conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: Joerg on 23 May 2010 11:05 John Larkin 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: >> [...] >>> 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. > This definitely does not work for most people. You might be lucky like my great grandpa who died shortly before his 103rd birthday in his sleep, and never saw a hospital as a patient (other than MASH units during war time). Most of us will eventually have to sell their homes or that nice cabin in Truckee or give it to the kids, then buy a place in an assisted living village. Since such a "fair tax" will likely trigger a stampede out of cash all the exisiting units there will have been snapped up already so you must buy a newly constructed one. Meaning you'll be socked with tax and fictitious rent tax. -- 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 11:25 JosephKK 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 >> > That is gross profit, not markup. On some models it looks even more grim for the dealers: http://www.intellichoice.com/1-11-2010-95-2/2010-honda-insight-prices.html Of course, they'll make that up on luxury models such as the Corvette although even there people now do Internet shopping and have no problems picking it up 300 miles down the state. The Internet has all but crushed fat mark-ups. [...] -- 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 11:36 On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:05:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >John Larkin 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: >>> > >[...] > >>>> 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. >> > >This definitely does not work for most people. You might be lucky like >my great grandpa who died shortly before his 103rd birthday in his >sleep, and never saw a hospital as a patient (other than MASH units >during war time). Most of us will eventually have to sell their homes or >that nice cabin in Truckee or give it to the kids, then buy a place in >an assisted living village. Since such a "fair tax" will likely trigger >a stampede out of cash all the exisiting units there will have been >snapped up already so you must buy a newly constructed one. Meaning >you'll be socked with tax and fictitious rent tax. The current tax system is destroying jobs. If we keep it forever because some retirees like things the way they are, their kids and grandkids will live under the current mess. Any change will inconvenience someone. Taxing consumption and not income or profits will create jobs and encourage people to keep working. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/05/23/global-home/23europe-graphic.html?ref=europe John
From: krw on 23 May 2010 11:37 On Sun, 23 May 2010 04:28:05 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. You're wrong. They make their money in the back, as you say, and in used car sales. Carrying new cars 1) gives them a supply of good used cars, 2) a ready supply of repair customers (warranty work), and 3) credibility for both used car sales and repair. Dealers haven't made money on new car sales since the '60s, when everyone found out about the "Invoice Price" (Edmunds, et. al. published it). I've never paid more than a few hundred dollars over invoice. If you're going to claim the dealer "hold back" as profit, you'd better also figure in the average time a car sits on the lot and the interest paid. Hint: that often goes negative.
From: krw on 23 May 2010 11:41
On Sun, 23 May 2010 04:47:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> 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 >> >That is gross profit, not markup. Huh? Gross profit is markup. Price - cost. |