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: dagmargoodboat on 16 May 2010 22:22 On May 14, 5:07 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On May 14, 10:42 pm, John Larkin > > 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. Obviously it's extremely critical how and when those benefits are shared. Labor does not deserve all the proceeds of my innovation, risk, and investment simply because I hire them, guarantee them a regular check when I get none, and insulate them from the predations and petty ministration of their rulers. Showing up for a paycheck at a factory does not entitle you to the factory. Freedom means you can start something yourself, if you want those rewards and are prepared to take those risks; government means you can't, to a larger and larger extent. James Arthur
From: krw on 16 May 2010 23:35 On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:05:18 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> 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. How so? Did you die?
From: krw on 16 May 2010 23:38 On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:03:01 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.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). > >So, i am not the only one to notice the recent attacks on them for tax >money. I know people who have actually had attempts to tax their Roth >IRA savings. Do you have more information on this? I know it's been rumored that the Demonicrats want to seize all IRAs, but I've seen nothing about it already occurring.
From: John Larkin on 16 May 2010 23:39 On Sun, 16 May 2010 19:22:18 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On May 14, 5:07�pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> On May 14, 10:42�pm, John Larkin > >> > 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. > >Obviously it's extremely critical how and when those benefits are >shared. Labor does not deserve all the proceeds of my innovation, >risk, and investment simply because I hire them, guarantee them a >regular check when I get none, and insulate them from the predations >and petty ministration of their rulers. Showing up for a paycheck at >a factory does not entitle you to the factory. > >Freedom means you can start something yourself, if you want those >rewards and are prepared to take those risks; government means you >can't, to a larger and larger extent. > People consume and business invests. Any society must balance short-term consumption against long-term investment. That is what the "sharing" is about. John
From: krw on 16 May 2010 23:41
On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:43:32 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Bill Sloman wrote: >> On May 16, 11:49 pm, John Larkin >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:04:22 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <inva...(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. >> >> Huh? If the competent people who worked hard end up as dirt poor as >> the idiots who didn't, it wouldn't be fair. I'm not saying that the >> productive minority is entitled to hang onto everthing that they >> managed to accumulate - there's not a lot of tax to be collected from >> idle incompetents, and the administration does have to collect enough >> in taxes to keep the machinery of society turning over - but since >> society consists of non-identical individuals, there's nothing fair >> about reducing the best to the same condition as the worst. >> > >Shazam! I would have never imagined that this sort of statement would >come from you. While we disagree on just about anything else, there you >were right on. Where have the aliens taken Slowman? |