conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: JosephKK on 23 May 2010 07:47 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 > That is gross profit, not markup. > >> 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. > >[...]
From: Joerg on 23 May 2010 10:05 JosephKK wrote: > 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. Do you honestly believe this guy would dutifully file and remit the 23% "fair tax" from the amount he collects from the homeowner? -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: John Larkin on 23 May 2010 10:06 On Sun, 23 May 2010 04:43:23 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>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. It's easy to exempt baseline goods. John
From: Joerg on 23 May 2010 10:50 JosephKK wrote: > 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. First, start rolling back all those myriad deductions and special treatments. Of course only for new events (such as investments), I don't want to unfairly treat people who acted in good faith, like the "fair tax" would. Now, you can gradually reduce the tax rates. Then, get rid of the state tax systems. If a state wants to collect state income tax let them be honest and simply tell their population (and voters ...) "We will collect 6% on top of your fed taxes. Period." That brings clarity and a large number of bureaucrats are no longer needed, they could do other things. Treat everyone fairly. For example thanks to the Bush administration we self-employed can deduct health premiums, before that we had to pay it all after-tax and employees didn't. We still pay FICA tax on that and employees don't, not fair, so get rid of that. Also, why must I enter this on my tax return and employees don't? Generates compliance costs and bureaucracy. Get rid of all those unnesessary bureaucratic steps. Simplify, simplify, simplify. I could go on and on but it's moot, nobody on the hill or in Sacramento will listen. One owner of a large electronics company (now gone, could have been Max Grundig) did such streamlining and problem solving this way when it really had to be accomplished: He got all the folks into the meeting section of the building, locked the door and chucked the key out the window. "Now listen up, guys, I will call my wife to come by and toss it back up but only after we've fixed what's before us tonight". As a consultant I am confronted with a lot of designs where a client says "It can't do XYZ or this and that part has become unobtanium, can you do something non-drastic about it?". Often after they've been to other consultants who basically told them that it has to be completely scrapped and designed from scratch. Then I sit down and see what can be done with modest efforts and without throwing their production a major curve. Upsetting the apple cart is ok but it can also lead the apple cart to tip and crash. With engineerring as well as with fiscal policies. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 23 May 2010 11:00
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. > Not this one. It was high-tech and the market expected major new features at every key trade show, and those happen yearly. Losing half your engineers (and we would have likely lost even more) can then be catastrophic. >> 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. ;-) > True, financial things matter much less in our lives compared to higher callings. >>>>> ... 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. > I am not at all convinced about the fairness of it. I am especially against anything that conveys the message "Squander everything, we'll just sock it to the guys who didn't and you'd be whole again". It's not the American way. Or at least it wasn't ... >> 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. > As said before, the Asian corporations that make the bulk of our goods will keep paying all that, so prices won't come down nearly as much as hope. You can't turn time back, let's face it, we've lost manufacturing of most non-industry good. Whether it's shoes or TV sets. This is why there is a trade deficit. >> 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. I did, many times over in this thread, but hardly anyone understands :-( -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |