Re: Date manipulation
From: Ian Dalziel (iandalziel_at_lineone.net)
Date: 12/27/03
- Next message: Ubiquitous: "Re: Indexed Sequental file - junk when created..."
- Previous message: Daniel.: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- In reply to: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Next in thread: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Reply: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Reply: Robert Jones: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 10:53:27 +0000
On 26 Dec 2003 18:21:53 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <5ndpuvs9apbu2h66u3s9d0ammq4ho7fhje@4ax.com>,
>Ian Dalziel <iandalziel@lineone.net> wrote:
>>On 26 Dec 2003 14:23:56 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>>>... and my point is that this is one way of doing it. Another way is to
>>>say 'here we have a quantity to be applied against the paycheck; is this
>>>quantity taxable or not? if it is taxable then apply the quantity in a
>>>fashion which shows taxation, if not then not.'
>>
>>You're not listening, are you?
>
>I'm trying to... and respond, as well.
>
>>Think about it - is it good to apply
>>the quantity in a way which shows taxation, or is it not?
>
>If the status is untaxed then it should be applied as such, either
>positively or negatively.
>
<sigh> :-)
Sure, but an "untaxed" deduction in that sense effectively comes out
of TAXED income - if it is paid with no reference to tax, it reduces
the net payment by its full amount.
- Next message: Ubiquitous: "Re: Indexed Sequental file - junk when created..."
- Previous message: Daniel.: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- In reply to: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Next in thread: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Reply: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Reply: Robert Jones: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|