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: John Larkin on 17 May 2010 16:09 On Mon, 17 May 2010 12:57:38 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On May 17, 12:29�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:09:07 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On May 15, 9:27�am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> On May 14, 10:52�pm, John Larkin >> >> >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> > On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> > >On May 14, 5:18�pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > >> On May 14, 9:51�am, John Larkin >> >> >> > >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:16:49 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >> >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> > >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? >> >> >> > >> > Yeah, he wouldn't understand a female plumber making $150K. >> >> >> > >> > What created our modern wealth was engineers applying science. >> >> >> > >> Yep. �They made machines to relieve human toil, to improve the human >> >> > >> condition. >> >> >> > >> Evil capitalists. �Marx the Moocher should've stopped 'em. >> >> >> > >Some of the capitalists were quite evil, as Martin Brown has pointed >> >> > >out elsewhere in this thread. Trade unions were one of the mechanisms >> >> > >that reigned in the greedy, evil, short-sighted minority. >> >> >> > No. Competition did. >> >> >> Comptetion was one of the other mechanisms, once anti-trust >> >> legislation had forced the greedy, evil and shorted sighted >> >> capitalists to compete rather than conspire. >> >> >Conspiring is harmful. �Why, though, is it bad for capitalists, yet >> >infinitely good for labor? >> >> >Conspiracies among competing capitalists are inherently unstable. Like >> >OPEC, the players have competing interests; squabble, the alliances >> >fall apart, and they resume competing for advantage. �It's a beautiful >> >thing. >> >> >James Arthur >> >> So we don't so much need anti-trust laws, as long as murder is >> illegal? > >To the contrary--anti-trust should apply to labor, too. E.g. >government unions. Agreed; all unions. But what ever happened to Jimmy Hoffa? John
From: John Larkin on 17 May 2010 16:13 On Mon, 17 May 2010 13:07:05 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On May 16, 11:48 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:29:11 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(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. > >Now you're not getting it...maybe equations would be clearer... I'll >set out the reasoning, then you can have a go at rebutting it. > >a) If you buy an item today--any item--the price of that item is >roughly > > price = raw materials > + labor cost(wages + benefits + employer matching taxes) > + overhead(rent, power, office help, advertising, phones) > + business taxes > + profit. > >b) The Fair Tax economists calculate that when you buy a $1 item, 23 >cents of the price of that item goes to covering the various taxes >that the people who made the item had to pay. > >That is, if your laborer has to pay income tax, you have to pay him >more to compensate, and you have to raise your sales prices to recover >that loss from your customers. > >c) So, when you buy an item, you *are* paying all the taxes of all the >people and entities that made the item. Only if the product was made in the USA. If it's imported from China, it didn't generate those taxes, certainly not into the US treasury. A sales tax would apply to all sales, US or Chinese made. That would be a boon for domestic industries and jobs. John
From: Joerg on 17 May 2010 16:31 dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On May 16, 11:48 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:29:11 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(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. > > Now you're not getting it...maybe equations would be clearer... I'll > set out the reasoning, then you can have a go at rebutting it. > > a) If you buy an item today--any item--the price of that item is > roughly > > price = raw materials > + labor cost(wages + benefits + employer matching taxes) > + overhead(rent, power, office help, advertising, phones) > + business taxes > + profit. > > b) The Fair Tax economists calculate that when you buy a $1 item, 23 > cents of the price of that item goes to covering the various taxes > that the people who made the item had to pay. > Wrong. > That is, if your laborer has to pay income tax, you have to pay him > more to compensate, and you have to raise your sales prices to recover > that loss from your customers. > > c) So, when you buy an item, you *are* paying all the taxes of all the > people and entities that made the item. > > Make sense so far? > > d) Under the Fair Tax, with all those embedded taxes eliminated, the > manufacturer would now be able to make the same profit selling his $1 > item for $0.77, which would be the new price. > > e) At checkout, your (formerly) $1 item would now appear on the sales > ticket as > 1) price = $0.77, plus > 2) $0.23 in Fair Tax, collected at point-of-sale to pay all the > taxes of all the people who made the thing. > > Total = $1.00, just like before. No difference. > > There, I think that's basically their pitch. I'm not a Fair Tax > expert, so I could've biffed something. > Ahm, major bug in the calcs: The price of a piece of merchandise does _not_ consist of lots of labor. If MLO (materials+labor+overhead) is anywhere north of 30% on a mass product then it is already doomed. > >>> 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? > > Depends on the tax rates. Under the Fair Tax's 23% I'd rather have > the $1M, because that way I avoid the current system's higher rates. > > But, the difference here is not made by getting taxed twice--per item > c) you are *already* paying the 23% tax built into the price of of an > purchase, and under today's system you *are* going to pay it when you > buy something. > > I don't have an IRA because I don't have confidence in the premise > that tax rates will be lower in the future. Without that the numbers > don't make sense. Bob Pease actually had a pretty good column on this > a decade or so ago; he concluded the same. > > Besides, I don't like having my money at the whim of Congress. They > burned me ex post facto with my 401k charging me a penalty for doing > something that was allowed when I did it, then changing the law > retroactively months later. > You couldn't sue? -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Spehro Pefhany on 17 May 2010 16:37 On Mon, 17 May 2010 13:09:02 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 17 May 2010 12:57:38 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >wrote: > >>On May 17, 12:29�am, John Larkin >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:09:07 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >On May 15, 9:27�am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >> On May 14, 10:52�pm, John Larkin >>> >>> >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >> > On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >>> >>> >> > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >> > >On May 14, 5:18�pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>> >> > >> On May 14, 9:51�am, John Larkin >>> >>> >> > >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >> > >> > On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:16:49 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>> >> > >> > wrote: >>> >>> >> > >> > >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? >>> >>> >> > >> > Yeah, he wouldn't understand a female plumber making $150K. >>> >>> >> > >> > What created our modern wealth was engineers applying science. >>> >>> >> > >> Yep. �They made machines to relieve human toil, to improve the human >>> >> > >> condition. >>> >>> >> > >> Evil capitalists. �Marx the Moocher should've stopped 'em. >>> >>> >> > >Some of the capitalists were quite evil, as Martin Brown has pointed >>> >> > >out elsewhere in this thread. Trade unions were one of the mechanisms >>> >> > >that reigned in the greedy, evil, short-sighted minority. >>> >>> >> > No. Competition did. >>> >>> >> Comptetion was one of the other mechanisms, once anti-trust >>> >> legislation had forced the greedy, evil and shorted sighted >>> >> capitalists to compete rather than conspire. >>> >>> >Conspiring is harmful. �Why, though, is it bad for capitalists, yet >>> >infinitely good for labor? >>> >>> >Conspiracies among competing capitalists are inherently unstable. Like >>> >OPEC, the players have competing interests; squabble, the alliances >>> >fall apart, and they resume competing for advantage. �It's a beautiful >>> >thing. >>> >>> >James Arthur >>> >>> So we don't so much need anti-trust laws, as long as murder is >>> illegal? >> >>To the contrary--anti-trust should apply to labor, too. E.g. >>government unions. > >Agreed; all unions. But what ever happened to Jimmy Hoffa? > >John > There's a Jimmy Hoffa memorial building nearby, maybe he's an integral part of the infrastructure there.
From: keithw86 on 17 May 2010 16:41
On May 17, 3:07 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On May 16, 11:48 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > > > > <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:29:11 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(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. > > Now you're not getting it...maybe equations would be clearer... I'll > set out the reasoning, then you can have a go at rebutting it. > > a) If you buy an item today--any item--the price of that item is > roughly > > price = raw materials > + labor cost(wages + benefits + employer matching taxes) > + overhead(rent, power, office help, advertising, phones) > + business taxes > + profit. > > b) The Fair Tax economists calculate that when you buy a $1 item, 23 > cents of the price of that item goes to covering the various taxes > that the people who made the item had to pay. > > That is, if your laborer has to pay income tax, you have to pay him > more to compensate, and you have to raise your sales prices to recover > that loss from your customers. > > c) So, when you buy an item, you *are* paying all the taxes of all the > people and entities that made the item. > > Make sense so far? > > d) Under the Fair Tax, with all those embedded taxes eliminated, the > manufacturer would now be able to make the same profit selling his $1 > item for $0.77, which would be the new price. > > e) At checkout, your (formerly) $1 item would now appear on the sales > ticket as > 1) price = $0.77, plus > 2) $0.23 in Fair Tax, collected at point-of-sale to pay all the > taxes of all the people who made the thing. > > Total = $1.00, just like before. No difference. > > There, I think that's basically their pitch. I'm not a Fair Tax > expert, so I could've biffed something. > > > >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? > > Depends on the tax rates. Under the Fair Tax's 23% I'd rather have > the $1M, because that way I avoid the current system's higher rates. That's the whole point. Anyone with after-tax savings gets screwed the second time. > But, the difference here is not made by getting taxed twice--per item > c) you are *already* paying the 23% tax built into the price of of an > purchase, and under today's system you *are* going to pay it when you > buy something. Again, you're missing the point. With after-tax savings you're *already* paying that tax. If the "Fair Tax" is implemented you get to pay the "consumption tax" on the *AFTER-TAX* money. > I don't have an IRA because I don't have confidence in the premise > that tax rates will be lower in the future. Without that the numbers > don't make sense. Bob Pease actually had a pretty good column on this > a decade or so ago; he concluded the same. Not that Bob Pease is one to follow in lock-step. If the government changes to the "Fair Tax" (not bloody likely) you'll get screwed. All of a sudden before-tax savings will look pretty good. > Besides, I don't like having my money at the whim of Congress. They > burned me ex post facto with my 401k charging me a penalty for doing > something that was allowed when I did it, then changing the law > retroactively months later. Then the only solution is to burn it, like they do. I can't print money though. |