conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: JosephKK on 23 May 2010 07:07 On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:39:13 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>> So let's see, since we can't have an assessor then John Q.Public must >>> self-file into some computer system. "Hmm, so what do we enter here for >>> the materials? One box of nails, a pack of drywall screws, the hot dog I >>> had outside Home Depot. Don't remember the rest ..." >> >> That is all recorded in the tax receipts. > > >What receipts? Case in point, and I was right behind the guy: Dude had a >huge cart in tow at the cash register. A toilet, two sinks, tile, pipe, >mortar, the works. He could barely pull it. Ka-ching ... "That'll be >eighthundred Dollars and .." He whipped out a huge wallet and paid the >whole chebang in cash. Dollar bills. No check, no credit card, no name >given. Now how exactly is this going to be recorded? > At a bare minimum, in the tax receipts that the store reports (by sale). They may not know just who paid, but they do know it _got paid_ on those items.
From: JosephKK on 23 May 2010 07:08 On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:39:13 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> 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. OK. Lets start talking about ways to do that then.
From: JosephKK on 23 May 2010 07:19 On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:01:14 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >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. >>> Just the same i always thought of him as a peanut farmer.
From: JosephKK on 23 May 2010 07:28 On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:45:44 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <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. > >>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. > >No, they really don't. It's usually closer to $300 than $3000 and often >negative. Dealerships don't make a lot of money on the sale of a new car. > ><...> Even the dealerships that stay afloat on their shop cannot get by on that little. You have to pay rent and taxes on the lot, plus utilities and commissions or salaries. That money doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from retail markup. Now, the corporate net on each car sold is nearly zero for sound business reasons.
From: JosephKK on 23 May 2010 07:43
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: >>> <SNIP> >>>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. A. That is a recent tax law change. B. The delta price in existing homes due to fair tax will be split about 50/50 between buyer and seller. >> >>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. And healthcare. > >>The nice thing about a sales tax is that you can elect to not buy >>stuff and not pay the tax. Except for food and utilities. > >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. |