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: krw on 14 May 2010 00:12 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. ....and IIRC, the Canuckistani VAT is paid by the buyer; a sales tax.
From: krw on 14 May 2010 00:12 On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:41:27 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >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. I'd consider it a 20% vomit tax, and gladly pay it.
From: dagmargoodboat on 14 May 2010 01:16 On May 13, 5:02 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On May 13, 8:20 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > The argument for progressive taxation is usually put in terms of those > with the broadest shoulders carrying more of the load. Right. That's how the Little Red Hen got a hold of all the other animals' bread, greedy thing that she was. She had broad shoulders. > This falls a > long way short of Marx - Marx was kind of an idiot. "The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer." --The Communist Manifesto See what I mean? Of course Marx himself was a n'er-do-well who never earned his keep, a pseudo-academic parasite sponging off patron Engels. Engels in turn coasted off the family business. Marx made his living guilt-tripping Engels with econobabble, a fine tradition carried on by Marxists today. "To each according to need" really means "From you to me." "Dear Fred, I need that grocery money, and I deserve it, luv Karl, xoxoxoxo P.S. Stop exploiting me! KM" Marx's moronic precepts ruined scores of countries, and killed tens of millions, maybe hundreds. "Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily." --The Communist Manifesto But, dim-witted Marx had it exactly bass-ackwards--industry was the very salvation for the proletariat, pulling them up out of poverty. "Industry?" you ask? Productivity-amplifying machines, powered by fossil fuels. Let's get rid of those, shall we? > from each according to the abilities, to each > according to their needs - and is compatible with a society where some > people can afford fancier cars, bigger houses and finer wines than > their neighbours, though the rich no longer have access to the > services of a truly deprived under-class who will do almost anything > to save their kids from starvation. Socialist countries are the ones who crush their peoples in poverty, and whose people flee to the USA, not the reverse. > > This guy makes your case for you:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0wwK7fggOs&NR=1 > > The link doesn't work for me, and if it had worked I imagine that its > content would be just as half-baked as your argument. Pity. A conspiracy idiot. He makes your case well. James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 14 May 2010 01:25 On May 13, 11:12 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010 21:03:14 -0700 (PDT), 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. > > So it's only collected at the end. Theoretically. It's kind of a guilty-until-proven-innocent thing-- you're constantly striving to prove what you don't owe, and if you falter, you pay. Meanwhile, it's maximum paperwork for everyone. > >Maximum work for everyone. Maximum intrusion. Horrible. > > A lot of work, sure, but money only changes hands at the end of the pipe. > ...and IIRC, the Canuckistani VAT is paid by the buyer; a sales tax. If so that's not really a value-added tax. VAT means taxing every increase in value, at every stage of production. Raveninghorde posted some of the flaming hoops he had to leap through. Just taxing something once, at the point-of-sale is, well, a sales tax. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Michael A. Terrell on 14 May 2010 01:31
"krw(a)att.bizz" wrote: > > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > > > Not if Broccoli makes you vommit. > > I'd consider it a 20% vomit tax, and gladly pay it. I've always had some food allergies, and all the medicine I'm on now only makes it worse. :( -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge. |