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 17:05 On Sat, 15 May 2010 00:18:43 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >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. Not to bust your bubble, but i am already paying both taxes.
From: JosephKK on 16 May 2010 17:12 On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:41:52 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:56:31 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >wrote: > >>Bill Sloman wrote: >>> On May 14, 12:39 am, John Larkin >>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>[...] >> >>>> 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. I can't imagine how you could work a >>>> thing like this all the way back up the VAT chain. >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Dream on. Why do you think that VAT was invented? >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax >>> >> >>The usual. To squeeze ever more taxes out of people. Whether you call >>them VAT, fees, surcharges, carbon credits or whatever, a tax is a tax >>is a tax. > >But some taxes require you to hire an army of bookkeepers and CPAs and >attorneys just to figure out how much taxes you should pay. Luckily, >all their fees are tax-deductable. This year, we will spend more on >the droids than we will pay in taxes. > >John The truest indication that the "system" has gone malignant (malevolent).
From: Joerg on 16 May 2010 17:13 JosephKK wrote: > On Sat, 15 May 2010 00:18:43 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >> 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. > > Not to bust your bubble, but i am already paying both taxes. When income tax gets turned into a point-of-sale tax you'll have paid even more (if you have saved after-tax money). -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: John Larkin on 16 May 2010 17:49 On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:04:22 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >JosephKK 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. >> >> Gosh, are your savings all that significant? Don't you pay (an ever >> increasing in CA) sales tax already? Please to explain the difference. > > >The difference is this: Yes, I do save for retirement. And yes, one has >to make sacrifices to do that. Such as not buying a new car every five >years. As said several times this money _has_ already been taxed. So if >the income of the paycheck-to-paycheck guy gets taxed only at >consumption he has only paid tax once. I have then paid twice. That is >simply unfair. Sometimes "fair" is the enemy of "works." If everyone were equally dirt-poor, it would be fair. John
From: Bill Sloman on 16 May 2010 18:50
On May 16, 10:32 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:53:21 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > > >Bill Slomanwrote: > >> 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. I'm not selling anything at the moment, but I am buying stuff and paying the usual attention to what's going on in the market. JoshepKK is doing the usual right-wing nitwit trick of drawing a false conclusion from an irrelevant observation. Not for the first time. When are you guys going to master joined-up logic? -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |