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 17 May 2010 17:46 On May 17, 3:31 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > On May 16, 11:48 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: > >> 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. I'm just summarizing what I gleaned skimming their site. I could be misrepresenting what they said, or they could've erred in their estimates; both are possible. > > 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. That's an average. The Fair Tax economists worked from gross averages applied across all of society; services are nearly 100% labor, mass- produced Joerg-designed items not so much. I can't speak to their methods or calculations, but I'd sure love it if you'd read their material and report back on it! (I'm still busy marking up the mandatory health insurance purchase and regulation bill, re-reading Marx, and other nonsense. Oh, plus designing a CNC turret tool-changer.) <snip> > > 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? Nope. You can't sue Congress. Sovereign immunity. (Impunity, really.) -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Greegor on 17 May 2010 18:47 On May 17, 5:27 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On May 15, 10:15 am, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Sloman seems to be some kind of idealogue, > > a sort of cartoon of liberal thought. > > > What other people might easily recognize as > > indoctrination and propaganda, he blithely > > considers to be factual scientific education. > > > Any ideological challenge is an assault on his religion. > > Gregor post his opinions without reference to any external evidence, > and complains that what I post - which does refer to objective and > widely recognised facts, which I do point to - is "indoctrination and > propaganda" while it is actually pointing out that his kind of opinion > does reflect his exposure to precisely that kind of misinfomration. > > > It seems like when liberals live in very liberal places > > they start believing their own BS and they get > > into the "crowd mentality" or "riot mentality" > > where they presume they are superior and > > they are large and in charge. Sometimes they get > > so carried away with this they do outrageous > > things. > > Like invading Irak? > > > It seems to be akin to "risky shift" in juries > > or "confirmation bias" in scientific endeavors. > > > Police routinely whack a few heads and it > > breaks the mental spell. > > Reality bashed Dubbya's head quite hard in Irak without breaking the > mental spell that had taken hold of the neo-cons, and still seems to > infest whatever it is that you use instead of a brain. > > > Consider Sloman's advice and ""proof"" > > almost as you would advice on US > > economics from a Russian Stalinist. > > Consider Gregor's advice and **proof** exactly was you would economic > advice from a US monetarist. Not that Gregor bothers to point to > anything remotely ressembling objective evidence to support his silly > ideas. If I thought that he could think, I could claim that it was > because he knows that such evidence doesn't exist, but in fact he > doesn't understand the concept of evidence in the first place, and > thinks that his delusions have to be true just because he believes > them. > > > Ask him how he likes capitalism! > > Unbridled free market capitalism generates a series of booms and busts > in the economic environment. The free market is a good device for > matching supply and demand, but it does need a stabilising mechanism. > Keynes described one such mechanism which works pretty well, though it > can stall the economy in a state where it grows more slowly that it > ideally could. His followers have worked out some improvements, but > politicians don't like their prescriptions and prefer the plausible > nonsense they get to hear from monetarists, so we get more booms and > busts. > > -- > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen You praised Marx and Engels. Are you not an outright Marxist, Sloman?
From: krw on 17 May 2010 18:54 On Mon, 17 May 2010 08:14:14 -0400, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >On Sun, 16 May 2010 23:51:07 -0500, the renowned >"krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>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). > >We need a new word to replace millionaire. The guy who owns a hot dog >wagon is probably a millionaire. My plumber certainly is. At age 65 a cash megabuck is certainly livable. Dave Ramsey, though I'm not convinced, claims that 12% isn't difficult over the long haul. Your plumber will likely not have any problems in retirement, except for the ones government throws down in front of him. BTW, I knew a hotdog vendor who had well over $100K, cash, in his home safe. Amazing what you can do with a cash business.
From: krw on 17 May 2010 19:06 On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On May 17, 4:05�pm, "keith...(a)gmail.com" <keith...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On May 17, 3:53�pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > On May 17, 3:41�pm, "keith...(a)gmail.com" <keith...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > 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'm not missing the point, I just think you're mathematically wrong. >> > If the thing costs $1 today, or $0.77 plus $0.23 Fair Tax tomorrow, >> > what have you lost? �Where have I gone wrong? >> >> Because it cost me $1.40 yesterday (when I earned it) to have the >> $1.00 today, > >If you paid taxes already under the old system then you were screwed >*yesterday*. That can't be fixed-it's gone. Sorry. Me too. No, I was playing the game by the rules yesterday. Today the government change the rules after the game was in play. The winner is the one who spent every dime he ever made, not the one who took care of his life. >> and tomorrow (after I retire, take it out of the bank, >> and spend it) it only buys $.77 worth of stuff. > >$1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people >(AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price. Fine, if it really works, but that was not my point. >> �If I tax-deferred the >> $1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. �Any after-tax savings (that >> is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*. > >If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the >old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it). If they don't, I'll yank it all out and spend it. I may do that anyway. Property looks like the only thing worth having. >Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left >still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded >tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax) >both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power. >That's the contention, AIUI. Ok, but that doesn't help the people who have saved all their lives, which was the point of this threadlet.
From: Greegor on 17 May 2010 20:15
dagmar > I think the buzzword is "GRA" or something dagmar > like that. Guaranteed return annuity. dagmar > Basically, give Obama your IRA today, dagmar > and he'll gladly pay you back Tuesday dagmar > with interest. "I'll gladly pay you TUESDAY for a hamburger today!" - Wimpy In how many Popeye cartoons did Wimpy say this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Wellington_Wimpy seen grinding meat or eating burgers almost the entire time however, he is usually too cheap to pay for them himself. A recurring joke involves Wimpy's attempts to con other patrons of the diner into buying his meal for him. His best-known catchphrase started in 1931 as "Cook me up a hamburger. I'll pay you Thursday." In 1932, this then became the famous "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today". [4] This phrase is now commonly used to illustrate fiscal irresponsibility[5][6][7] and still appears in modern comedies such as The Drew Carey Show and The Office. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ6xBaZ92uA |