conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: Joerg on 21 May 2010 12:04 Martin Brown wrote: > On 21/05/2010 16:24, John Larkin 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 >> >> > > It might amuse you to know that a suggested name for the replacement > currency after this one fails was suggested by a Reuters financial > commentator as the New Euro or Neuro for short. > Neuro for "Northern Euro" and Souro for "Soured Euro"? [...] -- SCNR, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: JosephKK on 21 May 2010 13:25 On Thu, 20 May 2010 12:49:32 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On May 20, 1:51 pm, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> JA > You don't have the first idea what's in Obama's mandatory insurance >> JA > purchase and regulation bill--you're simply regurgitating--and neither >> JA > do you know anything about American health care, so there's really no >> JA > point in debating you on this. > >Hey, that makes a nice acronym: MAN-datory I-nsurance PU-rchase and >regu-LATION Bill. > >> Slowman's such an inexperienced idealogue that >> it's like arguing religion with a Moonie. >> >> Come on! An over 50 NON-PRODUCER who >> argues for socialism? > >Bill's 67, in the Netherlands, and an expert on all things American. >As a mere American living in America, I'm glad to have such a reliable >source to redoublethink all the things I know directly and confirm >daily with experience into politically correct context: Obama's a >centrist, not the ultra farthest most radical left-voting member of >Congress, and a brilliant Constitutional lawyer, not a former >associate professor and sometime ACORN subprime-pushing counsel. > >Bill's said his nanny state host makes it impossible for oldsters like >him to get a job--no one wants to hire 'cause then they're >responsible. Plus the state bribes companies to hire younger workers, >who'd really rather take welfare anywho[sic]. Or something like >that. If I've mischaracterized him I'm sure Bill will correct me. > >But he still likes it. What the hell, the money's still free-living >off other people is easy. Problem is, they don't work nearly hard >enough, and they whine. Wimps. Probably racists and Nazis, too. You >know, reactionaries. > >> It's a LOT like the old wimpy burger gag. >> "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." > >I looked into the GRA / 401k thing. If there's a serious attempt to >grab 401ks, I didn't detect it. Not that it couldn't happen, I just >didn't see it in the several articles Yahoo offered up. As for the GRA, you have taught me NOT to trust news articles, but to get and read the text of the proposal. When you find a copy give us a link, please.
From: JosephKK on 21 May 2010 14:21 On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:44:13 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> On May 19, 9:45 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>> On May 18, 12:53 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: <snip> >> Buildings have a high labor content, and thus a high hidden tax >> content. Remove those costs, and the price of building will fall to >> compensate. How much will they fall? You could reasonably expect >> them to fall by nearly however much the builder's cost is reduced. >> > >And the buyer who buys from already taxed savings gets socked. No, I am >against that. > > >> Further, you'd be paying with money you got straight from your job, >> invested for however many years, all without ever paying any tax. >> >>> c. They exempt imputed rent on old buildings yet do not at all consider >>> removing the de-facto double tax on savings in Roth IRAs or regular >>> accounts. What that does is simple: The millisecond such a flawed law >>> would be announced there'd be a stampede. Everybody who is smart pulls >>> their money out of the banks and buys real estate, any real estate. -> >>> Financial market collapse -> major new recession. >> >> Well, stop naysaying and fix it. That's what engineers do. >> > >I generally do not fix things that aren't worth fixing. We can instead >simplify the income tax code. That's what would be a useful project. In >engineering it's often best not to nuke an exisiting design just to >replace it by an equally risky or more risky new one. And this one can >seriously blow up. I'd venture to say, it will. > Please help me to understand. The tax code is badly broken (Y/N). We have to use it as is (A), fix it (B), replace it (C), other _______________(D); (A/B/C/D) Please point out ways that the "Fair Tax" can blow up worse than current tax code _____________________________________________________________. > >> We could simply exempt all existing taxed savings and investments, and >> create accounts for those, with tax-free debit cards, or whatever. >> Anything you buy with that debit card from that account either a) >> isn't taxed at sale or b) you keep your statements and file for a >> refund. Blah, blah, blah. >> >> It ain't rocket science. >> > >Yup, put them into escrow. We're the government, register them here by >Dec-31, trust us, oh yeah ... > > >> All these considerations only apply for a transition period anyhow, >> then they go away. Since you're still working you'll get years of >> income-tax-free benefits from the thing, if enacted. Wouldn't that be >> great? >> > >And suddenly all the people who were diligent savers will use those >accounts to buy stuff and front-load the country with a debt that makes >our current and already bad one look like peanuts. Then we'd become >another Greece. > > >> The alternative is this: last year Obama spent $1.60 for every $1.00 >> he took in. Of that $1.00, he got roughly $0.50 from income tax, and >> $0.50 from SS tax. To fix that, assuming interest rates stay low >> (which they won't), he'd have to raise income taxes by double just to >> break even, or every other tax in the book by 50% or so, plus make up >> some more. >> > >That's one reason everyone in this here neighborhood is looking at the >November elections, at least that's what people told me :-) They better get in gear and campaign for the best available candidates in the _primaries_ _coming in June in CA_. If your choice is between the economic damage of Medfly Brown versus Meg Whitman you have foolishly allowed your choices to be too limited. Besides there is a lot of interesting propositions that need voted on. > >> >>> And then they talk about removing compliance costs which is also flawed. >>> Who is going to determine how much fictitious rent tax you must >>> surrender? Right, an assessor. He's going to have to be paid a salary, >>> and he'll probably get a nice fat pension later. >> >> There is no"fictitious" rent tax, and no assessor. You never need >> assessors, since taxes are based on actual sales price--that's the >> assessment. >> > >So, how exactly do you suggest that's done when Joe Q.Public fires up >his circular saw and builds himself a nice big extra wing on his house? >Or the friend of his brother-in-law's friend builds him a granny flat? >The underground economy will become rampant because an extra 23% savings >is to be had. > Not all of that cost disappears, there is still materials costs paid at the lumber yard etc.,. Also the labor content of buildings has been reduced significantly by removing labor taxes. > <snip>
From: JosephKK on 21 May 2010 14:33 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. > >>> b. The percentage of labor in the COGS even for products made in the US >>> is much smaller than they anticipate. >>> >>>>>>>>> If the >>>>>>>>> government stops taking out SS and IRS taxes from my paycheck, I have >>>>>>>>> more to spend. I can then afford these now 'higher' prices of that >>>>>>>>> $1, plus $.23 fair tax, plus the sales tax of $.09, so it is now >>>>>>>>> $1.33. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As for savings, I don't sweat it as much. Yes, it makes my post-taxes >>>>>>>>> savings less valuable, but it also removes a lot of taxes on my >>>>>>>>> earnings and interest! >>>>>>>> I'm interested in saving the time and energy I waste avoiding tax land- >>>>>>>> mines. That's worth a lot--at least a couple weeks a year. More like >>>>>>>> three, methinks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> There'll be new tax land-mines, like who gets to pay ficticious rent >>>>>>> tax, how much, and who doesn't. Et cetera. >>>>>> That part still seems iffy, yes. >>>>> IMHO the whole idea is iffy. Fair means it has to be fair to just about >>>>> everyone and not just part of the population. And that's not the case. >>>> The only hole I see in it is savings, that we both object to. I may not agree >>>> (or understand completely) the economics of taxing large items (homes and >>>> cars) heavily. >> >> Much of that will depend on how property tax on homes and use tax on >> vehicles gets changed. 40 years of property tax adds up. > > >You can bet on it that a certain kind of politician will only agree to >all that if it result in a serious net increase in taxes squeezed out of >the public. That is all of them. > >[...]
From: Joerg on 21 May 2010 15:40
JosephKK wrote: > On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:44:13 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>> On May 19, 9:45 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> On May 18, 12:53 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > <snip> >>> Buildings have a high labor content, and thus a high hidden tax >>> content. Remove those costs, and the price of building will fall to >>> compensate. How much will they fall? You could reasonably expect >>> them to fall by nearly however much the builder's cost is reduced. >>> >> And the buyer who buys from already taxed savings gets socked. No, I am >> against that. >> >> >>> Further, you'd be paying with money you got straight from your job, >>> invested for however many years, all without ever paying any tax. >>> >>>> c. They exempt imputed rent on old buildings yet do not at all consider >>>> removing the de-facto double tax on savings in Roth IRAs or regular >>>> accounts. What that does is simple: The millisecond such a flawed law >>>> would be announced there'd be a stampede. Everybody who is smart pulls >>>> their money out of the banks and buys real estate, any real estate. -> >>>> Financial market collapse -> major new recession. >>> Well, stop naysaying and fix it. That's what engineers do. >>> >> I generally do not fix things that aren't worth fixing. We can instead >> simplify the income tax code. That's what would be a useful project. In >> engineering it's often best not to nuke an exisiting design just to >> replace it by an equally risky or more risky new one. And this one can >> seriously blow up. I'd venture to say, it will. >> > Please help me to understand. > The tax code is badly broken (Y/N). Yes [X] No [ ] > We have to use it as is (A), fix it (B), replace it (C), other > _______________(D); (A/B/C/D) > Please point out ways that the "Fair Tax" can blow up worse than current > tax code _____________________________________________________________. Ok, I do it for the umpteenth time but this is the last time cause I've got to get some work done here: People who have diligently saved wish not to have their nest egg taxed a second time. So, they will try to dodge that bullet. Some will retire outside the country and take their nest egg along. Others and I am afraid that would be the majority will rush their money out of the banks and into real estate so they convert it to "pre-fictitious-rent" property. A plain old financial stampede, except that this one will be more devastating to the financial markets than anything we have ever seen, including the housing bubble. Next, look at countries that have VAT which is fairly similar to what some people call "fair tax" except that they also have an income tax. What has that triggered? Right, a rampant underground economy. I lived there, so I know. The governments don't even have the foggiest idea how bad that really is. People have no qualms hollering clear across a pub "Hey, anyone know a tile setter who'll make me a good offer if I don't need an invoice?". That is because those countries generally also slap VAT on services. So ... I have never played that game but, example: Bathroom needed remodeling. Quotes $20k and up. Yikes! So I pushed out one project that wasn't too urgent and where the client was ok with that, bought the materials for a few thousand bucks, rolled up the sleeves and had at it. Three weeks later we had a beautiful new bathroom with stuff in there that was higher class that the contractor grade stuff from the quotes. "Oh, you want those Turkish tiles with the artwork in there? Yes, dear, no problem". Everything perfectly legit and we saved way more than $15k. An engineer could not possibly have made that much in three weeks. I don't think I need to explain what that does to unemployment. >>> We could simply exempt all existing taxed savings and investments, and >>> create accounts for those, with tax-free debit cards, or whatever. >>> Anything you buy with that debit card from that account either a) >>> isn't taxed at sale or b) you keep your statements and file for a >>> refund. Blah, blah, blah. >>> >>> It ain't rocket science. >>> >> Yup, put them into escrow. We're the government, register them here by >> Dec-31, trust us, oh yeah ... >> >> >>> All these considerations only apply for a transition period anyhow, >>> then they go away. Since you're still working you'll get years of >>> income-tax-free benefits from the thing, if enacted. Wouldn't that be >>> great? >>> >> And suddenly all the people who were diligent savers will use those >> accounts to buy stuff and front-load the country with a debt that makes >> our current and already bad one look like peanuts. Then we'd become >> another Greece. >> >> >>> The alternative is this: last year Obama spent $1.60 for every $1.00 >>> he took in. Of that $1.00, he got roughly $0.50 from income tax, and >>> $0.50 from SS tax. To fix that, assuming interest rates stay low >>> (which they won't), he'd have to raise income taxes by double just to >>> break even, or every other tax in the book by 50% or so, plus make up >>> some more. >>> >> That's one reason everyone in this here neighborhood is looking at the >> November elections, at least that's what people told me :-) > > They better get in gear and campaign for the best available candidates in > the _primaries_ _coming in June in CA_. If your choice is between the > economic damage of Medfly Brown versus Meg Whitman you have foolishly > allowed your choices to be too limited. Besides there is a lot of > interesting propositions that need voted on. Believe me, everybody in this neighborhood _is_ already in gear. There's a reason why the tea parties grow at an amazing clip. >>>> And then they talk about removing compliance costs which is also flawed. >>>> Who is going to determine how much fictitious rent tax you must >>>> surrender? Right, an assessor. He's going to have to be paid a salary, >>>> and he'll probably get a nice fat pension later. >>> There is no"fictitious" rent tax, and no assessor. You never need >>> assessors, since taxes are based on actual sales price--that's the >>> assessment. >>> >> So, how exactly do you suggest that's done when Joe Q.Public fires up >> his circular saw and builds himself a nice big extra wing on his house? >> Or the friend of his brother-in-law's friend builds him a granny flat? >> The underground economy will become rampant because an extra 23% savings >> is to be had. >> > Not all of that cost disappears, there is still materials costs paid at > the lumber yard etc.,. Also the labor content of buildings has been > reduced significantly by removing labor taxes. Well, this was in response to James' notion that, quote "You never need assessors, since taxes are based on actual sales price--that's the assessment." 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 ..." Anyhow, tax systems get reworked or changed for one reason: To milk body public for even more money. People don't want that. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |