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: John Larkin on 13 May 2010 22:08 On Thu, 13 May 2010 20:15:42 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:39:28 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:12:11 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman >><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >>>On May 13, 6:32�pm, John Larkin >>><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 07:32:26 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >On May 13, 4:39�am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>> >> On May 13, 1:51�am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>> >> > On May 12, 5:48�pm, "krw wrote: >>>> >> > > On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:34:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >> > > >Maybe. �A 10% VAT would raise $1.5T a year, enough to pay for Obama's >>>> >> > > >permanent spending bender on...whatever it was we got for all that >>>> >> > > >dough he spent--I can't remember. >>>> >>>> >> > > *Maybe*. �The deficit for just April was $83B. �Note that April is also the >>>> >> > > month when the government intake is *highest*, do to the April 15 tax filing >>>> >> > > date. �In 43 of the last 56 years April has been a net surplus month. � >>>> >>>> >> > > <snip> >>>> >>>> >> > A 10% VAT gives Obama $125B more/month to fritter away on nothing. >>>> >> > (Enough for break-even, not enough to pay off any debt.) >>>> >>>> >> > Of course that assumes �people continue to buy stuff at the same rate, >>>> >> > which they won't. �They won't work at the same rate either. �Better >>>> >> > make it 18%, like Europe. �And, naturally, that won't be enough >>>> >> > either. �He'll spend more. >>>> >>>> >> > That said, Obama won't push a VAT--it doesn't redistribute wealth. >>>> >> > Deficit spending does. >>>> >>>> >> Actually, VAT does redistribute wealth - away from the poor towards >>>> >> the rich. The poor spend most of their income on buying stuff, which >>>> >> attracts VAT. >>>> >>>> >True. >>>> >>>> >> The rich divert a larger part of their income into investment, which >>>> >> doesn't attract VAT. >>>> >>>> >Naturally. �As a nation, we spend 10% of our time and creative energy >>>> >figuring out how to pay our taxes, and 5% (maybe more) planning the >>>> >course that minimizes them. >>>> >>>> >> Technically speaking, this makes VAT is a >>>> >> regressive tax. >>>> >>>> >In the US we have a proposal called "The Fair Tax," a simple 23% >>>> >national sales tax. �It would replace all of our federal tax system >>>> >(personal and corporate income tax, Medicare, Social Security, etc), >>>> >and eliminate all the credits, deductions, receipts, bookkeeping and >>>> >time spent dodging & gaming the various income taxes. �The latter >>>> >costs us hundreds of billions a year, not to mention human energy >>>> >wasted unproductively. >>>> >>>> >A simple "prebate" makes the Fair Tax progressive. >>>> >>>> Just exempt basics, like sensible food, reasonable rent, generic >>>> medicines, public transport, education, stuff like that. Use tax >>>> policy to steer behavior. >>> >>>They tried that in the UK. It rapidly got silly. Food was VAT-exempt, >>>but eating in a restaurant was not a necessity, so you had to pay VAT >>>on the bill - unless you bought a take-away meal. >> >>That's the way sales tax works in California. If I buy uncooked >>chicken at Safeway, there's no sales tax. If I buy cooked, hot, >>ready-to-eat chicken, it's taxed. It's simple, because it's a visible, >>automated-cash-register, point-of-sale tax. Restaurant food is taxed >>whether you eat it there or not. > >In Vermong there is a so called "bagel tax". If you buy one bagel, it's taxed >as "prepared food". If you buy six they're not taxed because they've now >become "groceries". NY has similar silliness, orange juice is not taxed, >Hawaiian Punch and Tang are. It's sometimes silly and arbitrary, but it's still pretty simple to administer... the cash register reads the UPC and adds tax or doesn't... and it generally exempts the basics that lower-income people need. A 20% tax on junk food, and zero on broccoli, would encourage people to eat their broccoli. > >>I can't imagine how you could work a >>thing like this all the way back up the VAT chain. > >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. > >>It would be easy to structure a national sales tax to exempt the >>things poorer people actually need. There would be some cheating >>around the edges, but there always will be some cheating. But things >>like VAT carousel fraud couldn't happen. >> >>(One shop near here sells " *WARM* " corned-beef sandwiches because >>hot ones have a higher tax rate.) >> >>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. > >Leftists and those on the receiving end aren't reasonable. Oh. Right. John
From: JosephKK on 13 May 2010 23:17 On Thu, 13 May 2010 00:24:38 -0700 (PDT), "enot.nona" <namenot.noname(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>Well gosh, you no name coward, why don't you start addressing the crimes of your government? > >And what government is that? I haven't a clue nameless coward, you haven't told us.
From: krw on 13 May 2010 23:21 On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:08:20 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Thu, 13 May 2010 20:15:42 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:39:28 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:12:11 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman >>><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >>>>On May 13, 6:32�pm, John Larkin >>>><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 07:32:26 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >On May 13, 4:39�am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>> >> On May 13, 1:51�am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> >> > On May 12, 5:48�pm, "krw wrote: >>>>> >> > > On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:34:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >> > > >Maybe. �A 10% VAT would raise $1.5T a year, enough to pay for Obama's >>>>> >> > > >permanent spending bender on...whatever it was we got for all that >>>>> >> > > >dough he spent--I can't remember. >>>>> >>>>> >> > > *Maybe*. �The deficit for just April was $83B. �Note that April is also the >>>>> >> > > month when the government intake is *highest*, do to the April 15 tax filing >>>>> >> > > date. �In 43 of the last 56 years April has been a net surplus month. � >>>>> >>>>> >> > > <snip> >>>>> >>>>> >> > A 10% VAT gives Obama $125B more/month to fritter away on nothing. >>>>> >> > (Enough for break-even, not enough to pay off any debt.) >>>>> >>>>> >> > Of course that assumes �people continue to buy stuff at the same rate, >>>>> >> > which they won't. �They won't work at the same rate either. �Better >>>>> >> > make it 18%, like Europe. �And, naturally, that won't be enough >>>>> >> > either. �He'll spend more. >>>>> >>>>> >> > That said, Obama won't push a VAT--it doesn't redistribute wealth. >>>>> >> > Deficit spending does. >>>>> >>>>> >> Actually, VAT does redistribute wealth - away from the poor towards >>>>> >> the rich. The poor spend most of their income on buying stuff, which >>>>> >> attracts VAT. >>>>> >>>>> >True. >>>>> >>>>> >> The rich divert a larger part of their income into investment, which >>>>> >> doesn't attract VAT. >>>>> >>>>> >Naturally. �As a nation, we spend 10% of our time and creative energy >>>>> >figuring out how to pay our taxes, and 5% (maybe more) planning the >>>>> >course that minimizes them. >>>>> >>>>> >> Technically speaking, this makes VAT is a >>>>> >> regressive tax. >>>>> >>>>> >In the US we have a proposal called "The Fair Tax," a simple 23% >>>>> >national sales tax. �It would replace all of our federal tax system >>>>> >(personal and corporate income tax, Medicare, Social Security, etc), >>>>> >and eliminate all the credits, deductions, receipts, bookkeeping and >>>>> >time spent dodging & gaming the various income taxes. �The latter >>>>> >costs us hundreds of billions a year, not to mention human energy >>>>> >wasted unproductively. >>>>> >>>>> >A simple "prebate" makes the Fair Tax progressive. >>>>> >>>>> Just exempt basics, like sensible food, reasonable rent, generic >>>>> medicines, public transport, education, stuff like that. Use tax >>>>> policy to steer behavior. >>>> >>>>They tried that in the UK. It rapidly got silly. Food was VAT-exempt, >>>>but eating in a restaurant was not a necessity, so you had to pay VAT >>>>on the bill - unless you bought a take-away meal. >>> >>>That's the way sales tax works in California. If I buy uncooked >>>chicken at Safeway, there's no sales tax. If I buy cooked, hot, >>>ready-to-eat chicken, it's taxed. It's simple, because it's a visible, >>>automated-cash-register, point-of-sale tax. Restaurant food is taxed >>>whether you eat it there or not. >> >>In Vermong there is a so called "bagel tax". If you buy one bagel, it's taxed >>as "prepared food". If you buy six they're not taxed because they've now >>become "groceries". NY has similar silliness, orange juice is not taxed, >>Hawaiian Punch and Tang are. > >It's sometimes silly and arbitrary, but it's still pretty simple to >administer... the cash register reads the UPC and adds tax or >doesn't... and it generally exempts the basics that lower-income >people need. > >A 20% tax on junk food, and zero on broccoli, would encourage people >to eat their broccoli. > > >> >>>I can't imagine how you could work a >>>thing like this all the way back up the VAT chain. >> >>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. <...>
From: Michael A. Terrell on 13 May 2010 23:41 John Larkin wrote: > > On Thu, 13 May 2010 20:15:42 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > >On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:39:28 -0700, John Larkin > ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > > >>On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:12:11 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman > >><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> > >>>On May 13, 6:32 pm, John Larkin > >>><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 07:32:26 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >On May 13, 4:39 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>>> >> On May 13, 1:51 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >>>> >> > On May 12, 5:48 pm, "krw wrote: > >>>> >> > > On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:34:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >>>> > >>>> >> > > >Maybe. A 10% VAT would raise $1.5T a year, enough to pay for Obama's > >>>> >> > > >permanent spending bender on...whatever it was we got for all that > >>>> >> > > >dough he spent--I can't remember. > >>>> > >>>> >> > > *Maybe*. The deficit for just April was $83B. Note that April is also the > >>>> >> > > month when the government intake is *highest*, do to the April 15 tax filing > >>>> >> > > date. In 43 of the last 56 years April has been a net surplus month. > >>>> > >>>> >> > > <snip> > >>>> > >>>> >> > A 10% VAT gives Obama $125B more/month to fritter away on nothing. > >>>> >> > (Enough for break-even, not enough to pay off any debt.) > >>>> > >>>> >> > Of course that assumes people continue to buy stuff at the same rate, > >>>> >> > which they won't. They won't work at the same rate either. Better > >>>> >> > make it 18%, like Europe. And, naturally, that won't be enough > >>>> >> > either. He'll spend more. > >>>> > >>>> >> > That said, Obama won't push a VAT--it doesn't redistribute wealth. > >>>> >> > Deficit spending does. > >>>> > >>>> >> Actually, VAT does redistribute wealth - away from the poor towards > >>>> >> the rich. The poor spend most of their income on buying stuff, which > >>>> >> attracts VAT. > >>>> > >>>> >True. > >>>> > >>>> >> The rich divert a larger part of their income into investment, which > >>>> >> doesn't attract VAT. > >>>> > >>>> >Naturally. As a nation, we spend 10% of our time and creative energy > >>>> >figuring out how to pay our taxes, and 5% (maybe more) planning the > >>>> >course that minimizes them. > >>>> > >>>> >> Technically speaking, this makes VAT is a > >>>> >> regressive tax. > >>>> > >>>> >In the US we have a proposal called "The Fair Tax," a simple 23% > >>>> >national sales tax. It would replace all of our federal tax system > >>>> >(personal and corporate income tax, Medicare, Social Security, etc), > >>>> >and eliminate all the credits, deductions, receipts, bookkeeping and > >>>> >time spent dodging & gaming the various income taxes. The latter > >>>> >costs us hundreds of billions a year, not to mention human energy > >>>> >wasted unproductively. > >>>> > >>>> >A simple "prebate" makes the Fair Tax progressive. > >>>> > >>>> Just exempt basics, like sensible food, reasonable rent, generic > >>>> medicines, public transport, education, stuff like that. Use tax > >>>> policy to steer behavior. > >>> > >>>They tried that in the UK. It rapidly got silly. Food was VAT-exempt, > >>>but eating in a restaurant was not a necessity, so you had to pay VAT > >>>on the bill - unless you bought a take-away meal. > >> > >>That's the way sales tax works in California. If I buy uncooked > >>chicken at Safeway, there's no sales tax. If I buy cooked, hot, > >>ready-to-eat chicken, it's taxed. It's simple, because it's a visible, > >>automated-cash-register, point-of-sale tax. Restaurant food is taxed > >>whether you eat it there or not. > > > >In Vermong there is a so called "bagel tax". If you buy one bagel, it's taxed > >as "prepared food". If you buy six they're not taxed because they've now > >become "groceries". NY has similar silliness, orange juice is not taxed, > >Hawaiian Punch and Tang are. > > It's sometimes silly and arbitrary, but it's still pretty simple to > administer... the cash register reads the UPC and adds tax or > doesn't... and it generally exempts the basics that lower-income > people need. > > A 20% tax on junk food, and zero on broccoli, would encourage people > to eat their broccoli. Not if Broccoli makes you vommit. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: dagmargoodboat on 14 May 2010 00:03
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. Maximum work for everyone. Maximum intrusion. Horrible. James Arthur |