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 18 May 2010 11:35 On Tue, 18 May 2010 01:47:19 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On May 17, 7:10�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 17 May 2010 03:40:11 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On May 17, 4:22�am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> On May 14, 5:07�pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> > On May 14, 10:42�pm, John Larkin >> >> > > Productivity is the ultimate benevolence. Technology pushes >> >> > > productivity. >> >> >> > Perfectly true. But it doesn't do a thing to ensure that the benefits >> >> > of increased productivity are equally shared between capital and >> >> > labour. >> >> >> Obviously it's extremely critical how and when those benefits are >> >> shared. �Labor does not deserve all the proceeds of my innovation, >> >> risk, and investment simply because I hire them, guarantee them a >> >> regular check when I get none, and insulate them from the predations >> >> and petty ministration of their rulers. �Showing up for a paycheck at >> >> a factory does not entitle you to the factory. >> >> >> Freedom means you can start something yourself, if you want those >> >> rewards and are prepared to take those risks; government means you >> >> can't, to a larger and larger extent. >> >> >Society as whole provides the environment where you can hire >> >technically educated employees, communicate with them, and have them >> >travel around and get looked after when they get sick. >> >> >Your taxes support that society. Try setting up an innovative business >> >in a third world country where the tax rates are lower (or easily >> >evaded by bribing the right people). >> >> >Showing up for a paycheck at a factory doesn't entitle you to the >> >whole factory, but the last hundred years has demonstrated that the >> >optimum split for rewarding capital versus labour comes out at around >> >fifty-fifty. >> >> My business spends a tad over 50% of revenues on salaries, retirement >> funds, benefits, and insurance/other worker-related fees. 22 to 24% is >> parts. Most of the rest is rent, professional services, utilities, >> subcontracting, things like that. Then there's the heap of fees and >> taxes. We're small enough that we can expense capital equipment >> purchases, so we do. >> >> In a good year, that leaves a few per cent for profit, the return on >> capital. >> >> Where's my 50:50 split? > >You are plowing it back into the business -"expense capital equipment" >- which you presumably own. And which we use, and which wears out, and which will have an ebay value close to zero when it's worn out... if we're lucky. More likely we'll have to pay to have it hauled away. There's no pot of gold there. Damn, you are clueless about how a business actually works. You don't seem to be exracting a >commercial rate of return on the equity that you have built up in the >business, but if the business is becoming more valuable, year by year, >and you own it, the increase in value could be seen as your return on >capital. I will never, under any reasonable scenario, cash out for anything approaching the sum of salaries and benefits I have disbursed to employees over the years. IBM and Exxon and Boeing manage small profits in good years, losses in bad years, but every month they generate a mountain of payroll checks. The numbers of my business aren't much different from Boeing's, or that of any modestly successful restaurant: a few percent "profit" (which isn't cash in the bank) on sales and a few percent return on equity (or loss, depending) and about 50% of gross revenue going directly to employees. ANd lots of taxes paid. When I die, the government will make an absurd valuation of the heap, including "goodwill", and levy enough death taxes to wipe it out, roughly 6 times over. I suppose if they want to wipe out the businesses that create jobs and pay taxes, it's their choice. John
From: John Larkin on 18 May 2010 11:43 On Tue, 18 May 2010 01:54:56 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On May 17, 10:48�pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> On May 17, 3:09�pm, John Larkin >> >> >> >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, 17 May 2010 12:57:38 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(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. >> >> Sure. �A union is nothing more than an attempt to monopolize labor. > >True. But non-unionised labour is almost always in a hopelessly weak >negotiating position vis-a-vis employers. I have never felt that. I have feet and can leave one job for a better one, if I can find it. Anybody can do that. Unions freeze people in jobs even as technology changes, sort of a ststic friction, so stops the best-fit mechanism that moving around provides. By definition, employers >have capital, and are better placed to survive a strike or lock-out >than the workers and their families. Futhermore, the employer is often >a single organisation, which can practice divide-and-conquer on non- >unionised workers in a way that the workers can only dream about. Boeing has numerous unions, any one of which can shut down all airplane production, and make outrageous demands for themselves, which they do fairly often. In the auto industry, it's done across multiple companies as "pattern bargaining", which is one reason I've never bought a crappy American car. The successful businesses in the USA are mostly non-union. John
From: Joerg on 18 May 2010 11:45 JosephKK wrote: > 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 Don't know how old you are but if there ain't a big stash in those IRAs and you don't have some plum pension coming your way I'd start saving now :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 18 May 2010 11:56 JosephKK wrote: > 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. That's also ok, over that long time frame. However, by now I have whittled mine down to around 2000 miles/year and my wife's is at around 1000 miles/year. Hiking shoes, different thing, we wear down 2-3 pairs each year. Or to say it arrogantly, there's some high-level people in the AGW propaganda machine that only talk about the environment, and then there's people who actually do something about it :-) >>>> 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. Yes, and that's got to stop. In that respect we have some encouraging trends in America, recently. Still, there will be lots of people who'll be dirt poor once they retire. They just don't know it yet. [...] >> 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. Engineers have to do what industry does, broaden their scope beyond our borders. I have always done that but am constantly surprised by how many engineers don't. Ok, it does require working at odd hours sometimes and it does require honing some foreign language skills. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 18 May 2010 13:53
dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: > 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 > I had looked at both. No meat in there other than assumptions. > 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 > Major mistake, and that's a big one, quote: "Consumption increases by 2.4 percent more in the first year, ..." What were they smoking? Just a small hint: Joe Q.Public does not pay 23% income tax on _100%_ of his salary, in fact many people pay hardly anything. Those folks' consumption will drop 23%, plain and simple. Then, there will be massive layoffs. >> 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. > I don't find it well-considered at all. Some of the more serious bugs in here, for example ... http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/MacroeconomicAnalysisofFairTax.pdf include quote "The specific taxes repealed include ... Social Security and Medicare taxes". Now I am certainly against the extremely plum public employee pensions that are wrecking California. But on the same token it isn't fair that a teacher who used to not pay SS taxes but also doesn't get SS pays intop the system for me. Because that's what he'd do if he buys a beer. The paper also lacks a crucial consideration, the one I mentioned: It socks it to retirees who have diligently saved every penny they could. Now that already taxed money would get taxed again the millisecond they buy something. This is not fair and I sure hope some organizations like AARP will see that unfair punishment and hold the line, and not let that happen. >> 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 can't do that, for safety concerns. IMHO one should assume that reputable web sites don't use tricks such as cookies unless they are necessary for registration purposes and such. >> >> >>> ... (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. > If done retroactively it is ex post facto. The constituioon does not say new. Otherwise it would also be ok to set the income tax to 110% retroactively, wouldn't it? > 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) > Lots of people are hoping that the worst will be stopped after the November elections. In fact, I have met people who said they'd make some major business decisions based on the outcome. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |