conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: John Larkin on 22 May 2010 22:19 On Sat, 22 May 2010 20:43:16 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:36:06 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>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 :-) > >Businesses can be run from just about anywhere. > >>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. > >So it's not about selling your house. ;-) > >>>>> ... 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. > >No, in reality I was trying to bring it back to what it was, the fair tax. I'm >not convinced about it and discussions help. > >>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 > >He won't pay income tax or employment (SS) tax and neither will the >corporations paying him and selling him his stuff. > >>and will be mighty miffed if he's a retiree. > >*That* is the component I'm not happy about. I don't see anyone addressing >it, either. Most retirees already have houses, furniture, pots and pans, so won't pay a huge amount of sales tax. Basic survival stuff could be exempted. And a lot of retirees have taxable income, which taxes will go away. No change is going to please everybody. The nice thing about a sales tax is that you can elect to not buy stuff and not pay the tax. John
From: Michael A. Terrell on 22 May 2010 22:39 "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: > > On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:09:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > >Jim Thompson wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:22:50 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >> >> Joerg wrote: > >> >>> JosephKK wrote: > >> >>>>>> We have to use it as is (A), fix it (B), replace it (C), other > >> >>>>>> _______________(D); (A/B/C/D) > >> >>>> Jeorg, please answer the immediately above question. > >> >>>> > >> >>> My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or > >> >>> most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Some politicains were engineers. > >> >> > >> > > >> >True, but with engineer I mean active, not "got a degree twentysome > >> >years ago and framed it". > >> > >> Carter was an "engineer" :-( > > > > > > From what I'd heard, Jimmy Carter never finished the Nuclear engineer > >course because he had to resign his Naval Commission after six years, to > >return to his family farm to run the business. The only degree he had > >was in mathematics. > > His bios say that he received a Bachellor of Science at the Naval Academy. > They don't say what sort of science. As far as a nuke engineer (from > http://www.search.com/reference/Jimmy_Carter#Naval_career/): > > "Carter completed an introductory course in nuclear reactor power at > Union College starting in March 1953." 1953 was the year his dad died, and he left the US Navy, wasn't it? > He did complete training as a diesel sub commander, but never served on a > nuke. A hint of that is that he was discharged from the Navy in 1953 and > bottle wasn't broken on the Nautilus' snout until 1954. So much for the > yellow booties. > -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: krw on 23 May 2010 00:01 On Sat, 22 May 2010 22:39:39 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >"krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: >> >> On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:09:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >Jim Thompson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:22:50 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Michael A. Terrell wrote: >> >> >> Joerg wrote: >> >> >>> JosephKK wrote: >> >> >>>>>> We have to use it as is (A), fix it (B), replace it (C), other >> >> >>>>>> _______________(D); (A/B/C/D) >> >> >>>> Jeorg, please answer the immediately above question. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or >> >> >>> most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Some politicains were engineers. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >True, but with engineer I mean active, not "got a degree twentysome >> >> >years ago and framed it". >> >> >> >> Carter was an "engineer" :-( >> > >> > >> > From what I'd heard, Jimmy Carter never finished the Nuclear engineer >> >course because he had to resign his Naval Commission after six years, to >> >return to his family farm to run the business. The only degree he had >> >was in mathematics. >> >> His bios say that he received a Bachellor of Science at the Naval Academy. >> They don't say what sort of science. As far as a nuke engineer (from >> http://www.search.com/reference/Jimmy_Carter#Naval_career/): >> >> "Carter completed an introductory course in nuclear reactor power at >> Union College starting in March 1953." > > > 1953 was the year his dad died, and he left the US Navy, wasn't it? I think so. That's why he only completed the first course of the graduate Nuke-E program. >> He did complete training as a diesel sub commander, but never served on a >> nuke. A hint of that is that he was discharged from the Navy in 1953 and >> bottle wasn't broken on the Nautilus' snout until 1954. So much for the >> yellow booties. >>
From: krw on 23 May 2010 00:05 On Sat, 22 May 2010 19:19:25 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 22 May 2010 20:43:16 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:36:06 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>>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 :-) >> >>Businesses can be run from just about anywhere. >> >>>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. >> >>So it's not about selling your house. ;-) >> >>>>>> ... 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. >> >>No, in reality I was trying to bring it back to what it was, the fair tax. I'm >>not convinced about it and discussions help. >> >>>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 >> >>He won't pay income tax or employment (SS) tax and neither will the >>corporations paying him and selling him his stuff. >> >>>and will be mighty miffed if he's a retiree. >> >>*That* is the component I'm not happy about. I don't see anyone addressing >>it, either. > >Most retirees already have houses, furniture, pots and pans, so won't >pay a huge amount of sales tax. Basic survival stuff could be >exempted. And a lot of retirees have taxable income, which taxes will >go away. A lot of people downsize their homes after they retire. That money (capital gains) is currently not taxed but will be under the "fair" tax. > >No change is going to please everybody. Penalizing those who have played the game according to the rules is not "fair". It's no better than what Obummer is doing to business. >The nice thing about a sales tax is that you can elect to not buy >stuff and not pay the tax. Not under the "Fair Tax". *Everything* is taxed, even homes. AIUI, only new houses have the tax charged, but the cost difference between new and old has to equalize.
From: John Larkin on 23 May 2010 01:32
On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:05:29 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Sat, 22 May 2010 19:19:25 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 22 May 2010 20:43:16 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:36:06 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>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 :-) >>> >>>Businesses can be run from just about anywhere. >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>So it's not about selling your house. ;-) >>> >>>>>>> ... 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. >>> >>>No, in reality I was trying to bring it back to what it was, the fair tax. I'm >>>not convinced about it and discussions help. >>> >>>>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 >>> >>>He won't pay income tax or employment (SS) tax and neither will the >>>corporations paying him and selling him his stuff. >>> >>>>and will be mighty miffed if he's a retiree. >>> >>>*That* is the component I'm not happy about. I don't see anyone addressing >>>it, either. >> >>Most retirees already have houses, furniture, pots and pans, so won't >>pay a huge amount of sales tax. Basic survival stuff could be >>exempted. And a lot of retirees have taxable income, which taxes will >>go away. > >A lot of people downsize their homes after they retire. That money (capital >gains) is currently not taxed but will be under the "fair" tax. I don't know about a "fair" tax. What I suggest is a sales tax, a tax on consumption. It could easily exempt capital gains, which isn't sales or consumption. >> >>No change is going to please everybody. > >Penalizing those who have played the game according to the rules is not >"fair". It's no better than what Obummer is doing to business. > >>The nice thing about a sales tax is that you can elect to not buy >>stuff and not pay the tax. > >Not under the "Fair Tax". *Everything* is taxed, even homes. AIUI, only new >houses have the tax charged, but the cost difference between new and old has >to equalize. So tune it. John |