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 14 May 2010 11:14 On Fri, 14 May 2010 02:49:23 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On May 14, 7:16�am, 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. > >I think you are mixing your metaphors. If you want to refer to >Orwell's "Animal Farm" you had better read it first. > >> > This falls a >> > long way short of Marx - >> >> Marx was kind of an idiot. > >The same kind of idiot as Darwin, who laid out the obvious facts that >nobody had noticed before. > >> "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? > >That pretty much describes the state of industrial workers in >Victorian England before the trade union movement got under way. Marx >was describing the way the world worked at the time when he wrote >that, based - in part - on the data that he got from Friedrich Engels, >who not only supported Marx financially, but also provided a lot of >the social statistics on which Marx based his work. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels > >Marx's economic writings were much more evidence-based than those of >his contemporaries. If Marx is a kind of idiot, it is the kind of >idiot that we should see more often. > >Your comment demonstrates that you don't understand why industrial >workes are no longer paid a bare subsistence wage, and the >contribution that Marx made to the process that changed their >condition. > >> � 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. > >There was nothing pseudo-academic about Marx. He revolutionised >academic economics, in part by exploiting statistical data about the >actual economies of the time, quite a bit of which was collected by >Engels. > >> � "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" > >Perhaps. Marx didn't have an appealing personality. But he was doing >important - ground-breaking - work, and Engels saw its value and >provided the financial and intellectual support that allowed Marx to >get on with it. > >That you don't see its value reflects your - negligible - intellectual >status as a right-wing nitwit. > >> � Marx's moronic precepts ruined scores of countries, and killed tens >> of millions, maybe hundreds. > >The Bolshevik version of Marxism, with its emphasis on the "leading >role of the party" has damaged a lot of countries, and killed a lot of >people. The problem isn't with Marxism, but the concentration of power >into the hands of an unrepresentative and irresponsible elite - the >Communist party in Stalin's Russian, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's >Cambodia killed a lot of people, but the Nazi Party in Hitler's >Germany, the Fascist parties in Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain >weren't far behind, despite their violently anti-Marxist ideologies. > >> �"Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean >> � the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form >> � of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no >> � need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a >> � great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying >> � it daily." �--The Communist Manifesto >> >> But, dim-witted Marx had it exactly bass-ackwards--industry was the >> very salvation for the proletariat, pulling them up out of poverty. > >Only after the trade union movement forced industrial employers to pay >their workers at above subsistence levels. All a union can do is increase its members' wages at the expense of other, poorer citizens. It's a less-then-zero-sum game. The thing that makes everybody better off is productivity, and unions are generally opposed to that. Ford doubled his workers wages before they were unionized for two reasons: it was good for his business, and the technology that he invented increased productivity enough that he could afford it. Productivity is the only real source of wealth, and technology is the main source of productivity. Unions went for the money *after* technology created the money. The most productive enterprises these days are non-union. Unions have mostly killed off the classic union industries. John
From: dagmargoodboat on 14 May 2010 11:18 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. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: John Larkin on 14 May 2010 11:25 On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:50:11 +0100, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 14/05/2010 05:12, 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. >> >>> Maximum work for everyone. Maximum intrusion. Horrible. >> >> A lot of work, sure, but money only changes hands at the end of the pipe. > >No. You have it wrong. Every stage in the pipeline *pays* VAT inclusive >prices to their suppliers and totals up their input tax and then charges >their customers including VAT and totals up their output tax. Then >every month if large or three months if a small company you send a VAT >cheque to HMRC which is the difference of those two numbers. > >A modern computer system doesn't find this too difficult. Unless that is >some half baked government changes the VAT rate from 17.5% to 15% in the >run up to Christmas as they did last year. That was a disaster for shops >as shelf prices are all marked inclusive of VAT. UK VAT is expected to >go to 20% shortly to deal with the deficit. It will make mental >arithmetic a lot easier - I never learnt my 17.5x table. > >Exceptions exist for cross boarder trades in the EEC which allow not >charging VAT if the goods are for export to another country in the EEC. >This leads to a complex form of cross border trade called carousel fraud >which typically involves small high value objects like memory chips, >mobile phones and latterly carbon credits. > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5204422.stm > >> ...and IIRC, the Canuckistani VAT is paid by the buyer; a sales tax. > >A pure sales tax paid only by the non-business end user would be a lot >simpler. Allowing businesses not to have to fight with badly paid VAT >advisers. I have had some amusing run-ins with them on reclaiming VAT >for a charity making disabled access improvements. There's nothing wrong or difficult about having businesses pay sales tax. We in California pay sales tax on anything we consume, like equipment and furniture and supplies, and pay no tax on parts or subassemblies that will go into sellable products. But it probably makes sense to exempt productive equipment, since that would encourage long-term productivity and job creation. If there's an opamp in stock and I pull it out to make a breadboard or a test fixture, I should in theory note the event and pay sales tax on it. And if I buy a bunch of parts for engineering, taxed, but some wind up in a shipped product, we should get a refund on the taxes. VAT sounds like a mess to me. Accountants and attorneys and bureaucrats are all useless, expensive overheads on society. John
From: Joerg on 14 May 2010 11:31 John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:50:11 +0100, Martin Brown > <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 14/05/2010 05:12, 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. >>> >>>> Maximum work for everyone. Maximum intrusion. Horrible. >>> A lot of work, sure, but money only changes hands at the end of the pipe. >> No. You have it wrong. Every stage in the pipeline *pays* VAT inclusive >> prices to their suppliers and totals up their input tax and then charges >> their customers including VAT and totals up their output tax. Then >> every month if large or three months if a small company you send a VAT >> cheque to HMRC which is the difference of those two numbers. >> >> A modern computer system doesn't find this too difficult. Unless that is >> some half baked government changes the VAT rate from 17.5% to 15% in the >> run up to Christmas as they did last year. That was a disaster for shops >> as shelf prices are all marked inclusive of VAT. UK VAT is expected to >> go to 20% shortly to deal with the deficit. It will make mental >> arithmetic a lot easier - I never learnt my 17.5x table. >> >> Exceptions exist for cross boarder trades in the EEC which allow not >> charging VAT if the goods are for export to another country in the EEC. >> This leads to a complex form of cross border trade called carousel fraud >> which typically involves small high value objects like memory chips, >> mobile phones and latterly carbon credits. >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5204422.stm >> >>> ...and IIRC, the Canuckistani VAT is paid by the buyer; a sales tax. >> A pure sales tax paid only by the non-business end user would be a lot >> simpler. Allowing businesses not to have to fight with badly paid VAT >> advisers. I have had some amusing run-ins with them on reclaiming VAT >> for a charity making disabled access improvements. > > There's nothing wrong or difficult about having businesses pay sales > tax. We in California pay sales tax on anything we consume, like > equipment and furniture and supplies, and pay no tax on parts or > subassemblies that will go into sellable products. But it probably > makes sense to exempt productive equipment, since that would encourage > long-term productivity and job creation. > > If there's an opamp in stock and I pull it out to make a breadboard or > a test fixture, I should in theory note the event and pay sales tax on > it. And if I buy a bunch of parts for engineering, taxed, but some > wind up in a shipped product, we should get a refund on the taxes. > > VAT sounds like a mess to me. Accountants and attorneys and > bureaucrats are all useless, expensive overheads on society. > Yup. And now they are talking about taxing services. Meaning what I cost my clients would then go up by x percent, or the cost of doing business in California would go up by x percent. Which will increase the exodus because the guy 50 miles east of here in Nevada doesn't have that cost. I sure hope that the 2/3rds rule will hold to avert such damage. Every business or person leaving the state will cause the net tax from that to drop to zero. -- 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 11:37
On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:18:40 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(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. And "put people out of work." > >Evil capitalists. Marx the Moocher should've stopped 'em. Yup. John |