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: krw on 14 May 2010 22:45 On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:21:11 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >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. > >There's idle talk around here to cut off Californica's water and >electricity... wonder how Californica would like Arizona's style of >"boycott" ?:-) LA would shrivel up and die. Too late.
From: krw on 14 May 2010 23:55 On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >wrote: > >>John Larkin wrote: >>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> John Larkin wrote: >> >>[...] >> >>>>> I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts >>>>> business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because >>>>> it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No >>>>> accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no >>>>> quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost. >>>>> >>>>> Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a >>>>> person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be >>>>> jealous of his wealth. >>>>> >>>> A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved >>>> for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The >>>> money they saved _has_ already been taxed. >>> >>> Simple fix: don't tax income. >>> >> >>Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but >>not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat >>VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair >>at all. > >As I suggested, exempt basics, like food, reasonable rent, generic >medicines. If people can afford a yacht, they can afford to pay sales >tax on it. The point is that that money has already been taxed. It shouldn't matter if it is used to buy a yacht. Taxing it again is wrong (one reason I don't trust Roth IRAs).
From: John Larkin on 15 May 2010 00:26 On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>>John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>[...] >>> >>>>>> I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts >>>>>> business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because >>>>>> it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No >>>>>> accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no >>>>>> quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a >>>>>> person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be >>>>>> jealous of his wealth. >>>>>> >>>>> A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved >>>>> for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The >>>>> money they saved _has_ already been taxed. >>>> >>>> Simple fix: don't tax income. >>>> >>> >>>Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but >>>not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat >>>VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair >>>at all. >> >>As I suggested, exempt basics, like food, reasonable rent, generic >>medicines. If people can afford a yacht, they can afford to pay sales >>tax on it. > >The point is that that money has already been taxed. It shouldn't matter if >it is used to buy a yacht. Taxing it again is wrong (one reason I don't trust >Roth IRAs). As I suggested, eliminate income taxes and go to sales tax. Then things are only taxed once. John
From: krw on 15 May 2010 01:18 On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:26:28 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>> >>>>[...] >>>> >>>>>>> I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts >>>>>>> business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because >>>>>>> it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No >>>>>>> accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no >>>>>>> quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a >>>>>>> person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be >>>>>>> jealous of his wealth. >>>>>>> >>>>>> A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved >>>>>> for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The >>>>>> money they saved _has_ already been taxed. >>>>> >>>>> Simple fix: don't tax income. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but >>>>not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat >>>>VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair >>>>at all. >>> >>>As I suggested, exempt basics, like food, reasonable rent, generic >>>medicines. If people can afford a yacht, they can afford to pay sales >>>tax on it. >> >>The point is that that money has already been taxed. It shouldn't matter if >>it is used to buy a yacht. Taxing it again is wrong (one reason I don't trust >>Roth IRAs). > >As I suggested, eliminate income taxes and go to sales tax. Then >things are only taxed once. You're missing the point. Those millions of people who have saved all their lives will be taxed a second time. They've *already* been taxed on that money.
From: Greegor on 15 May 2010 04:15
BS > Do pay attention. The trouble that Greece is BS > now in will be fixed by Greece. The EU - as BS > a whole - will under-write Greek borrowing BS > until that happens. G > Oh GOODY! More DEBT! THAT'LL fix em! LOL! BS > The alternative was to let them go bankrupt, taking down a bunch of BS > Eurpean banks that had lent them money. This is pretty much what BS > happend in 1929, and the relevant politicians know enough history to BS > be aware of this, and didn't fancy going down that route again. JL > There's a good argument that the government JL > interventions in the '30s created a decade-long JL > depression that otherwise would have been a JL > year-or-so stock market bust. Wasn't that from the GAO, too? I seem to recall that was not reported by a source that was easily dismissed. JL > The "success" of the Roosevelt acts has JL > entered our mythology. Bread and circuses.... JL > It's not as though economists understand any of this stuff. The Keynesian principles were violated OUTRIGHT for decades and I doubt even the economic catastrophe will force us to honor those reasonable directives. Storing up in times of plenty to shore up the economy in hard times seems like reasonable advice. There are people who spend like money burns a hole in their pocket. It seems to happen at all economic strata but more crucially, IN CONGRESS. BS > Right-wing nitwits are less familiar with history, BS > and correspondingly more enthusiastic about BS > repeating their ancestor's mistakes. JL > History records that we had stock market JL > bubbles and busts for hundreds of years JL > before 1929, and that the first great JL > government intervention in such a bust was JL > followed by the first Great Depression. BS > Make no mistake. The Greeks are in the BS > process of reforming their economy. JL > Beginning with a general strike. JL > JL > Already public servants are getting 10% JL > lower salaries, and their retirement age JL > has been raised from 61 to 65. There's JL > a lot more of that kind of belt-tightening JL > in the pipe-line. JL > JL > When "public servants" getting a 10% JL > pay cut has serious effects on an JL > economy, you know that you have way JL > too many "public servants." Growing up in Minnesota I recall that there was a genuine fear of welfare recipients dominating the entire election process. Reagan's welfare reform may have actually saved the liberals there, though they would probably never acknowledge that. Sloman seems to be some kind of idealogue, a sort of cartoon of liberal thought. What other people might easily recognize as indoctrination and propaganda, he blithely considers to be factual scientific education. Any idealogical challenge is an assault on his religion. It seems like when liberals live in very liberal places they start believing their own BS and they get into the "crowd mentality" or "riot mentality" where they presume they are superior and they are large and in charge. Sometimes they get so carried away with this they do outrageous things. It seems to be akin to "risky shift" in juries or "confirmation bias" in scientific endeavors. Police routinely whack a few heads and it breaks the mental spell. Consider Sloman's advice and ""proof"" almost as you would advice on US economics from a Russian Stalinist. Ask him how he likes capitalism! LOL |