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: JosephKK on 16 May 2010 15:54 On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:10:21 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: >> On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:31:48 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> John Larkin wrote: >>>> 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. 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. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> There's nothing wrong or difficult about having businesses pay sales >>>> tax. We in California pay sales tax on anything we consume, like >>>> equipment and furniture and supplies, and pay no tax on parts or >>>> subassemblies that will go into sellable products. But it probably >>>> makes sense to exempt productive equipment, since that would encourage >>>> long-term productivity and job creation. >>>> >>>> If there's an opamp in stock and I pull it out to make a breadboard or >>>> a test fixture, I should in theory note the event and pay sales tax on >>>> it. And if I buy a bunch of parts for engineering, taxed, but some >>>> wind up in a shipped product, we should get a refund on the taxes. >>>> >>>> VAT sounds like a mess to me. Accountants and attorneys and >>>> bureaucrats are all useless, expensive overheads on society. >>>> >>> Yup. And now they are talking about taxing services. Meaning what I cost >>> my clients would then go up by x percent, or the cost of doing business >>> in California would go up by x percent. Which will increase the exodus >>> because the guy 50 miles east of here in Nevada doesn't have that cost. >>> I sure hope that the 2/3rds rule will hold to avert such damage. Every >>> business or person leaving the state will cause the net tax from that to >>> drop to zero. >> >> Since we're increasingly a services economy, we should tax services >> and simultaneously reduce tax rates on stuff. >> > >Well, if that happens and they also hit consultants and contractors with >it I may finally have to move to the island to drop my cost to clients >back to where it was. Luckily in my line of work it doesn't matter where >I reside. Selling a home in CA, that's a whole 'nother matter right now :-( Unless you bought, refinanced (to grab the cash), or otherwise bought into the bubble pricing; it should not be a problem. Prices are largely about what they were pre-bubble (ca 2002). My boss is buying CA properties to rent for the cost of the loan payment.
From: JosephKK on 16 May 2010 16:07 On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:53:49 +0100, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> 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. Many taxes do not make any sense. > >> equipment and furniture and supplies, and pay no tax on parts or >> subassemblies that will go into sellable products. But it probably >> makes sense to exempt productive equipment, since that would encourage >> long-term productivity and job creation. > >It does provide the odd interesting loophole. My supervisor at >university tried a lawnmower as a company expense (ruled invalid). >We tried company bicycles and that was accepted! Helping make the point about making sense. >> >> If there's an opamp in stock and I pull it out to make a breadboard or >> a test fixture, I should in theory note the event and pay sales tax on >> it. And if I buy a bunch of parts for engineering, taxed, but some >> wind up in a shipped product, we should get a refund on the taxes. > >It is different to what I am used to and just as messy to implement. If >anything you have the same nightmare scenario as UK fast food places >where the price you pay depends on whether you take away or eat in VAT=0 >or 17.5 respectively. I presume that noone bothers in the US like buying >stuff from another state to evade state sales taxes. Ignoring the possibility of sarcasm: I bother a lot to, avoid sales taxes, so does _everyone_ i know. >> >> VAT sounds like a mess to me. Accountants and attorneys and >> bureaucrats are all useless, expensive overheads on society. > >It is relatively straightforward provided that you do not have too many >different rates and/or wierd exemptions. Different to what you are used >to - but I think an end user purchase/sales tax would be a lot cleaner. > >Regards, >Martin Brown
From: JosephKK on 16 May 2010 16:17 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. > > ...Jim Thompson Go for it. CA really needs to learn to live within its means.
From: JosephKK on 16 May 2010 16:32 On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:53:21 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Bill Sloman wrote: >> On May 14, 6:03 am, dagmargoodb...(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. >>> >>> Maximum work for everyone. Maximum intrusion. Horrible. >> >> But easily automated, unless you want to cheat. No place where I >> worked complained about the complexity or got worried about >> intrusions. European small business software packages claim to include >> it as a matter of course. >> > >And then you get a letter from the tax agency, asking for some >explanation why your VAT intake was so low and you claimed so much in >refunds. "Because I run a business, are VAT-exempt for that, and have >clients in places like Asia" ... "Can you come by with the books and >show us?" ... "Sure". It was a nice bicycle ride through a forest so I >didn't mind. The guy there was very friendly but became quite frustrated >because nearly all the stuff was in foreign languages, some in Korean :-) > > >> People who are sloppy about their paper-work can get in a mess with >> VAT, as with every other item of accounting, but at least it isn't >> hard to understand. >> > >IIRC we had 6 or 7 VAT rates and you really had to watch your data >entry. At the "Pre-computer" point. Please notice, Slowman produces _NO_ economic activity and cannot be expected to know anything about it.
From: JosephKK on 16 May 2010 16:50
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. I really don't get your issue. A consumption tax becomes a relatively time invariant part of the price. Buy it now or buy it later for durable goods, eat it now or go hungry for foodstuff, housing too (rent/buy); where's the beef? |