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 10:53 Bill Sloman wrote: > On May 14, 6:03 am, dagmargoodb...(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. >> >> Maximum work for everyone. Maximum intrusion. Horrible. > > But easily automated, unless you want to cheat. No place where I > worked complained about the complexity or got worried about > intrusions. European small business software packages claim to include > it as a matter of course. > And then you get a letter from the tax agency, asking for some explanation why your VAT intake was so low and you claimed so much in refunds. "Because I run a business, are VAT-exempt for that, and have clients in places like Asia" ... "Can you come by with the books and show us?" ... "Sure". It was a nice bicycle ride through a forest so I didn't mind. The guy there was very friendly but became quite frustrated because nearly all the stuff was in foreign languages, some in Korean :-) > People who are sloppy about their paper-work can get in a mess with > VAT, as with every other item of accounting, but at least it isn't > hard to understand. > IIRC we had 6 or 7 VAT rates and you really had to watch your data entry. At the "Pre-computer" point. -- 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 10:56 Bill Sloman wrote: > On May 14, 12:39 am, John Larkin > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: [...] >> 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. >> >> 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. > > Dream on. Why do you think that VAT was invented? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax > The usual. To squeeze ever more taxes out of people. Whether you call them VAT, fees, surcharges, carbon credits or whatever, a tax is a tax is a tax. [...] -- 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 11:06 On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:31:49 +0100, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 14/05/2010 06:16, 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? >> >> Of course Marx himself was a n'er-do-well who never earned his keep, >> a pseudo-academic parasite sponging off patron Engels. Engels in turn >> coasted off the family business. Marx made his living guilt-tripping >> Engels with econobabble, a fine tradition carried on by Marxists >> today. > >Engels saw first hand what greedy industrialists were doing to their >workers in the Lancashire cotton industry. Boiler explosions were >commonplace up until the Vulcan insurers made a stand and insisted on >proper boiler safety inspections. And in cases of tampering with safety >relief valves they would not pay out. > >It was common practice to overstoke the fire before the first shift and >add weight to the pressure relief valve - this resulted in several large >scale boiler explosions destroying big mills in the early morning and >killing many workers in the Lancashire cotton industry. > >http://www.camdenmin.co.uk/technical-steam/historic-steam-boiler-explosions-p-2658.html > >Articles on the history of boiler insurance show that the US had a worse >record despite having the advantage of seeing the innovations in UK >boilers. Some element of NIH played a part but mostly it was that >industrialists greed was paramount and the workers powerless. eg. > >http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed15/15407.pdf >first page and page 7 under Normal Loss Hazard >> >> "To each according to need" really means "From you to me." "Dear >> Fred, I need that grocery money, and I deserve it, luv Karl, xoxoxoxo >> P.S. Stop exploiting me! KM" > >It makes reasonable sense to pay your workers a living wage for the work >that they do rather than pay them less than they can sensibly live on. >Ford was about the first in the USA to actually do this. It only makes sense if the money comes from somewhere. If all the employers arbitrarily doubled wages, inflation would take it all away within weeks, maybe days. If a single employer did it, he's go out of business. Shuffling paper money around is meaningless; productivity is real. Ford increased wages because he had a revolutionary super-efficient way of making cheap cars, and most workers found the pace and discipline tiring and tended to quit after a few months. He needed the best workers to stick around, so he golden-handcuffed them; this was *before* they were unionized. The "invisible hand" was at work. Productivity was the key. This is good: http://www.amazon.com/Ford-Men-Machine-Robert-Lacey/dp/0517635046/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273849223&sr=1-1 > >In the UK there were some decent industrialists mostly of quaker >families who did treat their workforce fairly - examples include some >household names like Pilkingtons, Cadbury, Bournville, Marks&Spencer. A decent industrialist realizes that a partnership with workers is mutually beneficial, but must still compete with company owners who don't agree with this philosophy. A company can't arbitrarily give away high wages without achieving corresponding competitive benefits. John
From: dagmargoodboat on 14 May 2010 11:06 On May 14, 9:56 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Bill Sloman wrote: > > On May 14, 12:39 am, John Larkin > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > [...] > > > > >> 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. > > >> 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. > > > Dream on. Why do you think that VAT was invented? > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax > > The usual. To squeeze ever more taxes out of people. And--don't forget--to hide the deed, hence the prestidigitation. My favorite accountant says spotting fraud is easy--she just looks for unreasonable complexity. Like VAT. > Whether you call > them VAT, fees, surcharges, carbon credits or whatever, a tax is a tax > is a tax. Yup. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 14 May 2010 11:09
On May 14, 9:53 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Bill Sloman wrote: > > On May 14, 6:03 am, dagmargoodb...(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. > > >> Maximum work for everyone. Maximum intrusion. Horrible. > > > But easily automated, unless you want to cheat. No place where I > > worked complained about the complexity or got worried about > > intrusions. European small business software packages claim to include > > it as a matter of course. > > And then you get a letter from the tax agency, asking for some > explanation why your VAT intake was so low and you claimed so much in > refunds. "Because I run a business, are VAT-exempt for that, and have > clients in places like Asia" ... "Can you come by with the books and > show us?" ... "Sure". It was a nice bicycle ride through a forest so I > didn't mind. The guy there was very friendly but became quite frustrated > because nearly all the stuff was in foreign languages, some in Korean :-) > > > People who are sloppy about their paper-work can get in a mess with > > VAT, as with every other item of accounting, but at least it isn't > > hard to understand. > > IIRC we had 6 or 7 VAT rates and you really had to watch your data > entry. At the "Pre-computer" point. Taxes are scarcely any inconvenience at all to the people who don't pay them. You made something. That was your mistake. James |