conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: Joerg on 22 May 2010 15:10 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <major snippage and attributions...> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tax-deferred the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the contention, AIUI. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other false assumption is that the price would drop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In reality, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there is more than one manufacturer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is >>>>>>>>>>>>> often zero. >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the relevance. >>>>>>>>>>> The relevance is this: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because >>>>>>>>>>> the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent >>>>>>>>>>> that assumption is flawed for two reasons: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota >>>>>>>>>>> will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor >>>>>>>>>>> associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule. >>>>>>>>>> I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and >>>>>>>>>> labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for >>>>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>>> I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll >>>>>>>>> crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or >>>>>>>>> you don't have pickles for lunch :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage, >>>>>>>> and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta >>>>>>>> price per unit versus volume. >>>>>>> What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever, >>>>>>> competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same >>>>>>> is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make >>>>>>> $1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea. >>>>> Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea. >>>>> >>>> Mine was made in Nagoya. >>> Why do you insist that anecdote = data? >> >> Why do you think the NUMMI plant was shut down? It might get a little >> glimmer of hope now that Tesla wants to build electric cars there in a >> little corner of that huge plant. But Toyota doesn't build there >> anymore, that's now history. > > Why do you think Toyota moved out of Kalifornica? Why haven't you? ... Ever tried to sell a house here lately? > ... Toyota > still manufactures a *lot* of their NA cars in the US. Hundai has a plant > fifty miles down the road from me and Kia has a new plant 30 miles the other > way. > >> Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko. > > ...and Canuckistan. Wouldn't have one. Why are you changing the subject? To make the point. Sure, about 55% of foreign cars sold here are built here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465005,00.html However, one has to subtract from that several positions: a. Many times the engines, transmissions and submodules are coming in via container ship, from overseas. So the labor in those is foreign labor. b. A lot of US brand cars are no longer made in the US, engines come from Canada, and so on. All that needs to be subtracted. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 22 May 2010 15:14 John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:50:50 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> JosephKK wrote: >>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <major snippage and attributions...> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tax-deferred the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the contention, AIUI. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other false assumption is that the price would drop >>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order >>>>>>>>>>>>> effects. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In reality, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>> off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay >>>>>>>>>>>>> for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly? >>>>>>>>>>> Because there is more than one manufacturer. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is >>>>>>>>>> often zero. >>>>>>>>> I don't see the relevance. >>>>>>>> The relevance is this: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because >>>>>>>> the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent >>>>>>>> that assumption is flawed for two reasons: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota >>>>>>>> will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor >>>>>>>> associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule. >>>>>>> I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and >>>>>>> labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for >>>>>>> example. >>>>>> I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll >>>>>> crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or >>>>>> you don't have pickles for lunch :-) >>>>>> >>>>> You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage, >>>>> and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta >>>>> price per unit versus volume. >>>> What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever, >>>> competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same >>>> is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make >>>> $1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea. >>> Dealers usually get mote than that, like 3k to 5k per car, more for >>> luxury lines like Lexus. Go ask if you don't believe me. >> >> Nope, not so. I was being generous here, they usually do not even get >> anything close to 10%: >> >> http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/09/sales-drop-pushes-prices-down-squeezes-dealer-margins.html >> >> >>> Please respond to the volume pricing at Digikey (and most electronic >>> retailer/wholesalers). >> >> Digikey is different, and not at all a factor in this game. Their higher >> prices for small volumes have simple reasons. For example, someone has >> to pay for the antistatic bag for the lone AD603 you order to test an >> AGC. The people (or increasingly robots) who pick must be amortized by >> the minute. Same for shipping department space and so on. All this cost >> is nearly identical whether you buy one AD603 or a whole reel. >> Consequently you must pay $10.50 for one, $7.10/ea for 100, and $6.50/ea >> if you buy bulk. Sound pretty normal to me. Hint: For lower quantities >> you can often get by with a lesser penalty at Mouser but they search >> engine is the pits, IMHO. >> > > Order a sample from TI, and Digikey will ship it to you, overnight, > free. > Yes, I know. But most of the time it's not worth the hassle. I (and my clients) tend to just order the whole chebang of parts in one fell swoop, from one place, and be done with it. Saving five bucks on a prototype somehow does not justify spending engineering time on it. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: krw on 22 May 2010 15:26 On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:10:57 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <major snippage and attributions...> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tax-deferred the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the contention, AIUI. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other false assumption is that the price would drop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In reality, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there is more than one manufacturer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> often zero. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the relevance. >>>>>>>>>>>> The relevance is this: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because >>>>>>>>>>>> the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent >>>>>>>>>>>> that assumption is flawed for two reasons: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota >>>>>>>>>>>> will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor >>>>>>>>>>>> associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule. >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and >>>>>>>>>>> labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for >>>>>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>>>> I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll >>>>>>>>>> crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or >>>>>>>>>> you don't have pickles for lunch :-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage, >>>>>>>>> and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta >>>>>>>>> price per unit versus volume. >>>>>>>> What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever, >>>>>>>> competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same >>>>>>>> is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make >>>>>>>> $1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea. >>>>>> Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea. >>>>>> >>>>> Mine was made in Nagoya. >>>> Why do you insist that anecdote = data? >>> >>> Why do you think the NUMMI plant was shut down? It might get a little >>> glimmer of hope now that Tesla wants to build electric cars there in a >>> little corner of that huge plant. But Toyota doesn't build there >>> anymore, that's now history. >> >> Why do you think Toyota moved out of Kalifornica? Why haven't you? ... > > >Ever tried to sell a house here lately? You didn't see this coming? What has changed since Grayout Davis? >> ... Toyota >> still manufactures a *lot* of their NA cars in the US. Hundai has a plant >> fifty miles down the road from me and Kia has a new plant 30 miles the other >> way. >> >>> Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko. >> >> ...and Canuckistan. Wouldn't have one. Why are you changing the subject? > > >To make the point. Sure, about 55% of foreign cars sold here are built here: > >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465005,00.html > >However, one has to subtract from that several positions: > >a. Many times the engines, transmissions and submodules are coming in >via container ship, from overseas. So the labor in those is foreign labor. > >b. A lot of US brand cars are no longer made in the US, engines come >from Canada, and so on. All that needs to be subtracted. The value added tax will be the same on the imported car and the domestic car. It'll even the playing field more and making domestic production more profitable. THis argument is one *for* the "fair tax" (NOT the VAT).
From: krw on 22 May 2010 15:28 On Sat, 22 May 2010 11:28:57 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >wrote: > >>krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <major snippage and attributions...> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tax-deferred the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the contention, AIUI. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other false assumption is that the price would drop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In reality, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there is more than one manufacturer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is >>>>>>>>>>>>> often zero. >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the relevance. >>>>>>>>>>> The relevance is this: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because >>>>>>>>>>> the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent >>>>>>>>>>> that assumption is flawed for two reasons: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota >>>>>>>>>>> will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor >>>>>>>>>>> associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule. >>>>>>>>>> I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and >>>>>>>>>> labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for >>>>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>>> I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll >>>>>>>>> crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or >>>>>>>>> you don't have pickles for lunch :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage, >>>>>>>> and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta >>>>>>>> price per unit versus volume. >>>>>>> What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever, >>>>>>> competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same >>>>>>> is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make >>>>>>> $1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea. >>>>> Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea. >>>>> >>>> Mine was made in Nagoya. >>> >>> Why do you insist that anecdote = data? >> >> >>Why do you think the NUMMI plant was shut down? It might get a little >>glimmer of hope now that Tesla wants to build electric cars there in a >>little corner of that huge plant. But Toyota doesn't build there >>anymore, that's now history. > >That was the last UAW plant Toyota had. Their NUMMI investment is, I >suspect, all PR, and cheap PR at $50 million. > >The Tesla is of course absurd. > >> >>Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko. > >Most VWs sold in the US are assembled in Mexico. I think most Hondas >are assembled here. They are. My nephew has worked for Honda in Columbus OH for 20+ years.
From: Joerg on 22 May 2010 15:36
krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:10:57 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <major snippage and attributions...> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tax-deferred the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the contention, AIUI. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other false assumption is that the price would drop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In reality, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there is more than one manufacturer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often zero. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the relevance. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The relevance is this: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because >>>>>>>>>>>>> the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent >>>>>>>>>>>>> that assumption is flawed for two reasons: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota >>>>>>>>>>>>> will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor >>>>>>>>>>>>> associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule. >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and >>>>>>>>>>>> labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for >>>>>>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>>>>> I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll >>>>>>>>>>> crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or >>>>>>>>>>> you don't have pickles for lunch :-) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage, >>>>>>>>>> and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta >>>>>>>>>> price per unit versus volume. >>>>>>>>> What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever, >>>>>>>>> competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same >>>>>>>>> is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make >>>>>>>>> $1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea. >>>>>>> Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Mine was made in Nagoya. >>>>> Why do you insist that anecdote = data? >>>> Why do you think the NUMMI plant was shut down? It might get a little >>>> glimmer of hope now that Tesla wants to build electric cars there in a >>>> little corner of that huge plant. But Toyota doesn't build there >>>> anymore, that's now history. >>> Why do you think Toyota moved out of Kalifornica? Why haven't you? ... >> >> Ever tried to sell a house here lately? > > You didn't see this coming? What has changed since Grayout Davis? > It's kind of tough to live out of state while running a business :-) Besides, we are quite firmly entrenched in community, church and volunteering out here. Especially my wife, if she left with me that would cause a lot of sadness in some assisted living places around here. >>> ... Toyota >>> still manufactures a *lot* of their NA cars in the US. Hundai has a plant >>> fifty miles down the road from me and Kia has a new plant 30 miles the other >>> way. >>> >>>> Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko. >>> ...and Canuckistan. Wouldn't have one. Why are you changing the subject? >> >> To make the point. Sure, about 55% of foreign cars sold here are built here: >> >> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465005,00.html >> >> However, one has to subtract from that several positions: >> >> a. Many times the engines, transmissions and submodules are coming in >> via container ship, from overseas. So the labor in those is foreign labor. >> >> b. A lot of US brand cars are no longer made in the US, engines come >>from Canada, and so on. All that needs to be subtracted. > > The value added tax will be the same on the imported car and the domestic car. > It'll even the playing field more and making domestic production more > profitable. THis argument is one *for* the "fair tax" (NOT the VAT). Now you changed the subject. This was about that there'd be a clean shift, exchanging income taxes of workers for a consumption tax, and that such would cause dropping prices accordingly. My point is that it is not revenue-neutral, not by a longshot, and in most cases would not drop prices accordingly. To John Q.Public a so-called "fair tax" and a VAT are the same thing, he simply has to pay 23% more for stuff and will be mighty miffed if he's a retiree. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |