conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 24 May 2010 18:49 On Mon, 24 May 2010 08:47:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> On May 23, 3:22 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:00:00 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> If the Asian prices don't come down they'll get competition from the now >>>> cheaper US companies. Looks like a win to me. >>> No win there. First, there are no US television or sneaker or clothes >>> manufacturers left. Even if there were or new ones would be sprouting up >>> they could not possibly compete with the made-in-China pair of $29.99 >>> jogging shoes that consumers have come to expect at places like Costco. >>> It would be, "Oh, look, we can make the same sneakers for $60 instead of >>> $75 because of the "fair tax". Big deal. >>> >>>>>>> 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 :-( >>>> We did, but I don't see any of the talking heads recognize it, on either side. >>> Then the whole thing should remain a non-starter. At least I hope so. >> >> Sorry, I spent yesterday talking in person to the actual Fair Tax >> guys, along with some U.S. congressmen. I'll chime in later, but for >> now I'm swamped and pooped, with a left-handed shovel and a whole lot >> of ____. >> > >Oh, oh, major spill somewhere? I hate whan that happens, but been there :-( Maybe James works for BP Microsystems. ;-) >> Short version: no it's not in there, but yes, they're open to amending >> their bill so as to exempt savings that have already been taxed. >> > >This is extremely important. First, because they will get a ton of flak >from seniors and their organizations without taking care of this. As has been shown recently, AARP can easily be bought off. >Secondly, people who have diligently saved want some _ironclad_ >guarantees there, in a way that thise guarantees cannot be changed >later. Recent retroactive law changes have eroded a whole lot of trust, >so this will now be much more difficult to achieve than years ago. In >essence, folks that have saved should not pay any tax until all that >savings is used up. Except for what's gained in future interest, of >course, because one must also be fair in the other direction. But here >we will have the first major bureaucratic job coming at it. Anyone with an IRA, particularly a Roth should be very worried, regardless of the Fair Tax. >> Of all the alternatives, I still find it very appealing, especially >> compared to the current system. That doesn't mean I'm fully buying it >> yet--I still haven't considered all the possible gotchas. >> > >I am not even considering it unless the savings issue is taken care of. >Not so much for the sake of myself but for that of our country because >the repercussions for the financial market could be (or I should say >would be) devastating. Agreed, but that doesn't mean I'm not extremely concerned about it.
From: krw on 24 May 2010 18:51 On Sun, 23 May 2010 23:03:27 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 23, 10:41�am, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> On Sun, 23 May 2010 04:47:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:50:50 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> >> >wrote: >> >> >>JosephKK wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>>> JosephKK wrote: >> >>>>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>>>> k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> dagmargoodb...(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-squ... > >JKK >That is gross profit, not markup. > >krw > Huh? �Gross profit is markup. �Price - cost. > >W 100 >R 120 >GP 20 >MU 20 % ( GP/W ) >Gross Profit Margin 16 % ( GP/R ) That's all just pushing the same two numbers around. >Business insiders tend to focus on margin. >Consumers often focus on the markup. Distinction without a difference; same numbers. >Net margin would correct for overhead costs, >but is not as reliably calculable.
From: Greegor on 24 May 2010 19:31
JKK >That is gross profit, not markup. krw > Huh? Gross profit is markup. Price - cost. Are you mixing real numbers with percentages? W 100 R 120 GP 20 MU 20 % ( GP/W ) Gross Profit Margin 16 % ( GP/R ) krw > That's all just pushing the same two numbers around. G > Business insiders tend to focus on margin. G > Consumers often focus on the markup. krw > Distinction without a difference; same numbers. You think 16% == 20% ? |