 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2008For Tony Cooper
I've been trying for ages to post this but I can't find a way of getting it accepted in the 'real measure' thread. I hope you'll accept a repsonse in a new thread. Apologies tony cooper wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:07:48 +0100, "John Dean" > <john-dean@fraglineone.net> wrote: > >> Bill McCray wrote: >>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:52:42 +0100, "John Dean" >>> <john-dean@fraglineone.net> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> Out of the many ways in which Starbucks' success could be >>>>>>>> measured (market share, stock price, turnover, dividends paid >>>>>>>> to shareholders, pretax profits, post tax profits, number of >>>>>>>> outlets, rate of increase of outlets, number of customers, >>>>>>>> year-on-year increase in number of customers ... yawn ... >>>>>>> I hope "post tax" is a typo. >>>>>>> >>>>>> You hope in vain >>>>> >>>>> So you think it's a tax on a post? >>>>> >>>> No >>>> You? >>> >>> I don't think that's what he meant to say, but that's what he said. >> >> And despite what Tony said, it's in use on the left hand side of the >> Atlantic. eg: > > Many terms are "in use" on this side of the Atlantic by some > individuals who don't use the terms often enough to know what normal > term would be. Don't judge what is common by what a few individuals > use. Else, you would think that our "English professors" don't know > the difference between "affect" and "effect". Who said 'common'? I said 'in use'. Meaning 'in use'. You had said "We do use "pre-tax", but not "post tax" or "post-tax"." > If you want to know if "post tax" is a commonly used expression in the > US by people who use accounting terms the most, the hits you are > getting are not from the right sources. OH! I get it. You want *accountants*: http://www.logicaccountants.com.au/taxtips.print.4/ "From July 1, 2007 a limit of $150,000 per year will be placed on non-concessional contributions which are post-tax amounts that you have not claimed a tax deduction for." http://tinyurl.com/56a6s3 "Issues and Answers Stays With E-break Jokes, Funny Quotes, and more until the post-tax season vacation ends..." http://tinyurl.com/57478r "Special Projects Pre/Post tax investment analysis" And don't forget, they may not be accountants but MotleyFool gives good advice: http://tinyurl.com/6m59vh "Post-Tax Records to Keep" Many, many more available on-line. Although we're in danger of losing sight of the fact that this is a common UK usage (which is why I, a common UKer used it) and it's a coincidence that it's also used over there. Even by accountants. >> If Starbucks issues a statement involving their financials, my guess > is that it will use "after tax" rather than "post tax" or "post-tax" > because an accounting person will have either prepared it or vetted > it. Maybe it depends on whether they want to be intelligible to Forbes: http://tinyurl.com/6xgkyf "Post-Tax Profit Margin 7.3% "  SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >I've been trying for ages to post this but I can't find a way of getting it >accepted in the 'real measure' thread. I hope you'll accept a repsonse in a [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >Who said 'common'? I said 'in use'. Meaning 'in use'. You had said "We do >use "pre-tax", but not "post tax" or "post-tax"." OK, we use it. I will try to use it in daily conversation from now on. I don't want to be out-of-step. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > OK, we use it. I will try to use it in daily conversation from now > on. I don't want to be out-of-step. There's a huge number of google searches for [pre tax vs post tax ira], for whatever that's worth. Joe >> OK, we use it. I will try to use it in daily conversation from now >> on. I don't want to be out-of-step. > >There's a huge number of google searches for [pre tax vs post tax ira], >for whatever that's worth. My comment, in the thread where this came up, was: ------------------ In the US, the common terms are "after tax" (which doesn't require the hyphen) or "net after taxes". We do use "pre-tax", but not "post tax" or "post-tax". At least, that I have noticed. ---------------------- Evidently, there's a lot going on that I don't notice. I was thinking along the lines of published information on company financials because of the Starbucks tie in that thread. I've read, and been responsible for, quite a few company financial reports. My accountants have always used "after tax". I don't know why John thinks this important enough to start a new thread, and I'm a bit confused by this. Agent shows replies to this new thread by Alan O'Brien, Laura, Peter, and Robin...all dated June 10, 2004 and no longer available to read. How they managed that is beyond me. So, for John's benefit...I haven't noticed usage of "post tax" by people who deal with financial reports, and I don't read forums by individuals who post questions about their IRAs. If there are many, many, many, many uses of "post tax" in the US, then they've gone on right under my nose and I've missed them. I apologize to John for misleading him, and encourage him - on his next visit to the US - to throw "post tax" into any conversation with the knowledge that it will be embraced by just about anyone. Except me. Should we meet on that trip, I will avoid mentioning income after the deduction of taxes to avoid any awkwardness between us. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>OK, we use it. I will try to use it in daily conversation from now >>>on. I don't want to be out-of-step. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 10, 2004 and no longer available to read. How they managed that is > beyond me. Actually, you're right, it's not common in reports and is only used informally. My reply was only for comic effect. Had you thrown the search above (no quotes, just the string of words) into google, my own site is the first result as I wrote on the topic. Hilarious, really, since I didn't bring up the topic originally. Joe > I don't know why John thinks this important enough to start a new > thread, I don't and I didn't. As I said at the beginning of the post: "I've been trying for ages to post this but I can't find a way of getting it accepted in the 'real measure' thread. I hope you'll accept a repsonse in a new thread. Apologies" I started the new thread because I couldn't get the response accepted in the old one - 'Line 71 too long' and all kinds of weird stuff, no matter what I did. If I could have continued in the old thread I would. > and I'm a bit confused by this. Agent shows replies to this > new thread by Alan O'Brien, Laura, Peter, and Robin...all dated June > 10, 2004 and no longer available to read. How they managed that is > beyond me. More weirdness. Somehow I think the thread got skunked > I apologize to John for misleading him, and encourage him - on his > next visit to the US - to throw "post tax" into any conversation with > the knowledge that it will be embraced by just about anyone. Except > me. Should we meet on that trip, I will avoid mentioning income after > the deduction of taxes to avoid any awkwardness between us. We could say 'net taxes' ... Except to Bill who will think I'm talking about taxes on angling SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >> I don't know why John thinks this important enough to start a new >> thread, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >old one - 'Line 71 too long' and all kinds of weird stuff, no matter what I >did. If I could have continued in the old thread I would. I did not see these lines in your post. They are there, but my eye naturally skipped down to below my quoted post because I did not expect "top posting" from a RR. My mistake, and I apologize. >> and I'm a bit confused by this. Agent shows replies to this >> new thread by Alan O'Brien, Laura, Peter, and Robin...all dated June >> 10, 2004 and no longer available to read. How they managed that is >> beyond me. > >More weirdness. Somehow I think the thread got skunked Today, when I "show all" posts in this thread, the above mentioned are gone, but there's a post under your name that is unopenable but dated June 10, 2004. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> I don't know why John thinks this important enough to start a new >>> thread, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > naturally skipped down to below my quoted post because I did not > expect "top posting" from a RR. My mistake, and I apologize. Well, my apologies too. I didn't realise it would look like top-posting. I did a copy and paste from the reply I had tried and failed to send and thought it needed an intro to explain why I was opening a new thread. On reflection, I shoulda put the exposition to the rear. >>> and I'm a bit confused by this. Agent shows replies to this >>> new thread by Alan O'Brien, Laura, Peter, and Robin...all dated June [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > gone, but there's a post under your name that is unopenable but dated > June 10, 2004. No idea what that might be. It seems to be a day for strangeness. I had a phone call (which I didn't answer) which showed up on the caller id as 0018889666332 and I have no idea whence that might be. And I'm not going to risk calling back in case it's some bizarro premium rate scam SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > No idea what that might be. It seems to be a day for strangeness. I had a > phone call (which I didn't answer) which showed up on the caller id as > 0018889666332 and I have no idea whence that might be. And I'm not going to > risk calling back in case it's some bizarro premium rate scam. That looks like a US based toll free number (the digits 800,888,and 877 are free calls here). Likely someone trying to sell you something. Joe >> No idea what that might be. It seems to be a day for strangeness. I >> had a phone call (which I didn't answer) which showed up on the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Joe Ah! Thanks SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >> I don't know why John thinks this important enough to start a new >> thread, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >old one - 'Line 71 too long' and all kinds of weird stuff, no matter what I >did. If I could have continued in the old thread I would. I think I got that message 10 years ago, repeatedly for one attempted post. It might have had to do with too many levels of quoting, but otoh, does Usenet or the newsgroup client really know how many levels of quoting there were? A groups google search might turn up a discussion of it on the forte agent group, or whichevver group I was posting to at the time. >> and I'm a bit confused by this. Agent shows replies to this >> new thread by Alan O'Brien, Laura, Peter, and Robin...all dated June >> 10, 2004 and no longer available to read. That WAS a bad day. That was the day I had to go the dentist. >>How they managed that is >> beyond me. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >We could say 'net taxes' ... >Except to Bill who will think I'm talking about taxes on angling If you are inclined to email me for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-) >>> I don't know why John thinks this important enough to start a new >>> thread, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > discussion of it on the forte agent group, or whichevver group I was > posting to at the time. It's usually 'Line 3 too long' that represents an unmanageable level of nesting and I know a workaround for that. This one was something else - it even scrambled the *contents* of the message I attempted to send when it saved it to my outbox folder. Strange thing is, the thread was still accepting my replies to Bill McCray (and still is). It was just this reply to Tony that went kablooey. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > > I don't know why John thinks this important enough to start a new > > thread, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > We could say 'net taxes' ... > Except to Bill who will think I'm talking about taxes on angling Nope. In that context "net" is not a prefix. "Post" meaning "before" is a prefix, not a separate word. Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse parts of the user name and ISP name for my e-address >>> I don't know why John thinks this important enough to start a new >>> thread, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Nope. In that context "net" is not a prefix. "Post" meaning "before" > is a prefix, not a separate word. Oh? Post tax ergo propter tax. (Sorry, but I have held this in too long. It probably stinks, for that very reason. > Oh? > Post tax ergo propter tax. > > (Sorry, but I have held this in too long. It probably stinks, for that > very reason. Stinks? That line is more delicious than you know. One day, I'll be speaking in a group debating some aspect of politics and taxes, and pull that line out. In advance of that moment, my thanks. Joe >> Oh? >> Post tax ergo propter tax. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In advance of that moment, my thanks. > Joe And thank you, too, Joe. You have just made my day. Oh, and the fact that I got a clearance letter from the IRS about some screw-up on my part that might have involved $2000 additional taxes, plus penalties and interest on my 2006 1040--well, that was another treat. Fortunately, I hadn't thrown away many of the returns or 1099 forms from '89 forward, so I was able to summarize data and proved that I had paid taxes on those funds, after all. What a relief to be told that I can throw away the Notice of Deficiency! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.