White House secretly passes currency controls
in [Design]
|
Prev: Single-Bit Sound Derivative Digitizer
Next: I will renew all of my works books. I am Isaac Newton, have you already drawn a comet on your eggs on Easter?
From: Bill Sloman on 8 Apr 2010 18:14 On Apr 8, 7:38 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Bill Slomanwrote: > > On Apr 7, 6:28 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Bill Slomanwrote: > >>> On Apr 7, 12:37 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>>> Bill Slomanwrote: > >>>>> On Apr 6, 2:08 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> Bill Slomanwrote: > >>>>>>> On Apr 5, 8:40 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Joel Koltner wrote: > >>>>>>>>> This one's good too: > >>>>>>>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870397680457511424178200... > >>>>>>>> A _classic_ example of how the Laffer curve works. Bill, are ya lis'nin? > >>>>>>> A rather less than classic example. The tax hike was definitely on the > >>>>>>> low side of the Laffer Curve, so it - of itself - wouldn't have > >>>>>>> justified the victimns of the tax pulling up stakes. > >>>>>>> In fact it was a state tax, being applied to million dollar incomes. > >>>>>>> If you'd read the article, you'd have noted that most of the loss of > >>>>>>> revenue was due to the economic downturn, ... > >>>>>> It is rather easy to figure out the number of people who no longer file > >>>>>> in that state. Very easy, one just has to count. > >>>>>>> ... and the rest the usual deal > >>>>>>> in which people who earn a million dollars find it worth their while > >>>>>>> to keep a tax expert on tap to reorganise their affairs, so some of > >>>>>>> them went to the trouble of moving their official place of residence > >>>>>>> to avoid the (local) tax. Since most people with this kind of money > >>>>>>> have several residences, this would have been just paper shuffling. > >>>>>> Nope. Doesn't work in the US. If you have one residence there they can > >>>>>> sock it to you. > >>>>> I'm sure that - if you are paying enough taxes - it's worth selling > >>>>> that residence to a dummy corporation regstered in Antigua, and > >>>>> renting it back from them as an occasional vacation house. There's > >>>>> bound to be some legal work-around. > >>>> Nope, not legal. > >>> In your opinion. > >> Read the tax code, man. _Then_ write. Massachussetts is particular > >> "interesting" in that regard. > > > I'm not a lawyer. Neither are you. Our understanding of what can be > > done with the tax code is roughly equivalent to a lawyer's > > understanding of what can be done with an FPGA. > > I live here. I know. You don't, yet you elected to voice an opinion anyway. > > This is essential knowledge anyone running a business in the US must > have. Else the CPA will tell you at the end of the year "Oh shoot, you > should never have ..." You live in the US, but your understanding of the way your country of residence works doesn't go deeper than what your CPA tells you at the end of each year. for you evenrything revolves around tax rates? > >>>> Not even if you rent. As for the substantial presence > >>>> test states have become quite the big brother. Because they are all > >>>> scrambling for money, money they often recklessly squandered. Now if you > >>>> changed your name fromBill Slomanto Boris Slomanskov you might get > >>>> away with it and can rent a car there, but only if you do that change in > >>>> some foreign country and erase all traces :-) > >>> Not all that difficult, considering the number of thoroughly corrupt > >>> foreign countries you have to choose from. > >>>>>> The only safe bet is to sell it. You have to be honest > >>>>>> with tax stuff, otherwise it can really backfire if for example some > >>>>>> court differs with you on the opinion where a primary residence was the > >>>>>> last few years. > >>>>> Don't be naive. > >>>> You don't know much about how that works, do ya? > >>> No more than you do. My younger brother - who is roughly an order of > >>> magnitude richer than I am - almost certainly knows people who do know > >>> exactly how that works. > >> It's a matter of ethics whether one wants to be honest or not. In my > >> case also a religious matter and that doesn't leave much choice, other > >> than to be honest. > > > True. Most people are honest, and - like us - ill-equipped to exploit > > loop-holes in the law. Not every rich person is dishonest, but there > > does seem to be some evidence that a defective ethical faculty is > > helpful when it comes to making lots of money. > > That's why I think the ever increasing complexity of tax codes in the > world is not a good thing at all. In the world? You now live in the USA, where your exposure to international news is minimal, and you want to pronounce about tax codes around the world? > >>>>>>> This isn't the Laffer Curve in action, its just incompetence on the > >>>>>>> part of the tax legislators, who wasted their time trying to get money > >>>>>>> from people who pay enough tax to justify keeping a tax avoidance > >>>>>>> expert on tap. > >>>>>> You just repeated the definition of the Laffer curve :-) > >>>>> That's not the version of the Laffer Curve that fits onto a table > >>>>> napkin. Taxing very rich people is a whole different ball-game from > >>>>> collecting the bulk of the state's tax take, and trying to pretend > >>>>> that the Laffer Curve provides a useful insight into that particular > >>>>> ball-game demonstartes a singular weakness for over-generalisation. > >>>> The underlying scheme and reaction is, with some modifications, always > >>>> similar. > >>> The similarity is of absolutely no practical use. > >> To those who understand, it is. > > > To right wing politicians seeking to justify give-aways to their rich > > supporters, and nobody else. > > Little do you know how ordinary people react ... none of my > acquaintances who have moved for this very reason falls into the > category "rich". Nobody ever falls into the catagory "rich". There's always someone who has more money and only they qualify as "rich". The fact that you get your tax done by a CPA qualifies you as "rich" in some circles. > >>>>>> I know people who have moved to other places for tax reasons. > >>>>> Just for tax reasons? > >>>> Yes. > >>>>>> In fact, at least one is > >>>>>> a regular in this newsgroup. They simply donned the snowboard and > >>>>>> scooted down the right side and off the Laffer curve. Maybe I am one as > >>>>>> well because I left NL for that reason. > >>>>> There are lots of reasons for leaving the Netherlands. I'd certainly > >>>>> prefer to be someplace where more money was spent on original > >>>>> electronic design. I doubt if the tax regime was the only motivation > >>>>> in your case. > >>>> It was. Otherwise I really liked it there, mostly because of the > >>>> multi-cultural environment. Heck, I even learned the language to full > >>>> fluency. Ok, "southern" Dutch, that is. > >>>>>> You can lambast Heartland et > >>>>>> cetera all you want, people still listen and educate themselves. > >>>>> They certainly listen, because Heartland tells them what they want to > >>>>> hear. This isn't education but flattery. Try and learn to tell the > >>>>> difference. > >>>> If you pay attention you will realize that they are very often proven > >>>> right in the long run. > >>> If you believe their propaganda. > >>>> I vividly remember Rush Limbaugh, a guy you would > >>>> most likely despise, saying that the 50% pension increases for many > >>>> public employees in CA would ruin Californias budget completely. He was > >>>> lambasted from all corners for saying that. How could he? How could > >>>> anyone dare? This was to be revenue neutral because the stock market > >>>> would definitely sustain ... and blah, blah, blah. Well, his predictions > >>>> were _exactly_ on the money. Unfortunately, but predictably. > >>> The mortgage bubble burst and California's economy tanked. That makes > >>> Rush Limbaugh's prediction that it was going to tank because of a > >>> state employee pension increase "exactly on the money"? Do learn to > >>> think. > >> Do learn to research facts before blurting out such comments or you'll > >> lose credibility. A li'l history lesson is in order: The pension crisis > >> blew up into the previous governor's face after his 2nd term started, > >> and was a core reason why the voters kicked him out of office in 2003. > >> Now when exactly did the mortgage bubble burst? > > > You were referring to the Davis recall election in 2003? Wikipedia > > doesn't mention the pension problem, but does refer to the - Enron- > > generated? - electricity rip-off and the bursting of the dot-com > > bubble. > > The electricity problem was also predictable because future cost hedging > was prohibited. That had to go wrong. > > Ok, I took the time to find you a link that your political bias won't > dismiss because it is out of a rather liberal-trending large newspaper: > > http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/05/2655167/dan-walters-californias-big-... A "rather liberal-trending large newspaper" in the US isn't exactly middle of the road. In any event it is a 2010 report, where your claim was that the pension problem is the one that got rid of Davis in 2003. If you'd read the report, you'd have noticed that the pension problem only got urgent as a result of the consequence of the recent economic down-turn brought on the the collapse of the US housing market. Pulling in the pension problem plays well with right-wing nitwits, so newspapers can be relied on to throw it in to flatter their more rabid readers. > In the aftermath two very predictable things happend. Rush, I and many > others saw them coming: A 50% increase was not remotely possible to be > absorbed by the pension funds because one cannot assume a stock rally to > last 100+ years. Secondly, the trick now is to get transferred to a high > cost-of-living area for a year before retirement, then bestow all sorts > of promotions on the person (won't get in the way of others because > he/she will be gone in a year). Bingo, fattest possible pension is > locked in for life while Joe Q. Public gets peanuts. Seen that over and > over again. In this NG there had been examples posted where ordinary > city engineers now pull five-digits a month (!), for life. So what. Every system has defects, more when the voters can insert short term idiocies. > > Rush Limbaugh's status as a prophet remains derisory, and your > > capacity to understand history is equally unimpressive. > > I have given you proof. You did not. Rush did, and was right on that > issue. If you don't understand facts like I've posted above then you > must be fact-resilient, then I can't help you. "Facts"? You've not even given me Rush Limbaugh's original prophecy, whatever that was. > > California has now elected two second-grade actors as governor. The > > local right-wing power-brokers do seem to have mastered the art of > > finding and directing malleable glove puppets. > > I'll chalk that up as propaganda. Regan and Schwarzenegger were ever anything other than second-rate actors? Regan did have a history as a union-busting scab, which Schwarzenegger seems to lack, but when you find an actor playing a role, it is usual to look for a producer and a director. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 8 Apr 2010 18:21 On Apr 8, 3:52 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 8, 3:32 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > <snip insults, Stalinist/collectivist stuff> James Arthur doesn't know enough to realise that regular democratic socialism hasn't nothing to do with Stalinism, which involves cults of personality, selective state terrorism and a variety of other manifestations of the sort of personality disorder that Stalin - and a number of other tyrants - have found it helpful to develop. > Bill, glad to see you're feeling better, back to form ! Whereas you are still the same deluded ignoramus that you have always been. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: krw on 8 Apr 2010 18:41 On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:59:56 -0700, Charlie E. <edmondson(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:39:11 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >wrote: > >>Joel Koltner wrote: >>> "Joerg" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:826il8F53hU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/05/2655167/dan-walters-californias-big-pension.html >>>> >>> >>> "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been attempting something similar at the >>> state level, but has gotten nowhere with state unions and the >>> union-friendly, Democrat-controlled Legislature. >>> >>> The leading Republican candidate for governor, Meg Whitman, says she'd >>> push it if elected, characterizing the huge and growing unfunded >>> liability for pensions and retiree health care as "the freight train >>> coming through the tunnel at California."" >>> >>> >>> Hmm.... seems like Arnie should be pushing NOW, especially given that >>> he's about to hit his term limit anyway and hence doesn't have too many >>> worries about political fallout, doesn't it? >>> >> >>The big problem is that due to the dem majority his hands are tied. >>There are sad stories playing out right now. Light the teachers >>association refusing to give one iota, meaning many of their own >>constituents will most likely have to be laid off. I fail to understand >>that sort of head-in-the-sand behavior. It doesn't take a rocket >>scientist to see that the money for lavish packages simply ain't there >>anymore. > It is a simple case of un-enlightened self interest! The union >leaders would have to make any reductions apply to themselves, as well >as the rank and file, so they oppose them with all their might. The >layoffs won't effect them! > >It is one of the primary faults in the union system. Once the union >becomes bigger then a single locality, the leadership is pretty much >independent of the membership... Once a union gets bigger than a single company it acts more like a trust, which is illegal for the companies' owners.
From: JosephKK on 9 Apr 2010 00:41 On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:38:40 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > <snip> > >I live here. I know. You don't, yet you elected to voice an opinion anyway. > >This is essential knowledge anyone running a business in the US must >have. Else the CPA will tell you at the end of the year "Oh shoot, you >should never have ..." > > <snip> >> True. Most people are honest, and - like us - ill-equipped to exploit >> loop-holes in the law. Not every rich person is dishonest, but there >> does seem to be some evidence that a defective ethical faculty is >> helpful when it comes to making lots of money. >> > >That's why I think the ever increasing complexity of tax codes in the >world is not a good thing at all. > > <snip> >> > >Little do you know how ordinary people react ... none of my >acquaintances who have moved for this very reason falls into the >category "rich". > >[...] > <snip> >>> Do learn to research facts before blurting out such comments or you'll >>> lose credibility. A li'l history lesson is in order: The pension crisis >>> blew up into the previous governor's face after his 2nd term started, >>> and was a core reason why the voters kicked him out of office in 2003. >>> Now when exactly did the mortgage bubble burst? >> >> You were referring to the Davis recall election in 2003? Wikipedia >> doesn't mention the pension problem, but does refer to the - Enron- >> generated? - electricity rip-off and the bursting of the dot-com >> bubble. >> > >The electricity problem was also predictable because future cost hedging >was prohibited. That had to go wrong. > >Ok, I took the time to find you a link that your political bias won't >dismiss because it is out of a rather liberal-trending large newspaper: > >http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/05/2655167/dan-walters-californias-big-pension.html > >In the aftermath two very predictable things happend. Rush, I and many >others saw them coming: A 50% increase was not remotely possible to be >absorbed by the pension funds because one cannot assume a stock rally to >last 100+ years. Secondly, the trick now is to get transferred to a high >cost-of-living area for a year before retirement, then bestow all sorts >of promotions on the person (won't get in the way of others because >he/she will be gone in a year). Bingo, fattest possible pension is >locked in for life while Joe Q. Public gets peanuts. Seen that over and >over again. In this NG there had been examples posted where ordinary >city engineers now pull five-digits a month (!), for life. > Why do you so resent that retirement? Do you have any problem earning that much per month or more (or the equivalent between the two after taxes, i am very aware of the much higher taxes the self-employed pay)? Do you resent the difference in (health) benefits instead? Just what is your issue with a "civil servant" engineer being compensated about what engineers in private practice (typically) are? > >> Rush Limbaugh's status as a prophet remains derisory, and your >> capacity to understand history is equally unimpressive. >> > >I have given you proof. You did not. Rush did, and was right on that >issue. If you don't understand facts like I've posted above then you >must be fact-resilient, then I can't help you. > > >> California has now elected two second-grade actors as governor. The >> local right-wing power-brokers do seem to have mastered the art of >> finding and directing malleable glove puppets. >> > >I'll chalk that up as propaganda.
From: Joerg on 9 Apr 2010 10:29
JosephKK wrote: > On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:38:40 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > [...] >> Ok, I took the time to find you a link that your political bias won't >> dismiss because it is out of a rather liberal-trending large newspaper: >> >> http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/05/2655167/dan-walters-californias-big-pension.html >> >> In the aftermath two very predictable things happend. Rush, I and many >> others saw them coming: A 50% increase was not remotely possible to be >> absorbed by the pension funds because one cannot assume a stock rally to >> last 100+ years. Secondly, the trick now is to get transferred to a high >> cost-of-living area for a year before retirement, then bestow all sorts >> of promotions on the person (won't get in the way of others because >> he/she will be gone in a year). Bingo, fattest possible pension is >> locked in for life while Joe Q. Public gets peanuts. Seen that over and >> over again. In this NG there had been examples posted where ordinary >> city engineers now pull five-digits a month (!), for life. >> > Why do you so resent that retirement? Do you have any problem earning > that much per month or more (or the equivalent between the two after > taxes, i am very aware of the much higher taxes the self-employed pay)? > Do you resent the difference in (health) benefits instead? Just what > is your issue with a "civil servant" engineer being compensated > about what engineers in private practice (typically) are? As has been pointed out earlier there are limits to the term "much". $14k/mo is too much, most certainly when scores of teachers get pink slips because they can no longer be paid. Industry engineers don't pull in such retirement, and neither will I. I certainly resent the way retirement is now calculated where it is easy to inflate it beyond all proportions. It is IMHO not right. However, I no longer expect Bill to understand this. [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |