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 17 May 2010 00:11 On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:13:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >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). I only have a little of such, most is in other (post income tax) forms.
From: JosephKK on 17 May 2010 00:20 On Sun, 16 May 2010 16:00:15 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:54:00 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.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. >> >>Gosh, are your savings all that significant? > >Many do have significant savings over their lifetimes. Having enough to live >on the rest of their lives, isn't uncommon. Actually it is quite uncommon according to BLS data. > >>Don't you pay (an ever >>increasing in CA) sales tax already? Please to explain the difference. > >Compound interest tends to cancel inflation. Not all that well. It really fell behind during Carter era. Interestingly, credit card rates never came back down.
From: dagmargoodboat on 17 May 2010 00:29 On May 15, 12:18 am, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:26:28 -0700, John Larkin > > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > >>On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin > >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> 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. > > >>>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. The defense the Fair Tax people offer is that it really isn't an increase at all--you're already paying that 2nd tax today. It's hidden in the price of everything you buy. The price of anything always includes all the taxes--ihe income, SS, Medicare, and other taxes--paid by the people who made it. Take those out and the price of goods will fall. The Fair Tax--now separated and out in the open for all to see--is simply the tax which you would've paid before anyhow, but without knowing it. James Arthur
From: JosephKK on 17 May 2010 00:33 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. So do I. >Such as not buying a new car every five >years. Let's see, my car is model year 1994, bought used. Do you want to continue? >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. Same for me. You have not made a case for yourself yet. This hypothetical person does not exist yet. >I have then paid twice. That is >simply unfair. A. Life IS unfair. B. I would be in the same boat. Pretty much only kids would "benefit" > >Are you really thinking CA will give up their "normal" sales tax? You >must be dreaming ... > >It'll also lead to tricks that people play. Lots of Europeans who must >pay a painfully high VAT come to the US and buy tons of stuff. >Electronics, clothes, you name it. If they manage to sneak it past >customs when going back home the vacation they enjoyed was often largely >"free". SO NOT NEWS. 'Murcans do it too.
From: dagmargoodboat on 17 May 2010 00:41
On May 16, 10:38 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:03:01 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > >>On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin > >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> 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. > > >>>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. I think the buzzword is "GRA" or something like that. Guaranteed return annuity. Basically, give Obama your IRA today, and he'll gladly pay you back Tuesday with interest. The chatter is this as a way of refinancing our debt. That is, 38% of the national debt comes due this year, and if the Chinese won't buy it, Mr. Obama will have to get it somewhere pronto, or we default. So, the reasoning goes, why not nationalize--excuse me, 'reform'--a few trillion in IRAs? It probably won't go anywhere--it's an election year, and, besides, the euro's collapse is driving everyone into dollars. But, a government that can make you buy its crappy health insurance can make you buy its crappy bonds. So, maybe next year, or maybe in five or ten. James Arthur |