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 17 May 2010 00:48 On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:29:11 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >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. How so? Inflation? That increases investment values, as well. >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. Sure, but the *INCOME* tax has been paid and the new sales tax will also have to be paid. Without the change, there isn't a second tax on the income. Yes, the "fair" tax will include the income tax of the people paying now, but it will also increase the real cost of the product the same as another income tax would on the buyer. >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. No, it's not. Yo can't tell me that money that has already been taxed has the same value as money that hasn't. Which would you rather have, $1M in an conventional IRA (no tax yet paid), or $600K ($1M after tax) in a Roth, when they change the tax to a consumption tax?
From: krw on 17 May 2010 00:51 On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:20:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. Balloney. >>>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. And has recovered, quite nicely. You can prove any crackpot theory you want if you cherry-pick the data. It's called a "lie". >Interestingly, credit card rates never came back down. Not so interestingly, it's completely irrelevant, particularly to this discussion (millionaires tend to not pay credit card interest).
From: krw on 17 May 2010 00:51 On Mon, 17 May 2010 00:10:33 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >"krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: >> >> Where have the aliens taken Slowman? > > > Who cares, as long as they don't bring him back. ....but what did they leave it it's place?
From: krw on 17 May 2010 00:54 On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:41:10 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >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. Maybe in five or ten I'll have moved it into my mattress.
From: JosephKK on 17 May 2010 01:05
On Sun, 16 May 2010 19:05:54 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On May 14, 2:31 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> >wrote: >> On 14/05/2010 06:16, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > 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. >> >> Engels saw first hand what greedy industrialists were doing to their >> workers in the Lancashire cotton industry. Boiler explosions were >> commonplace up until the Vulcan insurers made a stand and insisted on >> proper boiler safety inspections. And in cases of tampering with safety >> relief valves they would not pay out. >> >> It was common practice to overstoke the fire before the first shift and >> add weight to the pressure relief valve - this resulted in several large >> scale boiler explosions destroying big mills in the early morning and >> killing many workers in the Lancashire cotton industry. > >Destroying your factory is a bad business model. That quickly self- >limits. Besides, nowadays we sue or jail those people. Too much, in >fact. > >> http://www.camdenmin.co.uk/technical-steam/historic-steam-boiler-expl... >> >> Articles on the history of boiler insurance show that the US had a worse >> record despite having the advantage of seeing the innovations in UK >> boilers. Some element of NIH played a part but mostly it was that >> industrialists greed was paramount and the workers powerless. eg. >> >> http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed15/15407.pdf >> first page and page 7 under Normal Loss Hazard > >Interestingly and ironically enough, that emphasizes the need to >identify defects and eliminate high risk insureds to minimize >underwriting loss rates. > >"Experience has also shown that the scientific examination and >inspection of insured boilers produces a >declining loss ratio." > >> > "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" >> >> It makes reasonable sense to pay your workers a living wage for the work >> that they do rather than pay them less than they can sensibly live on. >> Ford was about the first in the USA to actually do this. >> >> In the UK there were some decent industrialists mostly of quaker >> families who did treat their workforce fairly - examples include some >> household names like Pilkingtons, Cadbury, Bournville, Marks&Spencer. >> >> But most of the rest were complete bastards who built large factories >> and employed the equivalent of bonded labour stuck very high density >> slum housing. It was not surprising that unions were formed in some >> cases the manager really did hold the whip hand - literally. > >As John pointed out, that was a transient effect, an unusual, historic >dislocation. Machines meant that few could farm what had previously >required the toil of many. So there were lots of workers looking for >work. > >Short term, that's painful. Long term, that's creative destruction, >society re-allocating resources from something no longer needed, to >something people do want and need. > >Would it have been better to destroy the farm equipment that made >growing food so easy, or the mills that made clothing cheap for >everyone? Or go the Obama way--carve up the factory and give it to >the workers? Divvy up the greedy farmer's land? That makes factories >disappear and farms go fallow (witness Zimbabwe). > >The dislocation at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was >especially traumatic since motive power meant so many human-muscle- >powered occupations were displaced at the same time. Would it have >been better to keep them all in subsidized green jobs making wagon >wheels with sustainable, carbon-neutral technology, as they were, >after all, before steam? No. Pre-steam life was NOT carbon neutral. That is one of the myths used by liberals. > >Longer term, profitable business attracts competition. Outrageous >profits are almost never sustainable for that reason. Competitors >have to compete for workers, with both wages and conditions. > >Sharing the wealth? That comes immediately through cheaper goods, >making it easier and cheaper to live, and through better wages and >working conditions with time, as described above. > >Everyone wins. And yes, the industrialist does very well for a time-- >there's a phase delay. That's his reward. Take it away, and he won't >do it at all. |