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: Joerg on 17 May 2010 21:43 dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On May 17, 3:31 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: [...] >>> 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'd have to see their math. Most of what we buy is not services but cars, TV set, washing machines, lumber, groceries, beer and so on. Labor is a small fraction of the cost in these products. Say it was 10%, then this whole "fair tax" of 23% would turn into a de facto 20% ripoff for all those folks in or close to retirement who have diligently saved. Because those savings are from income that has already been taxed. Nothing fair about that at all. Even in high-tech medical devices labor wasn't a whole lot, and there I speak from experience because I ran a division including production. Health care costs would instantly shoot up if they did that extra sales tax. On top of the tax increases we just got in that domain. We have to think about those consequences. > 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! ... This one? http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer I can only see lots of text, no hard math. The calculator produced a safety warning and the site notoriously wants to set cookies (disallowed here). I think they need a new web designer. > ... (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.) > If a law is deemed unfair it can be challenged in court. Not Congress, but the law. Slamming people retroactively sure sounds unfair to me (and probably to a judge or jury). -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: JosephKK on 17 May 2010 22:37 On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:11:54 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. erp. ^^^^/pre
From: JosephKK on 17 May 2010 22:40 On Sun, 16 May 2010 22:35:56 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:05:18 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> 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. > >How so? Did you die? Californica taxes my income, my spending, and my real property (primary residence).
From: JosephKK on 17 May 2010 22:54 On Sun, 16 May 2010 22:38:03 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:03:01 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.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). >> >>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. Since i have only a short list of people to ask, i will. It will be weeks at least to verify.
From: JosephKK on 17 May 2010 23:12
On Mon, 17 May 2010 06:49:06 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >JosephKK wrote: >> 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. >> > >That's good, not many people do that. > > >>> Such as not buying a new car every five >>> years. >> >> Let's see, my car is model year 1994, bought used. ... > > >Ok, model year 1995 for the Toyota, the Mits is two years younger. You >win that one :-) > > >> ... Do you want to continue? >> > >Yeah. How many miles on it? The Toyota is somewhere around 45k, the Mits >is 67k or so. > Somewhere past 120,000. > >>> 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. >> > >You mean the hand-to-mouth guy? I could show you dozens. In fact, that >seems to be the MO for most people. > Most of what i am seeing is debt to mouth instead. > >>> I have then paid twice. That is >>> simply unfair. >> >> A. Life IS unfair. >> > >It doesn't have to be and one can do something about it. That's why I >would squarely oppose such a shift. And I sure would know a lot of >retirees who'd march to Washington if that ever were to happen. > OK. > >> B. I would be in the same boat. Pretty much only kids would "benefit" >> > >Right. And we can't let that happen. I remember when Sweden "fixed" the >problems caused by wanton spending, by socking it to the retired. > > >>> 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. > > >What I am saying is that it'll multiply. Big time. OK. >You would see jobs >over here shrivel up at a pace never heard before. Maybe, i've been working for quite a few years now. Saw the piece of the company where i worked go through some 15 consecutive RIFs during about 10 years before i got hit in 1992. Lots of unemployed engineers at the time. |