Damn! You sure are hilarious!

On Jan 7, 5:18*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

...
On Jan 7, 4:53 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message

...

You mean business, don't you? You appear to be a businessman who has
nothing but disdain for radio.

Radio, except for government run facilities, is a business.
Again you are incorrect. Radio can be a business, but it need not be
so. There is a transceiver sitting on my desk. I have never attempted
to earn money with it.

You are being obtuse. We are talking about MW and FM broadcast stations and
such, not point to point communications devices.

If that's what you're talking about, you should choose your words more
carefully.


Specifically, stations between 530 AM and 1700 AM and 88 and 108 MHZ in this
Hemisphere, not CB transcievers.

Even private
sector non-commercial stations, like HCJB, are businesses with budgets and
systems intended to make them run efficiently.

Most people who read this group are probably already aware that non-
commercial stations exist and have budgets.

Then they are aware that radio broadcasting is a business, whether for
profit or not, with the possible exception of state run facilities, which
are a totally different animal.

Nope. They are aware of that, too.


Most broadcasters know that they can not have a successful business
without
listeners.

And most of them know that they can't have listeners without
interesting programming. And most of them know that they can't
broadcast interesting programs when they're drowing in interference
from the station down the road.

Local stations in their local service areas are not being drowned by
interference in the US.

Yes, they are. You obviously don't spend much time listening to the
radio.


So I have considerable respect for the listener and spend most of

my time finding out at the street level what they want from radio stations
in their market.

Interesting ellipsis. What you meant to say was "I have considerable
respect for the listener (who happens to share my misconceptions and
biases)..."

Actually, my opinions and actions are based almost totally on listener
input.

Garbage in, garbage out....


MW and FM stations' markets are, today, the metropolitan
area where they operate, not someplace far away... so for such cases,
"listener" is synonymous with "local listener."

This is a nice statement of the problem. Here's hoping we find a
workable solution.

Since there is no problem, no solution is needed.


If there is no problem, why are you talking about one?


Having lived and worked many decades ago in a nation where, at one time,
domestic SW was the only "local" radio for a significant part of the
population, I can still remember when SW might have fit a commercial
station's business model. Today, in most places, it does not. Any disdain
I
feel is for those who think that yesterday's radio is relevant today.

Except of course for your disdain for those who aim to make radio
better, more relevant and better able to meet the needs of listeners.

When you have talked with about 10,000 listeners a year, get back to me on
this.

I'll get back to you when I see some evidence of your actually having
listened to the radio once or twice.

Most people who claim to be making radio "better" really want to make
radio better for their individual tastes or opinions. The rest of us who
work with real and successful radio stations don't look at "better" and
"worse" but at what the listener wants today.

People like you don't, and perhaps can't, look beyond the blinders you
wear. Five years from now you'll probably still be a luddite, but
others will read your posts and feel embarrassed for you.