conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Which type of volatile RAM has the least duration of data remanencewhen power-offed?
Next: Analog Circuits (world class designs) B. Pease
From: Joerg on 14 May 2010 17:07 John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:40:49 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> John Larkin wrote: >>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:13:21 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Martin Brown wrote: >>>>> On 14/05/2010 16:25, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:50:11 +0100, Martin Brown >>>>>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> A pure sales tax paid only by the non-business end user would be a lot >>>>>>> simpler. Allowing businesses not to have to fight with badly paid VAT >>>>>>> advisers. I have had some amusing run-ins with them on reclaiming VAT >>>>>>> for a charity making disabled access improvements. >>>>>> There's nothing wrong or difficult about having businesses pay sales >>>>>> tax. We in California pay sales tax on anything we consume, like >>>>> I see that as faintly odd. Taxing businesses for buying stuff to help >>>>> run their business and new equipment doesn't really make any sense. >>>>> >>>> Moving the business to Montana and will make that problem go away :-) >>>> >>>> [...] >>> Yes, but it would also make my edgier employees go away too. >>> >> I dunno, depends on whether they are the outdoors kind or not. Once a SW >> guys threw the question into the round: "What if we all packed it up and >> moved to Bozeman, Montana?". Some silence. Then one by one the guys >> uttered "Yeah", "Cool", "I'd come" and so on. >> >> >>> We could set up a manufacturing company in another state, or just >>> subcontract manufacturing and some engineering there. Arizona sounds >>> good, just to tweak the local idiots on the Board of Stupidvisors. >>> >> Check the tax situation first, all taxes including property taxes, cost >> of living, et cetera. AZ may not be the first contender then. > > Actually, I might move to Nevada. I could buy a bit of land somewhere > in the boonies, with a shack on it, for maybe $20K. > You could probably even buy commercial real estate there right now for a song, and get the property taxes assessed at that lower value. Your place in S.F. should still fetch a pretty penny because there's enough people who absolutely must live there, for reasons that completely elude me. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Bill Sloman on 14 May 2010 18:07 On May 14, 10:42 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:53:22 +0100, Martin Brown > > > > <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >On 14/05/2010 16:06, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:31:49 +0100, Martin Brown > >> <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >>> Engels saw first hand what greedy industrialists were doing to their > >>> workers in the Lancashire cotton industry. Boiler explosions were > >>> commonplace up until the Vulcan insurers made a stand and insisted on > >>> proper boiler safety inspections. And in cases of tampering with safety > >>> relief valves they would not pay out. > > >[snip] > > >>> It makes reasonable sense to pay your workers a living wage for the work > >>> that they do rather than pay them less than they can sensibly live on.. > >>> Ford was about the first in the USA to actually do this. > > >> It only makes sense if the money comes from somewhere. If all the > >> employers arbitrarily doubled wages, inflation would take it all away > > >We are talking here of industrialised manufacture that was possibly two > >or more orders of magnitude more productive. All the profits went to the > >mill owners and their workers were left to starve on a subsistance level > >of pay because it was marginally better than being out of work. > > That effect was transient. The first mill owners could indeed hire > unemployed labor cheap. At the time, the mechanisation of agriculture was decreasing the demand for agricultural labourers in the country, so they moved into the cities to find work. > As other mill owners got into the act, they > had to compete for labor whether they were nice people or not. They didn't have to compete; they could agree to divide up the labourers availalble and pay them the same subsistence rate. Cartels and trusts formalised the process by which evil factory owners conspired to rip off their employees, and employers who upset the apple-cart by offering higher pay could sudenely find that they couldn't buy the feed-stock from which their products were constructed. Why do you think that US first introduced anti-trust legislation in 1887? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law > The > laborers benefitted on the other side as food, clothing, building > materials, all sorts of stuff, got cheaper because productivity and > transportation were indeed orders of magnitude improved by new > technology. If the factory owners didn't reduce wages to reflect the new, lower, cost of living ... > Productivity is the ultimate benevolence. Technology pushes > productivity. Perfectly true. But it doesn't do a thing to ensure that the benefits of increased productivity are equally shared between capital and labour. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 14 May 2010 18:50 On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:07:07 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On May 14, 10:42�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:53:22 +0100, Martin Brown >> >> >> >> <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >On 14/05/2010 16:06, John Larkin wrote: >> >> On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:31:49 +0100, Martin Brown >> >> <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> �wrote: >> >> >>> Engels saw first hand what greedy industrialists were doing to their >> >>> workers in the Lancashire cotton industry. Boiler explosions were >> >>> commonplace up until the Vulcan insurers made a stand and insisted on >> >>> proper boiler safety inspections. And in cases of tampering with safety >> >>> relief valves they would not pay out. >> >> >[snip] >> >> >>> It makes reasonable sense to pay your workers a living wage for the work >> >>> that they do rather than pay them less than they can sensibly live on. >> >>> Ford was about the first in the USA to actually do this. >> >> >> It only makes sense if the money comes from somewhere. If all the >> >> employers arbitrarily doubled wages, inflation would take it all away >> >> >We are talking here of industrialised manufacture that was possibly two >> >or more orders of magnitude more productive. All the profits went to the >> >mill owners and their workers were left to starve on a subsistance level >> >of pay because it was marginally better than being out of work. >> >> That effect was transient. The first mill owners could indeed hire >> unemployed labor cheap. > >At the time, the mechanisation of agriculture was decreasing the >demand for agricultural labourers in the country, so they moved into >the cities to find work. > >> As other mill owners got into the act, they >> had to compete for labor whether they were nice people or not. > >They didn't have to compete; they could agree to divide up the >labourers availalble and pay them the same subsistence rate. Cartels >and trusts formalised the process by which evil factory owners >conspired to rip off their employees, and employers who upset the >apple-cart by offering higher pay could sudenely find that they >couldn't buy the feed-stock from which their products were >constructed. Why do you think that US first introduced anti-trust >legislation in 1887? > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law > >> The >> laborers benefitted on the other side as food, clothing, building >> materials, all sorts of stuff, got cheaper because productivity and >> transportation were indeed orders of magnitude improved by new >> technology. > >If the factory owners didn't reduce wages to reflect the new, lower, >cost of living ... > >> Productivity is the ultimate benevolence. Technology pushes >> productivity. > >Perfectly true. But it doesn't do a thing to ensure that the benefits >of increased productivity are equally shared between capital and >labour. Competition does that, and anti-trust laws make companies compete. Unfortunately, no laws make unions compete. So business reacts logically, by leaving the country or going out of business. But what would you know about productivity? John
From: krw on 14 May 2010 19:12 On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:50:11 +0100, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 14/05/2010 05:12, krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Thu, 13 May 2010 21:03:14 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >>> On May 13, 10:21 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>> <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:08:20 -0700, John Larkin >>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> VATs tend to be sales taxes, in reality. >>>> >>>>> VAT is applied all up and down the production chain. So the only stage >>>>> that can be selectively taxes is the last one, at point of sale. I >>>>> prefer a true 100% visible point of sale sales tax. VAT is designed to >>>>> hide the actual taxation level, at considerable cost of complexity. >>>> >>>> That's the theory but in practice, AIUI, VATs are only collected at the end of >>>> the pipe. >>> >>> No. They're charged and credited throughout the chain. Your thing >>> gets taxed, then rebated and the next guy pays, then gets his rebate, >>> etc. >> >> So it's only collected at the end. >> >>> Maximum work for everyone. Maximum intrusion. Horrible. >> >> A lot of work, sure, but money only changes hands at the end of the pipe. > >No. You have it wrong. No, I don't. Tha Canuckistani "VAT" is paid by the buyer. It shows up on the receipt (which I used to turn in at the borDER for a refund). >Every stage in the pipeline *pays* VAT inclusive >prices to their suppliers and totals up their input tax and then charges >their customers including VAT and totals up their output tax. Then >every month if large or three months if a small company you send a VAT >cheque to HMRC which is the difference of those two numbers. > >A modern computer system doesn't find this too difficult. Unless that is >some half baked government changes the VAT rate from 17.5% to 15% in the >run up to Christmas as they did last year. That was a disaster for shops >as shelf prices are all marked inclusive of VAT. UK VAT is expected to >go to 20% shortly to deal with the deficit. It will make mental >arithmetic a lot easier - I never learnt my 17.5x table. That's like saying that our income tax system isn't too difficult because computers do the work. Bull. >Exceptions exist for cross boarder trades in the EEC which allow not >charging VAT if the goods are for export to another country in the EEC. >This leads to a complex form of cross border trade called carousel fraud >which typically involves small high value objects like memory chips, >mobile phones and latterly carbon credits. > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5204422.stm > >> ...and IIRC, the Canuckistani VAT is paid by the buyer; a sales tax. > >A pure sales tax paid only by the non-business end user would be a lot >simpler. Allowing businesses not to have to fight with badly paid VAT >advisers. I have had some amusing run-ins with them on reclaiming VAT >for a charity making disabled access improvements. Here, businesses do pay sales tax on stuff they consume.
From: krw on 14 May 2010 22:45
On Fri, 14 May 2010 13:47:27 -0400, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:40:49 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >wrote: > > >>Check the tax situation first, all taxes including property taxes, cost >>of living, et cetera. AZ may not be the first contender then. > >Maybe they have some "boycott days" special deals. That's what I'd do, were I an AZ politician. "Move your business to AZ from CA special - two years, no taxes - offer good while CA boycott in progress". ;-) |