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 6 Apr 2010 18:14 On Apr 6, 2:42 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 5, 7:08 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > >Bill Slomanwrote: > > > 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 :-) > > He who Laffs last...? The Laffer Curve can be seen as a magnificent over-simplification - there are economies of scale in tax avoidance and tax evasion, as in every economic activity, and it takes a lot lower tax take to provoke a rich tax-payer into tax avoidance than it does for the bulk of the tax-paying population. The real problem is that the Laffer Curve is not a useful over- simplification for any purpose except generating the kind of nonsense economics that rich tax avoiders find convenient. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 6 Apr 2010 18:15 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. > 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. > > 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. > >> Oh, and don't expect body politicus to understand the Laffer curve :-) > > > They do - it's just one more bit of right-wing economic nonsense > > devised to justify giving tax breaks to the rich. There's a whole > > branch of pseudo-economics devoted to generating this kind of > > justification, subsidised by the rich beneficiaries of those tax > > breaks, and you really should learn to recognise the genre; anything > > that is endorsed by the Heartland Institute is automatically suspect. > > Except that people act very differently than you think. You don't seem to know what I think. The surveys of the general population's attititudes to tax in more or less civilised countries show that most people think that the tax system is more or less fair, and they feel a moral obligation to pay. Greece and Italy aren't civilised countries in this context. > I know people who have moved to other places for tax reasons. Just for tax reasons? > 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. > 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. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 6 Apr 2010 18:18 On Apr 6, 4:18 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My- Web-Site.com> wrote: > On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 18:24:48 -0700, "Joel Koltner" > > <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >"Jim Yanik" <jya...(a)abuse.gov> wrote in message > >news:Xns9D51D7457CC12jyaniklocalnetcom(a)216.168.3.44... > >> Mexico is beginning to come apart from the drug cartels,and Costa Rica is > >> vulnerable to Nicaraguan and Venezuelan communist influence and subversion. > > >Maybe Jim should just head north to Canada? > > >Yes, they are taxed rather more than those of us in the U.S. are, but they > >seem to be pretty stable and it's a lot closer than New Zealand? :-) > > >Just avoid those French-wannabe types near Quebec... :-) > > NZ seems to be the obvious destination. Not as screwed up as Canada. > And giving grants for business development! Not that there's enough of a domestic market to support anything that might look like a real business. Enterprising New Zealanders end up overseas. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Joerg on 6 Apr 2010 18:37 Bill Sloman wrote: > 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. 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 from Bill Sloman to 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 :-) >> 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? >>> 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. >>>> Oh, and don't expect body politicus to understand the Laffer curve :-) >>> They do - it's just one more bit of right-wing economic nonsense >>> devised to justify giving tax breaks to the rich. There's a whole >>> branch of pseudo-economics devoted to generating this kind of >>> justification, subsidised by the rich beneficiaries of those tax >>> breaks, and you really should learn to recognise the genre; anything >>> that is endorsed by the Heartland Institute is automatically suspect. >> Except that people act very differently than you think. > > You don't seem to know what I think. The surveys of the general > population's attititudes to tax in more or less civilised countries > show that most people think that the tax system is more or less fair, > and they feel a moral obligation to pay. Greece and Italy aren't > civilised countries in this context. > So then, why do you think people like Keith move to Alabama? Believe me, he is by far not the only one. And why are lots of academians from the northern parts of Europe living in Switzerland? >> 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. 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. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: dagmargoodboat on 6 Apr 2010 19:43
On Apr 5, 8:19 pm, brent <buleg...(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote: > On Apr 5, 9:17 pm, Jim Yanik <jya...(a)abuse.gov> wrote: > > > Jim Thompson wrote: > > > > On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:52:49 -0500, > > > hal-use...(a)ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote: > > > >> Jim Thompson writes: > > >>... > > > >>>It _will_ be painful to walk away from a country that my ancestors > > >>>settled, beginning 400+ years ago (Jamestown)... but I can if > > >>>pushed... leave the suckers with only themselves to suck upon :-) > > > >>Where would you go? > > > > I'd be welcome almost anywhere that needs _real_ engineering... > > > Israel, NZ, Hong Kong... I could even be a big hero in Russia or > > > mainland China :-) > > > > ...Jim Thompson > > > I don't think you'd fit in in China,nor like being under the thumb of the > > kleptocrats of Russia,along with the Russian Mob influence. > > > I agree with you. > > I will go down with the ship, trying to do my small part to bail out > the mess. > > The USA is still comprised of a hefty number of god fearing people. No need to bail--there's a peaceful revolution afoot, and there are more of us than there are of them...the fun's just starting. Go to a TEA party or two, join the virtual march on Washington at www.onlinetaxrevolt.com (easy, free, fun), start a Sons of Liberty chapter, etc. Leave, and you'll miss the good stuff. -- Cheers, James Arthur |