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 14 May 2010 10:39 John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:12:11 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman > <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> On May 13, 6:32 pm, John Larkin >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 07:32:26 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On May 13, 4:39 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>> On May 13, 1:51 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>> On May 12, 5:48 pm, "krw wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:34:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>> Maybe. A 10% VAT would raise $1.5T a year, enough to pay for Obama's >>>>>>>> permanent spending bender on...whatever it was we got for all that >>>>>>>> dough he spent--I can't remember. >>>>>>> *Maybe*. The deficit for just April was $83B. Note that April is also the >>>>>>> month when the government intake is *highest*, do to the April 15 tax filing >>>>>>> date. In 43 of the last 56 years April has been a net surplus month. >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> A 10% VAT gives Obama $125B more/month to fritter away on nothing. >>>>>> (Enough for break-even, not enough to pay off any debt.) >>>>>> Of course that assumes people continue to buy stuff at the same rate, >>>>>> which they won't. They won't work at the same rate either. Better >>>>>> make it 18%, like Europe. And, naturally, that won't be enough >>>>>> either. He'll spend more. >>>>>> That said, Obama won't push a VAT--it doesn't redistribute wealth. >>>>>> Deficit spending does. >>>>> Actually, VAT does redistribute wealth - away from the poor towards >>>>> the rich. The poor spend most of their income on buying stuff, which >>>>> attracts VAT. >>>> True. >>>>> The rich divert a larger part of their income into investment, which >>>>> doesn't attract VAT. >>>> Naturally. As a nation, we spend 10% of our time and creative energy >>>> figuring out how to pay our taxes, and 5% (maybe more) planning the >>>> course that minimizes them. >>>>> Technically speaking, this makes VAT is a >>>>> regressive tax. >>>> In the US we have a proposal called "The Fair Tax," a simple 23% >>>> national sales tax. It would replace all of our federal tax system >>>> (personal and corporate income tax, Medicare, Social Security, etc), >>>> and eliminate all the credits, deductions, receipts, bookkeeping and >>>> time spent dodging & gaming the various income taxes. The latter >>>> costs us hundreds of billions a year, not to mention human energy >>>> wasted unproductively. >>>> A simple "prebate" makes the Fair Tax progressive. >>> Just exempt basics, like sensible food, reasonable rent, generic >>> medicines, public transport, education, stuff like that. Use tax >>> policy to steer behavior. >> They tried that in the UK. It rapidly got silly. Food was VAT-exempt, >> but eating in a restaurant was not a necessity, so you had to pay VAT >> on the bill - unless you bought a take-away meal. > > That's the way sales tax works in California. If I buy uncooked > chicken at Safeway, there's no sales tax. If I buy cooked, hot, > ready-to-eat chicken, it's taxed. It's simple, because it's a visible, > automated-cash-register, point-of-sale tax. Restaurant food is taxed > whether you eat it there or not. I can't imagine how you could work a > thing like this all the way back up the VAT chain. > Actually, Countries in Europe have that in the VAT system. IIRC Germany has several VAT levels, the one on uncooked food and groceries is around half of the regular rate. Which is sky-high to begin with and, of course, they also have an income tax. > It would be easy to structure a national sales tax to exempt the > things poorer people actually need. There would be some cheating > around the edges, but there always will be some cheating. But things > like VAT carousel fraud couldn't happen. > > (One shop near here sells " *WARM* " corned-beef sandwiches because > hot ones have a higher tax rate.) > > 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. An additional flat sales tax would increase their cost of living instantly by 10% or whatever. Not fair at all. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 14 May 2010 10:44 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:08:20 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 13 May 2010 20:15:42 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:39:28 -0700, John Larkin >>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:12:11 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman >>>> <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On May 13, 6:32 pm, John Larkin >>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 07:32:26 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 13, 4:39 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> On May 13, 1:51 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> On May 12, 5:48 pm, "krw wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:34:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe. A 10% VAT would raise $1.5T a year, enough to pay for Obama's >>>>>>>>>>> permanent spending bender on...whatever it was we got for all that >>>>>>>>>>> dough he spent--I can't remember. >>>>>>>>>> *Maybe*. The deficit for just April was $83B. Note that April is also the >>>>>>>>>> month when the government intake is *highest*, do to the April 15 tax filing >>>>>>>>>> date. In 43 of the last 56 years April has been a net surplus month. >>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>> A 10% VAT gives Obama $125B more/month to fritter away on nothing. >>>>>>>>> (Enough for break-even, not enough to pay off any debt.) >>>>>>>>> Of course that assumes people continue to buy stuff at the same rate, >>>>>>>>> which they won't. They won't work at the same rate either. Better >>>>>>>>> make it 18%, like Europe. And, naturally, that won't be enough >>>>>>>>> either. He'll spend more. >>>>>>>>> That said, Obama won't push a VAT--it doesn't redistribute wealth. >>>>>>>>> Deficit spending does. >>>>>>>> Actually, VAT does redistribute wealth - away from the poor towards >>>>>>>> the rich. The poor spend most of their income on buying stuff, which >>>>>>>> attracts VAT. >>>>>>> True. >>>>>>>> The rich divert a larger part of their income into investment, which >>>>>>>> doesn't attract VAT. >>>>>>> Naturally. As a nation, we spend 10% of our time and creative energy >>>>>>> figuring out how to pay our taxes, and 5% (maybe more) planning the >>>>>>> course that minimizes them. >>>>>>>> Technically speaking, this makes VAT is a >>>>>>>> regressive tax. >>>>>>> In the US we have a proposal called "The Fair Tax," a simple 23% >>>>>>> national sales tax. It would replace all of our federal tax system >>>>>>> (personal and corporate income tax, Medicare, Social Security, etc), >>>>>>> and eliminate all the credits, deductions, receipts, bookkeeping and >>>>>>> time spent dodging & gaming the various income taxes. The latter >>>>>>> costs us hundreds of billions a year, not to mention human energy >>>>>>> wasted unproductively. >>>>>>> A simple "prebate" makes the Fair Tax progressive. >>>>>> Just exempt basics, like sensible food, reasonable rent, generic >>>>>> medicines, public transport, education, stuff like that. Use tax >>>>>> policy to steer behavior. >>>>> They tried that in the UK. It rapidly got silly. Food was VAT-exempt, >>>>> but eating in a restaurant was not a necessity, so you had to pay VAT >>>>> on the bill - unless you bought a take-away meal. >>>> That's the way sales tax works in California. If I buy uncooked >>>> chicken at Safeway, there's no sales tax. If I buy cooked, hot, >>>> ready-to-eat chicken, it's taxed. It's simple, because it's a visible, >>>> automated-cash-register, point-of-sale tax. Restaurant food is taxed >>>> whether you eat it there or not. >>> In Vermong there is a so called "bagel tax". If you buy one bagel, it's taxed >>> as "prepared food". If you buy six they're not taxed because they've now >>> become "groceries". NY has similar silliness, orange juice is not taxed, >>> Hawaiian Punch and Tang are. >> It's sometimes silly and arbitrary, but it's still pretty simple to >> administer... the cash register reads the UPC and adds tax or >> doesn't... and it generally exempts the basics that lower-income >> people need. >> >> A 20% tax on junk food, and zero on broccoli, would encourage people >> to eat their broccoli. >> >> >>>> I can't imagine how you could work a >>>> thing like this all the way back up the VAT chain. >>> VATs tend to be sales taxes, in reality. >> VAT is applied all up and down the production chain. So the only stage >> that can be selectively taxes is the last one, at point of sale. I >> prefer a true 100% visible point of sale sales tax. VAT is designed to >> hide the actual taxation level, at considerable cost of complexity. > > That's the theory but in practice, AIUI, VATs are only collected at the end of > the pipe. > And they are _not_ simple at all. While in Europe I had to file business taxes and there was an intricate VAT refunding scheme you had to follow for business stuff. This regularly led to questions from their tax agencies because I also had foreign clients which did not have to pay VAT on my services. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 14 May 2010 10:47 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010 21:03:14 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> On May 13, 10:21 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >> <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:08:20 -0700, John Larkin >>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> VATs tend to be sales taxes, in reality. >>>> VAT is applied all up and down the production chain. So the only stage >>>> that can be selectively taxes is the last one, at point of sale. I >>>> prefer a true 100% visible point of sale sales tax. VAT is designed to >>>> hide the actual taxation level, at considerable cost of complexity. >>> That's the theory but in practice, AIUI, VATs are only collected at the end of >>> the pipe. >> No. They're charged and credited throughout the chain. Your thing >> gets taxed, then rebated and the next guy pays, then gets his rebate, >> etc. > > So it's only collected at the end. > No. It's typically collected every time something is sold (unless exempt, like food). There is a bureaucratic process to get it refunded for stuff that was not used at the end of the chain. >> Maximum work for everyone. Maximum intrusion. Horrible. > > A lot of work, sure, but money only changes hands at the end of the pipe. > ...and IIRC, the Canuckistani VAT is paid by the buyer; a sales tax. It's probably like in Europe but not sure: If a non-exempt company buys a scope or something else they have to fork out the VAT. Then file for a refund, along with all other VAT declarations. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: John Larkin on 14 May 2010 10:48 On Fri, 14 May 2010 01:45:16 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On May 13, 10:05�pm, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> BS > Do pay attention. The trouble that Greece is >> BS > now in will be fixed by Greece. The EU - as >> BS > a whole - will under-write Greek borrowing >> BS > until that happens. >> >> Oh GOODY! � More DEBT! � THAT'LL fix em! � LOL! > >The alternative was to let them go bankrupt, taking down a bunch of >Eurpean banks that had lent them money. This is pretty much what >happend in 1929, and the relevant politicians know enough history to >be aware of this, and didn't fancy going down that route again. There's a good argument that the government interventions in the '30s created a decade-long depression that otherwise would have been a year-or-so stock market bust. The "success" of the Roosevelt acts has entered our mythology. It's not as though economists understand any of this stuff. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100511092406.htm > >Right-wing nitwits are less familiar with history, and correspondingly >more enthusiastic about repeating their ancestor's mistakes. History records that we had stock market bubbles and busts for hundreds of years before 1929, and that the first great government intervention in such a bust was followed by the first Great Depression. > >Make no mistake. The Greeks are in the process of reforming their >economy. Beginning with a general strike. Already public servants are getting 10% lower salaries, and >their retirement age has been raised from 61 to 65. There's a lot >more of that kind of belt-tightening in the pipe-line. When "public servants" getting a 10% pay cut has serious effects on an economy, you know that you have way too many "public servants." John
From: John Larkin on 14 May 2010 10:51
On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:16:49 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(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. John |