conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: Joerg on 21 May 2010 11:20 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:51:33 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> JosephKK wrote: >>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 08:45:14 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:11:54 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:13:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 00:18:43 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>>>>> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:26:28 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>>>>>>> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jealous of his wealth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money they saved _has_ already been taxed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simple fix: don't tax income. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but >>>>>>>>>>>>> not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat >>>>>>>>>>>>> VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair >>>>>>>>>>>>> at all. >>>>>>>>>>>> As I suggested, exempt basics, like food, reasonable rent, generic >>>>>>>>>>>> medicines. If people can afford a yacht, they can afford to pay sales >>>>>>>>>>>> tax on it. >>>>>>>>>>> The point is that that money has already been taxed. It shouldn't matter if >>>>>>>>>>> it is used to buy a yacht. Taxing it again is wrong (one reason I don't trust >>>>>>>>>>> Roth IRAs). >>>>>>>>>> As I suggested, eliminate income taxes and go to sales tax. Then >>>>>>>>>> things are only taxed once. >>>>>>>>> You're missing the point. Those millions of people who have saved all their >>>>>>>>> lives will be taxed a second time. They've *already* been taxed on that >>>>>>>>> money. >>>>>>>> Not to bust your bubble, but i am already paying both taxes. >>>>>>> When income tax gets turned into a point-of-sale tax you'll have paid >>>>>>> even more (if you have saved after-tax money). >>>>>> I only have a little of such, most is in other (post income tax) forms. >>>>> erp. ^^^^/pre >>>> Don't know how old you are but if there ain't a big stash in those IRAs >>>> and you don't have some plum pension coming your way I'd start saving >>>> now :-) >>> I figure i can only semi-retire. Maybe in 10 years. OK pension, medical >>> included. Not as much saving as paying off house. Well over $1000/mo >>> there. I have spreadsheets and can use them. The outlook is not grim >>> but not flush, so i go to about half time as a consultant. The >>> consulting pays for the cake, bread and butter will be taken care of >>> unless the Damnicrats deficit spend everything away. >> >> If you can imagine comfortably making ends meet with a 50% consulting >> workload then you are better off than most people. I know grown men who >> are doing min-wage jobs right now just so they don't lose the family >> home. And they might still lose it. > > Hell, I can imagine retiring *well* on 25% consulting workload. In fact if I > thought it would last I'd still be "retired", contracting as I was doing two > years back. That would be my ideal retirement, AAMOF. However, I assume you have a nice big pension coming towards you from big blue. The vast majority of younger people have zilch in that domain because companies have stopped that practice a long, long time ago. Instead, the people now get to pay for super-fat plum pensions of state workers, which is a powder keg that is going to go kablouie pretty soon here in CA. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 21 May 2010 11:21 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Wed, 19 May 2010 18:05:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:34:59 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:23:02 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 07:50:39 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 11:42:26 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On May 17, 4:05 pm, "keith...(a)gmail.com" <keith...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 17, 3:53 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 17, 3:41 pm, "keith...(a)gmail.com" <keith...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you're missing the point. With after-tax savings you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *already* paying that tax. If the "Fair Tax" is implemented you get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay the "consumption tax" on the *AFTER-TAX* money. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not missing the point, I just think you're mathematically wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the thing costs $1 today, or $0.77 plus $0.23 Fair Tax tomorrow, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what have you lost? Where have I gone wrong? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it cost me $1.40 yesterday (when I earned it) to have the >>>>>>>>>>>>> $1.00 today, >>>>>>>>>>>> If you paid taxes already under the old system then you were screwed >>>>>>>>>>>> *yesterday*. That can't be fixed-it's gone. Sorry. Me too. >>>>>>>>>>> No, I was playing the game by the rules yesterday. Today the government >>>>>>>>>>> change the rules after the game was in play. The winner is the one who spent >>>>>>>>>>> every dime he ever made, not the one who took care of his life. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Many of the ones who took care of their life will then move, to some >>>>>>>>>> places outside the US, and escape such confiscatory "fair tax" should it >>>>>>>>>> ever happen. Who knows, Baja, NZ, some island ... because then the >>>>>>>>>> problem simply goes away. The consequences? Even more layoffs here. >>>>>>>>> That's fine if they don't want to take their money with them. They've already >>>>>>>>> plugged that hole. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Huh? It's just one big wire transfer. >>>>>>> You think you can just wire money out of the country without government >>>>>>> intervention? More than $10K requires all sorts of paperwork, and taxes paid. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Got any links? That would completely squish international trade. I know >>>>>> people who have bought rather pricey stuff overseas, and just wired the >>>>>> payment. Plus they can't make you pay taxes on already taxed money. >>>>> No, but it's been in the news lately, with Obama's attack on the Swiss banks. >>>>> Apparently if you move cash out of the country you have to pay the equivalent >>>>> of the death tax. >>>> This cannot be the case. I have clients who buy expensive machines >>>> overseas because they have to. They don't pay a death tax. >>> Corporations "living" in the US. >> >> And proprietors living in the US. So what's the (legal, in terms of >> those taxes) difference between them and John Q.Public? > > Because JQP is likely to skip on his taxes. How can they make him pay death taxes if he ain't dead? Got a link? -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: John Larkin on 21 May 2010 11:24 On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:47:21 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.hdgFGtPjbY > >You can't fool Mother Nature. When a few hundred million people choose >to not work much, not breed much, and consume a lot, you just can't >spend your way out of the problem. > >This is the leading edge of the European demographic crisis that's >been building for generations now. There's no quick fix. > >John Good one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/7746806/Whatever-Germany-does-the-euro-as-we-know-it-is-dead.html John
From: John Larkin on 21 May 2010 11:26 On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:20:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:51:33 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> JosephKK wrote: >>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 08:45:14 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:11:54 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:13:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 00:18:43 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>>>>>> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:26:28 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>>>>>>>> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jealous of his wealth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money they saved _has_ already been taxed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simple fix: don't tax income. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat >>>>>>>>>>>>>> VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>> As I suggested, exempt basics, like food, reasonable rent, generic >>>>>>>>>>>>> medicines. If people can afford a yacht, they can afford to pay sales >>>>>>>>>>>>> tax on it. >>>>>>>>>>>> The point is that that money has already been taxed. It shouldn't matter if >>>>>>>>>>>> it is used to buy a yacht. Taxing it again is wrong (one reason I don't trust >>>>>>>>>>>> Roth IRAs). >>>>>>>>>>> As I suggested, eliminate income taxes and go to sales tax. Then >>>>>>>>>>> things are only taxed once. >>>>>>>>>> You're missing the point. Those millions of people who have saved all their >>>>>>>>>> lives will be taxed a second time. They've *already* been taxed on that >>>>>>>>>> money. >>>>>>>>> Not to bust your bubble, but i am already paying both taxes. >>>>>>>> When income tax gets turned into a point-of-sale tax you'll have paid >>>>>>>> even more (if you have saved after-tax money). >>>>>>> I only have a little of such, most is in other (post income tax) forms. >>>>>> erp. ^^^^/pre >>>>> Don't know how old you are but if there ain't a big stash in those IRAs >>>>> and you don't have some plum pension coming your way I'd start saving >>>>> now :-) >>>> I figure i can only semi-retire. Maybe in 10 years. OK pension, medical >>>> included. Not as much saving as paying off house. Well over $1000/mo >>>> there. I have spreadsheets and can use them. The outlook is not grim >>>> but not flush, so i go to about half time as a consultant. The >>>> consulting pays for the cake, bread and butter will be taken care of >>>> unless the Damnicrats deficit spend everything away. >>> >>> If you can imagine comfortably making ends meet with a 50% consulting >>> workload then you are better off than most people. I know grown men who >>> are doing min-wage jobs right now just so they don't lose the family >>> home. And they might still lose it. >> >> Hell, I can imagine retiring *well* on 25% consulting workload. In fact if I >> thought it would last I'd still be "retired", contracting as I was doing two >> years back. That would be my ideal retirement, AAMOF. > > >However, I assume you have a nice big pension coming towards you from >big blue. The vast majority of younger people have zilch in that domain >because companies have stopped that practice a long, long time ago. >Instead, the people now get to pay for super-fat plum pensions of state >workers, which is a powder keg that is going to go kablouie pretty soon >here in CA. Not to mention about 30 other states. And europe. John
From: Spehro Pefhany on 21 May 2010 11:30
On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:24:16 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:47:21 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> >>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.hdgFGtPjbY >> >>You can't fool Mother Nature. When a few hundred million people choose >>to not work much, not breed much, and consume a lot, you just can't >>spend your way out of the problem. >> >>This is the leading edge of the European demographic crisis that's >>been building for generations now. There's no quick fix. >> >>John > > >Good one: > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/7746806/Whatever-Germany-does-the-euro-as-we-know-it-is-dead.html > > >John > > Paging Dr. Schadenfreude.. |