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 23:24 On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:40:27 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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). Silly.
From: krw on 17 May 2010 23:25 On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:54:06 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. No hurry. I hope.
From: John Larkin on 17 May 2010 23:27 On Mon, 17 May 2010 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >To the contrary--anti-trust should apply to labor, too. �E.g. >> >government unions. >> >> Agreed; all unions. > >Sure. A union is nothing more than an attempt to monopolize labor. Sad day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act#Exemptions John
From: dagmargoodboat on 17 May 2010 23:57 On May 17, 7:15 pm, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 I guess "GRA = G-ive barack your i-RA; he'll gladly pay you Tuesday" would've been better. > 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 Yep. That's our guy. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 18 May 2010 00:25
On May 17, 8:43 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > dagmargoodb...(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 This document gives figures, but not methods: http://www.fairtax.org/site/DocServer/What_the_federal_tax_system_is_costing_you-Tax_complianc.pdf?docID=7581 This is the main info page: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main There's too much, really, and kind of scattered across white papers, .PDFs, and FAQs. About the FairTax-->Basics has some numbers: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_basics_main > I can only see lots of text, no hard math. I haven't read thru all their papers--there are so many. I remember hitting a couple that looked well-considered, but I was really just skimming. > The calculator produced a > safety warning and the site notoriously wants to set cookies (disallowed > here). I think they need a new web designer. Yes. I set FireFox to accept cookies, but automatically delete them when the session closes. > > > > > ... (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). It *is* unfair--even unconstitutional[*]--but there's Supreme Court precedent for it. [*] "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed" --US Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9. I've cribbed this from an earlier post, Nov. 22, 2009: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/b3f726c5d69b722b/e075062237db96b7? In United States v. Darusmont, 449 U.S. 292 (1981) http://supreme.justia.com/us/449/292/case.html a couple sold their house (a triplex)--to relocate for a new job-- after carefully consulting with their tax guys to sell in a way minimizing their tax. Congress changed the law later that year, and then IRS came after the couple for more tax. The homeowners argued that tax change was a violation of their due process rights under the 5th Amendment; the justices said no, because the issue had been under discussion in Congress for a year prior, so the homeowners *should've* known. Further, the Court said changing the tax rate of an existing law was not the same as enacting a new /ex post facto/ law. This started under Franklin Delano Obama. He's back, so beware. Everything's fair once you stop following the Constitution. "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session." --Judge Gideon J. Tucker (1826-1899) -- Cheers, James Arthur |