Prev: Electric scooter motor reversible?
Next: USB Cable shield continuity
From: JosephKK on 11 Jun 2010 21:54
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:28:53 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jun 10, 5:50 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:06:20 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
>>
>> <speffS...(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:37:37 -0500, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>> ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>> >>Of *course*.  The "Fair Tax" is only federal.  It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
>> >>for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
>> >>them.
>
>SP >Couldn't they voluntarily agree to do so?
>
>krw > IMO, no.  That said, it's done every day.
>krw > Think: highway trust fund.  Note the
>krw > strings that go with that mess (e.g. seat belt laws).
>
>You're touching on a very interesting twist
>having to do with state's rights.
>
>It's not the only area in which the Federal
>Government basically BUYS a law from each
>state in exchange for massive funding.
>
>A few years back the Feds pushed every
>state to lower the Blood Alcohol level
>for the legal standard for intoxication to
>be so low that a person having a single
>glass of wine with a meal at a supper club
>could be nailed for Drunk Driving.
>
>When I drove taxi I watched drunks STAGGER
>to their cars and saw how unwilling they
>were to give up the keys.
>
>I saw a large number of SEVERELY drunk
>people drive off. It occurs to me that Police
>are now wasting a LOT of time on the
>less severe cases and makes the reality
>more about selective enforcement than
>about addressing the more severe problems.
>
>We have enough areas where laws are
>set up to be enforced only when the
>authorities have an axe to grind or
>isn't related somehow to the "perp".
>
>It's called "selective enforcement".
>
>But the tactic of "buying laws" or "buying states rights"
>has become much more common.
>
>At some level it steam rollers over the
>individuality of states and weakens
>the distinction between states, trending
>toward one huge nation state.

It seems that you remember the 55 mph game as well.
From: dagmargoodboat on 11 Jun 2010 23:35
On Jun 11, 10:43 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 9:37 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Jun 9, 8:37 pm, krw wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:40:26 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>> Ah, so property tax remains. State sales tax remains. State income tax
> >>>>> remains. No thanks, then I don't want the "fair tax".
>
> >>>> Of *course*.  The "Fair Tax" is only federal.  It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
> >>>> for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
> >>>> them.

[snip]

> >> That is simply not true. It was discussed here ad nauseam that they will
> >> still have to file their state tax returns as usual.
>
> > Obviously, but that's STATE.  Federal goes away.
>
> So? What's the tangible benefit for Joe Q.Public in terms of compliance
> effort and cost? Next to nothing ...

All the time you spend tax planning and retirement planning to avoid
tax, for one example. All the time and energy companies spend
avoiding tax. Investment tax.

Joe Q. isn't the guy who carries the burden, but at least he'd get his
full paycheck, with *no* deductions.


> >> _That_ is what
> >> causes all the effort and compliance costs. It makes no difference
> >> whether you file state or federal or both. One alone will generate
> >> nearly all the compliance works and costs all by itself, the other
> >> simply follows a similar pattern.
>
> > I beg to differ.  States don't charge Social Security tax, Medicare
> > Tax, etc.  States usually have simpler rules too for things like
> > capital gains.
>
> Social, medicare and all that are one-liners. The effort in doing a tax
> return is all the other stuff and the rules aren't much simpler there,
> at least not in California. Sorry, but I don not buy the compliance cost
> reduction. Not at all, unless the states change as well but that'll be
> up to them.
>
> >> You have to get all your 1099s in
> >> order, all you interest income, all your deductions.
>
> > If your state requires those, I guess so.  Mine doesn't.
>
> Mine does. There's a reason that my clients send me the 1099s in
> triplicate :-)
>
>
>
> >> If the states do
> >> not change their system as well then the claim that a "fair tax"
> >> eliminates compliance costs is a big old joke. Because it doesn't.
>
> >>> [*] So, theoretically, your employer could pay you more.
> >>> That's a significant step forward.  (A giant leap forward?)
> >>> Joerg's concerned about potential double-taxation.  I brought that
> >>> concern personally to the actual people, and they're very receptive to
> >>> doing that.  Those things happen as amendments to bills as said bills
> >>> get debated and perfected in Congress. (In normal times, anyhow.)
> >> And then, pretty soon, we are on our merry way again to a goliath
> >> 70,000+ page tax code :-)
>
> > Oh please.  We've got 76,000 pages now.  Would it really kill the deal
> > if it took two measly extra pages in the (very modest, easy-to-
> > understand) Fair Tax bill to exclude Roth IRAs?
>
> As I said, many older people have savings and investments other than
> Roth. They do not wish those to be taxed again. How will all that be
> handled?

Look, this affects me far more than you can know. I still find it
very interesting.

What do you suggest?

You don't get it--this is _your_ chance. You can just wait for
someone else to do something you hate then grumble about it, or you
can offer a solution.

I already suggested just freezing those accounts from further
deposits and allowing their contents to be used without tax. It
wouldn't be any harder than the restrictions we have now on IRA /
401(k), HSA, and so forth. I brought that idea directly to the Fair
Tax people, in person. What do _you_ want?

> >>> My greatest qualm is the prebate.  The idea of everyone getting
> >>> government checks just bugs me--it reeks of nanny-state.  John
> >>> suggested exempting necessities; I like that better.
> >> That can be risky because it fosters misapproriation. What really blew
> >> my mind was what some French folks did back in the late 70's: They broke
> >> a piece off of a baguette and wiped the table with it. Cheaper ...
>
> > Taxation fosters misappropriation.  That's just about our whole
> > problem--giving the trust fund to the teenagers.  And look what
> > they've done with it...
>
> Yup :-(
>
> And an increased consumption-based tax fosters an increase in
> underground economy. Big time.

a) So does increased income tax. b) If not this, we'll be getting a
VAT, plus higher income taxes, plus more. Do you like that better?

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 11 Jun 2010 23:38
On Jun 10, 5:50 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:06:20 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
>
> <speffS...(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
> >On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:37:37 -0500, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
> ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
> >>Of *course*.  The "Fair Tax" is only federal.  It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
> >>for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
> >>them.
>
> >Couldn't they voluntarily agree to do so?
>
> IMO, no.  That said, it's done every day.  Think: highway trust fund.  Note
> the strings that go with that mess (e.g. seat belt laws).

Sure they could, why not? The states can do most anything they want,
unless it interferes with interstate commerce, etc.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
From: krw on 11 Jun 2010 23:48
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:38:00 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote:

>On Jun 10, 5:50�pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:06:20 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
>>
>> <speffS...(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:37:37 -0500, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>> ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>> >>Of *course*. �The "Fair Tax" is only federal. �It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
>> >>for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
>> >>them.
>>
>> >Couldn't they voluntarily agree to do so?
>>
>> IMO, no. �That said, it's done every day. �Think: highway trust fund. �Note
>> the strings that go with that mess (e.g. seat belt laws).
>
>Sure they could, why not? The states can do most anything they want,
>unless it interferes with interstate commerce, etc.

Because the Federal government has no authority to even ask. Not that that
would stop them, but...
From: dagmargoodboat on 12 Jun 2010 00:07
On Jun 1, 10:29 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:04 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On May 30, 7:47 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > > On May 22, 6:35 am, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 21, 3:24 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > > After that you try to say you're
> > > > > > not trying to ""sell"" socialism??
>
> > > > > Not really. Americans ignore the way the rest of the world does
> > > > > things, despite the fact that some ways of running a country are
> > > > > better managed outside the USA. Health care is the the classic example
> > > > > - US health care cost half as much again per head as the best foreign
> > > > > systems (in France and Germany) while providing no better health care
> > > > > for prosperous employed Americans than the French and German systems
> > > > > provide for everybody, while providng much worse health care for the
> > > > > less well-off part of the US population.
>
> > > > Actually, health care costs in the US are inflated due to the
> > > > additional R&D costs other countries don't pay.
>
> > > >http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/commentary/the-cost-of-free-governmen...
>
> > > > "Countries with government-run health care save money by relying on
> > > > the United States to pay the research and development costs for new
> > > > medical technology and medications. If we adopt the cost-control
> > > > policies that have limited innovation in other countries, everyone
> > > > will suffer."
>
> > > The bulk of the R&D costs of drug development is paid for by the
> > > companies developing thedrugs, and recovered from the people who buy
> > > thedrugs,
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > many of them outside the US.
>
> > Are you saying Europeans use the latestdrugs?
>
> Yes. They also develop quite a few of them.


[snip]

> > Yahoo around a bit for "cancerdrugs" and your fave EU country.  When
> > I do I see loads of horror stories--desperate patients on old
> > therapies, unable to get the latest (American)drugsideal for their
> > specific conditions.  Too expensive, one assumes.
>
> More likely, not cost-effective enough.

(...stumbled on these and thought of this thread)

Yep. Saving people is expensive. We still do it.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/340/jun11_2/c3145

Very thrifty, isn't that?

What they don't tell you is that "10 weeks average increased survival"
often means some people live much longer, while others get no
benefit. If you're in the 1st camp, you're a happy camper.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/03/my-drug-problem/7279/


[snip]

> The British National Health Service is appreciably more careful with
> its money than US health insurers

Wait, that's a change. I thought US insurers were greedy bastards
withholding treatment for profit. Now they're greedy penny-pinchers
and they foolishly blow megabux uselessly on hopeless patients?


--
Cheers,
James Arthur
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Electric scooter motor reversible?
Next: USB Cable shield continuity