Re: A Christmas (anti)miracle!
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Free drinks, good tips, and possibly a cab ride home...if it weren't so far away, I'd be in!
We found country club gigs to be the absolute worst from just about any way you look at them and just don't do them any more (unless they cough up serious money).bigpapajon wrote:I sing in a professional caroling quartet and our gigs are WAY down this year. At least 5 times a year we get requests from country clubs for free carolers. Some of them have the nerve to say, "Don't you just want to spread holiday cheer?"
Last year, from Thanksgiving to New Years, we had 17 paying gigs for a total of 30 hours. That was a GREAT year. This year: 3 gigs for 7 hours. It is REALLY hurting the finances this year.
OK, after the ribbing above, I must agree. But, a few years ago, I was in the band that played country club gigs. Of course, the bandleader had several members of the different clubs in the area as clients, so, of course, the gigs really did pay well, and yes, in addition, they did tip well.lgb&dtuba wrote:We found country club gigs to be the absolute worst from just about any way you look at them and just don't do them any more (unless they cough up serious money).
Are their taxes going up? Why? Do you know something I don't? And, if their taxes are going up, are you implying the "well-off" do not feel any effects from increases in taxes?JPNirschl wrote: If these people are well-off, why are they wishing to pay nothing? Because their taxes are going up next year?
must.... resist....must....resistbigpapajon wrote:Not any more. President-elect B.O. is now saying that the "spread the wealth" tax increase might not happen until 2011. How quickly he changes his tune.TubaRay wrote:Are their taxes going up? Why? Do you know something I don't? And, if their taxes are going up, are you implying the "well-off" do not feel any effects from increases in taxes?JPNirschl wrote: If these people are well-off, why are they wishing to pay nothing? Because their taxes are going up next year?
This is the 17th Amendment.JPNirschl wrote:Taxes are politics?
Perhaps you know something I don't. I thought taxes were something that were brought about by the 17th Amendment and were supposed to be eliminated............
but I guess that's obviously wrong.
Obviously.The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Yes, they are. But your assertion is not a fact but rather an error.JPNirschl wrote:Taxes were requisitioned by the 17th Amendment...Facts are facts.
The text of the 17th amendment is quoted above. As you can see, it doesn't deal with taxes in any way.The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.