conservation of Euros

[Joerg]

JosephKK wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 07:05:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:39:13 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

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 ..."
That is all recorded in the tax receipts.
What receipts? Case in point, and I was right behind the guy: Dude had a
huge cart in tow at the cash register. A toilet, two sinks, tile, pipe,
mortar, the works. He could barely pull it. Ka-ching ... "That'll be
eighthundred Dollars and .." He whipped out a huge wallet and paid the
whole chebang in cash. Dollar bills. No check, no credit card, no name
given. Now how exactly is this going to be recorded?

At a bare minimum, in the tax receipts that the store reports (by sale).
They may not know just who paid, but they do know it _got paid_ on those
items.

Do you honestly believe this guy would dutifully file and remit the 23%
"fair tax" from the amount he collects from the homeowner?

Because of all the other record keeping involved with a real property
sale, yes.

What record keeping? I seriously doubt that uncle Leroy will remember
who rebuilt the deck 15 years ago. Or wants to remember.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Joerg]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 26, 9:27 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 07:05:38 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:39:13 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
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 ..."
That is all recorded in the tax receipts.
What receipts? Case in point, and I was right behind the guy: Dude had a
huge cart in tow at the cash register. A toilet, two sinks, tile, pipe,
mortar, the works. He could barely pull it. Ka-ching ... "That'll be
eighthundred Dollars and .." He whipped out a huge wallet and paid the
whole chebang in cash. Dollar bills. No check, no credit card, no name
given. Now how exactly is this going to be recorded?
At a bare minimum, in the tax receipts that the store reports (by sale).
They may not know just who paid, but they do know it _got paid_ on those
items.
Do you honestly believe this guy would dutifully file and remit the 23%
"fair tax" from the amount he collects from the homeowner?
Because of all the other record keeping involved with a real property
sale, yes.
What record keeping? I seriously doubt that uncle Leroy will remember
who rebuilt the deck 15 years ago. Or wants to remember.

Okay, I've got a short break so I'll try to catch up with you guys...

Uncle Leroy paid Fair Tax when he bought the building materials. If
he hired a contractor, Leroy pays Fair Tax when he pays the
contractor. No recordkeeping. End of story.

Not at all end of story. Read what I wrote above about the guy who
bought the complete remodel materials with hard cash. He's going to make
uncle Leroy a special deal, provided that no paperwork crosses the table
and there will be a cash payment. Meaning the guy who did the work puts
all it this cash in his pocket. IOW, nobody ever paid tax for the work,
only for the materials.

In countries with high VAT the underground economy is rampant. I know
it, I lived in such countries. This so-called "fair tax" will have the
same effect as a VAT because to the people it works the same way. They
do not care how it's called, a tax is a tax is a tax.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:18:32 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 26, 9:27 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 07:05:38 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:39:13 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
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 ..."
That is all recorded in the tax receipts.
What receipts? Case in point, and I was right behind the guy: Dude had a
huge cart in tow at the cash register. A toilet, two sinks, tile, pipe,
mortar, the works. He could barely pull it. Ka-ching ... "That'll be
eighthundred Dollars and .." He whipped out a huge wallet and paid the
whole chebang in cash. Dollar bills. No check, no credit card, no name
given. Now how exactly is this going to be recorded?
At a bare minimum, in the tax receipts that the store reports (by sale).
They may not know just who paid, but they do know it _got paid_ on those
items.
Do you honestly believe this guy would dutifully file and remit the 23%
"fair tax" from the amount he collects from the homeowner?
Because of all the other record keeping involved with a real property
sale, yes.
What record keeping? I seriously doubt that uncle Leroy will remember
who rebuilt the deck 15 years ago. Or wants to remember.

Okay, I've got a short break so I'll try to catch up with you guys...

Uncle Leroy paid Fair Tax when he bought the building materials. If
he hired a contractor, Leroy pays Fair Tax when he pays the
contractor. No recordkeeping. End of story.


Not at all end of story. Read what I wrote above about the guy who
bought the complete remodel materials with hard cash. He's going to make
uncle Leroy a special deal, provided that no paperwork crosses the table
and there will be a cash payment. Meaning the guy who did the work puts
all it this cash in his pocket. IOW, nobody ever paid tax for the work,
only for the materials.

In countries with high VAT the underground economy is rampant. I know
it, I lived in such countries. This so-called "fair tax" will have the
same effect as a VAT because to the people it works the same way. They
do not care how it's called, a tax is a tax is a tax.

"Trade" is already rampant, with deals arranged thru various Internet
"lists".

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 08:08:47 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 25/05/2010 23:26, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 08:27:32 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

snip

Omnivorous. Provided that you eat on average roughly the right amount.

..of everything.

Of edible foods. It isn't a good idea to eat tables or chairs for
instance.

Lots of fiber.

Too much protein, fat or carbohydrate can be bad. The Atkins
guy with the faddish low carb slimming scheme didn't live all that long.

That's the point of eating the right amount of everything. Eat one thing and
you get to much of one dietary component.

His slimming scheme worked but put a lot of stress on the body.

High fructose corn syrup seems to be a dodgy concoction used in US soft
drinks that is delivering extremely high levels of diabetes for example.

You can blame Congress for that.

I suspect you should blame the corn lobby. Congress critters were only
doing what they were paid to do (with used notes in brown envelopes).

No, the corn lobby has nothing to do with it. The sugar lobby is responsible
for the sugar price supports.

I suppose bank robbers are OK, too, because they're only doing what they're
paid to do.

In Silicon valley you can get Coke made with real sucrose from Mexico.

At (somebody said) $1.50 a pop. That leaves $7/sixpack for the sugar lobby.

 

[Joerg]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 24, 10:47 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 23, 3:22 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:00:00 -0700, Joerg <inva...@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 :-(

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.

Well, congratulations--Phil, Keith, and you have just affected public
policy through this conversation. If pressed, I'm pretty sure they'd
compromise.

Hey, I'm not Phil

The question is always the same--how much they'd have to raise the
rate to make up for the lost revenue. It'd have to be higher,
obviously, if items are exempted, since the goal is be totally non-
partisan: to collect the same amount of tax, from mostly the same
people in the same proportions, just in a simpler way.

Their defense on taxed savings was exactly as I said--on average,
producers' prices would fall to offset the Fair Tax, and your spending
power would be the same. They acknowledge that your purchasing mix
would vary your experience, i.e., costs don't fall equally for all
producers.

I disagree with that and think I've explained why. Remember,
unfortunately we are an import country with a rather large trade
imbalance. With the stuff that Joe Q.Publich buys it's even worse, other
than food it pretty much all comes from countries like China. On the
export side it's more investment goods, Boeing airplanes and such. Yeah,
a Boeing 777 will become cheaper but how's that going to help John Q.Public?

Oh, by the way, they said "Fair" is supposed to mean "pretty good,
loads better than what we have," not "perfectly equitable for
everyone." They know the latter's impossible.

Fair enough. But why not try to fix the current system first?

Secondly, people who have diligently saved want some _ironclad_
guarantees there, in a way that thise guarantees cannot be changed
later.

There is no such guarantee. Today's government voids contracts, takes
and redistributes businesses, rewrites mortgages, funds union pensions
with taxpayer funds, requires you to buy absolutely anything they
mandate, etc. And, they change their minds on a whim. There are no
guarantees.

That's why I think a stampede would be unavoidable.

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.

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.

I'm fairly familiar with the financial markets--I see no adverse
impact. I'd think it would blossom. Get paid, save and invest, all
with NO tax. Hallelujah.

Business too, once freed from all that accounting, reporting, and
plotting and scheming to avoid tax landmines. What's your concern?

That all retirees would pull their money out and rush into more durable
investments such as real estate. You might see nothing but a plume of
dust where your local bank used to be ;-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 16:06:31 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 26, 9:27 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 07:05:38 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:39:13 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

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 ..."
That is all recorded in the tax receipts.
What receipts? Case in point, and I was right behind the guy: Dude had a
huge cart in tow at the cash register. A toilet, two sinks, tile, pipe,
mortar, the works. He could barely pull it. Ka-ching ... "That'll be
eighthundred Dollars and .." He whipped out a huge wallet and paid the
whole chebang in cash. Dollar bills. No check, no credit card, no name
given. Now how exactly is this going to be recorded?

At a bare minimum, in the tax receipts that the store reports (by sale).
They may not know just who paid, but they do know it _got paid_ on those
items.

Do you honestly believe this guy would dutifully file and remit the 23%
"fair tax" from the amount he collects from the homeowner?

Because of all the other record keeping involved with a real property
sale, yes.

What record keeping? I seriously doubt that uncle Leroy will remember
who rebuilt the deck 15 years ago. Or wants to remember.

Okay, I've got a short break so I'll try to catch up with you guys...

Uncle Leroy paid Fair Tax when he bought the building materials. If
he hired a contractor, Leroy pays Fair Tax when he pays the
contractor. No recordkeeping. End of story.

That's where the submarine sails. Leroy doesn't pay Fair tax on Pedro's
labor. No record keeping. No story to end.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 08:26:50 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 26/05/2010 08:17, JosephKK wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 07:06:36 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 04:43:23 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:


The nice thing about a sales tax is that you can elect to not buy
stuff and not pay the tax.

Except for food and utilities.

It's easy to exempt baseline goods.

John

But that immediately fills the can with worms again.

Why do you think that?

Becuase Congress is back in the exemption business.

Sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol are used in many countries.

Legislating sin is a large part of the problem.

I thought some US states were contemplating a sin tax on sugary soft
drinks to try and rescue the nations ever expanding waistline.

Right. Any color is fine, as long as it's a revenue worm. It's really about
the ever expanding waste line (see: Congressman).

VAT is zero rated for basic foods deliberately to make the essentials of
life cheaper. It works fine. There are a handful of ambiguous products
with roughly the same ingredients where one is luxury and the other
staple food (preserved sugared ginger for instance).

Irrelevant. How long before the sugar industry is exempted? Corn? Cars
built by government entities...

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 07:47:49 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 08:26:50 +0100, the renowned Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 26/05/2010 08:17, JosephKK wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 07:06:36 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 04:43:23 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:


The nice thing about a sales tax is that you can elect to not buy
stuff and not pay the tax.

Except for food and utilities.

It's easy to exempt baseline goods.

John

But that immediately fills the can with worms again.

Why do you think that?

Sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol are used in many countries.

I thought some US states were contemplating a sin tax on sugary soft
drinks to try and rescue the nations ever expanding waistline.

VAT is zero rated for basic foods deliberately to make the essentials of
life cheaper. It works fine. There are a handful of ambiguous products
with roughly the same ingredients where one is luxury and the other
staple food (preserved sugared ginger for instance).

Regards,
Martin Brown

The distinction between "zero-rated" and "exempt" is an important one.

"without a difference" comes to mind.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 16:33:44 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 24, 10:47 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 23, 3:22 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:00:00 -0700, Joerg <inva...@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 :-(

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.

Well, congratulations--Phil, Keith, and you have just affected public
policy through this conversation. If pressed, I'm pretty sure they'd
compromise.

Phil?

The question is always the same--how much they'd have to raise the
rate to make up for the lost revenue. It'd have to be higher,
obviously, if items are exempted, since the goal is be totally non-
partisan: to collect the same amount of tax, from mostly the same
people in the same proportions, just in a simpler way.

Their defense on taxed savings was exactly as I said--on average,
producers' prices would fall to offset the Fair Tax, and your spending
power would be the same. They acknowledge that your purchasing mix
would vary your experience, i.e., costs don't fall equally for all
producers.

Oh, by the way, they said "Fair" is supposed to mean "pretty good,
loads better than what we have," not "perfectly equitable for
everyone." They know the latter's impossible.

Secondly, people who have diligently saved want some _ironclad_
guarantees there, in a way that thise guarantees cannot be changed
later.

There is no such guarantee. Today's government voids contracts, takes
and redistributes businesses, rewrites mortgages, funds union pensions
with taxpayer funds, requires you to buy absolutely anything they
mandate, etc. And, they change their minds on a whim. There are no
guarantees.

There may be no guarantees, but there also may be revolution. Every one of
these games pushes the cart that much closer to the edge.

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.

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.

I'm fairly familiar with the financial markets--I see no adverse
impact. I'd think it would blossom. Get paid, save and invest, all
with NO tax. Hallelujah.

Business too, once freed from all that accounting, reporting, and
plotting and scheming to avoid tax landmines. What's your concern?

Reality.

 

On May 26, 9:27 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 07:05:38 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:39:13 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

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 ..."
That is all recorded in the tax receipts.
What receipts? Case in point, and I was right behind the guy: Dude had a
huge cart in tow at the cash register. A toilet, two sinks, tile, pipe,
mortar, the works. He could barely pull it. Ka-ching ... "That'll be
eighthundred Dollars and .." He whipped out a huge wallet and paid the
whole chebang in cash. Dollar bills. No check, no credit card, no name
given. Now how exactly is this going to be recorded?

At a bare minimum, in the tax receipts that the store reports (by sale).
They may not know just who paid, but they do know it _got paid_ on those
items.

Do you honestly believe this guy would dutifully file and remit the 23%
"fair tax" from the amount he collects from the homeowner?

Because of all the other record keeping involved with a real property
sale, yes.

What record keeping? I seriously doubt that uncle Leroy will remember
who rebuilt the deck 15 years ago. Or wants to remember.

Okay, I've got a short break so I'll try to catch up with you guys...

Uncle Leroy paid Fair Tax when he bought the building materials. If
he hired a contractor, Leroy pays Fair Tax when he pays the
contractor. No recordkeeping. End of story.

James Arthur

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:18:32 -0700, the renowned Joerg
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 26, 9:27 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 07:05:38 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:39:13 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
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 ..."
That is all recorded in the tax receipts.
What receipts? Case in point, and I was right behind the guy: Dude had a
huge cart in tow at the cash register. A toilet, two sinks, tile, pipe,
mortar, the works. He could barely pull it. Ka-ching ... "That'll be
eighthundred Dollars and .." He whipped out a huge wallet and paid the
whole chebang in cash. Dollar bills. No check, no credit card, no name
given. Now how exactly is this going to be recorded?
At a bare minimum, in the tax receipts that the store reports (by sale).
They may not know just who paid, but they do know it _got paid_ on those
items.
Do you honestly believe this guy would dutifully file and remit the 23%
"fair tax" from the amount he collects from the homeowner?
Because of all the other record keeping involved with a real property
sale, yes.
What record keeping? I seriously doubt that uncle Leroy will remember
who rebuilt the deck 15 years ago. Or wants to remember.

Okay, I've got a short break so I'll try to catch up with you guys...

Uncle Leroy paid Fair Tax when he bought the building materials. If
he hired a contractor, Leroy pays Fair Tax when he pays the
contractor. No recordkeeping. End of story.


Not at all end of story. Read what I wrote above about the guy who
bought the complete remodel materials with hard cash. He's going to make
uncle Leroy a special deal, provided that no paperwork crosses the table
and there will be a cash payment. Meaning the guy who did the work puts
all it this cash in his pocket. IOW, nobody ever paid tax for the work,
only for the materials.

In countries with high VAT the underground economy is rampant. I know
it, I lived in such countries. This so-called "fair tax" will have the
same effect as a VAT because to the people it works the same way. They
do not care how it's called, a tax is a tax is a tax.

Tax evasion/avoidance is attractive with a VAT where the end user does
not get the tax rebated (consumer) and the cost is mostly labor
(renovations, haircuts, car bodywork, house painting etc.). One bad
side of that is that it establishes a culture of tax evasion at the
grass roots.



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 21:20:30 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

[snip]

Tax evasion/avoidance is attractive with a VAT where the end user does
not get the tax rebated (consumer) and the cost is mostly labor
(renovations, haircuts, car bodywork, house painting etc.). One bad
side of that is that it establishes a culture of tax evasion at the
grass roots.

That's bad ?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

 

On May 24, 10:47 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 23, 3:22 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:00:00 -0700, Joerg <inva...@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 :-(

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.

Well, congratulations--Phil, Keith, and you have just affected public
policy through this conversation. If pressed, I'm pretty sure they'd
compromise.

The question is always the same--how much they'd have to raise the
rate to make up for the lost revenue. It'd have to be higher,
obviously, if items are exempted, since the goal is be totally non-
partisan: to collect the same amount of tax, from mostly the same
people in the same proportions, just in a simpler way.

Their defense on taxed savings was exactly as I said--on average,
producers' prices would fall to offset the Fair Tax, and your spending
power would be the same. They acknowledge that your purchasing mix
would vary your experience, i.e., costs don't fall equally for all
producers.

Oh, by the way, they said "Fair" is supposed to mean "pretty good,
loads better than what we have," not "perfectly equitable for
everyone." They know the latter's impossible.

Secondly, people who have diligently saved want some _ironclad_
guarantees there, in a way that thise guarantees cannot be changed
later.

There is no such guarantee. Today's government voids contracts, takes
and redistributes businesses, rewrites mortgages, funds union pensions
with taxpayer funds, requires you to buy absolutely anything they
mandate, etc. And, they change their minds on a whim. There are no
guarantees.

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.

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.

I'm fairly familiar with the financial markets--I see no adverse
impact. I'd think it would blossom. Get paid, save and invest, all
with NO tax. Hallelujah.

Business too, once freed from all that accounting, reporting, and
plotting and scheming to avoid tax landmines. What's your concern?

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 18:26:42 -0700, the renowned Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 21:20:30 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

[snip]

Tax evasion/avoidance is attractive with a VAT where the end user does
not get the tax rebated (consumer) and the cost is mostly labor
(renovations, haircuts, car bodywork, house painting etc.). One bad
side of that is that it establishes a culture of tax evasion at the
grass roots.


That's bad ?

...Jim Thompson

Arguable, but I think so, especially if those of us who won't/can't
cheat end up shouldering much more of the burden as a result.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Joerg]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:18:32 -0700, the renowned Joerg
invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 26, 9:27 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 07:05:38 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:39:13 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
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 ..."
That is all recorded in the tax receipts.
What receipts? Case in point, and I was right behind the guy: Dude had a
huge cart in tow at the cash register. A toilet, two sinks, tile, pipe,
mortar, the works. He could barely pull it. Ka-ching ... "That'll be
eighthundred Dollars and .." He whipped out a huge wallet and paid the
whole chebang in cash. Dollar bills. No check, no credit card, no name
given. Now how exactly is this going to be recorded?
At a bare minimum, in the tax receipts that the store reports (by sale).
They may not know just who paid, but they do know it _got paid_ on those
items.
Do you honestly believe this guy would dutifully file and remit the 23%
"fair tax" from the amount he collects from the homeowner?
Because of all the other record keeping involved with a real property
sale, yes.
What record keeping? I seriously doubt that uncle Leroy will remember
who rebuilt the deck 15 years ago. Or wants to remember.
Okay, I've got a short break so I'll try to catch up with you guys...

Uncle Leroy paid Fair Tax when he bought the building materials. If
he hired a contractor, Leroy pays Fair Tax when he pays the
contractor. No recordkeeping. End of story.

Not at all end of story. Read what I wrote above about the guy who
bought the complete remodel materials with hard cash. He's going to make
uncle Leroy a special deal, provided that no paperwork crosses the table
and there will be a cash payment. Meaning the guy who did the work puts
all it this cash in his pocket. IOW, nobody ever paid tax for the work,
only for the materials.

In countries with high VAT the underground economy is rampant. I know
it, I lived in such countries. This so-called "fair tax" will have the
same effect as a VAT because to the people it works the same way. They
do not care how it's called, a tax is a tax is a tax.

Tax evasion/avoidance is attractive with a VAT where the end user does
not get the tax rebated (consumer) and the cost is mostly labor
(renovations, haircuts, car bodywork, house painting etc.). One bad
side of that is that it establishes a culture of tax evasion at the
grass roots.

Yes, and that's why I think that any sort of tax on end user sales is
counter-productive. Here in Calfornia the dems regularly lament that
they need ever more money and that services should be taxed. Blissfully
unaware that this would make unemployment really shoot up and the
underground economy grow by leaps and bounds. So will a VAT. So will a
"fair tax".

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 18:36:49 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:18:32 -0700, the renowned Joerg
invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 26, 9:27 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 07:05:38 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:39:13 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
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 ..."
That is all recorded in the tax receipts.
What receipts? Case in point, and I was right behind the guy: Dude had a
huge cart in tow at the cash register. A toilet, two sinks, tile, pipe,
mortar, the works. He could barely pull it. Ka-ching ... "That'll be
eighthundred Dollars and .." He whipped out a huge wallet and paid the
whole chebang in cash. Dollar bills. No check, no credit card, no name
given. Now how exactly is this going to be recorded?
At a bare minimum, in the tax receipts that the store reports (by sale).
They may not know just who paid, but they do know it _got paid_ on those
items.
Do you honestly believe this guy would dutifully file and remit the 23%
"fair tax" from the amount he collects from the homeowner?
Because of all the other record keeping involved with a real property
sale, yes.
What record keeping? I seriously doubt that uncle Leroy will remember
who rebuilt the deck 15 years ago. Or wants to remember.
Okay, I've got a short break so I'll try to catch up with you guys...

Uncle Leroy paid Fair Tax when he bought the building materials. If
he hired a contractor, Leroy pays Fair Tax when he pays the
contractor. No recordkeeping. End of story.

Not at all end of story. Read what I wrote above about the guy who
bought the complete remodel materials with hard cash. He's going to make
uncle Leroy a special deal, provided that no paperwork crosses the table
and there will be a cash payment. Meaning the guy who did the work puts
all it this cash in his pocket. IOW, nobody ever paid tax for the work,
only for the materials.

In countries with high VAT the underground economy is rampant. I know
it, I lived in such countries. This so-called "fair tax" will have the
same effect as a VAT because to the people it works the same way. They
do not care how it's called, a tax is a tax is a tax.

Tax evasion/avoidance is attractive with a VAT where the end user does
not get the tax rebated (consumer) and the cost is mostly labor
(renovations, haircuts, car bodywork, house painting etc.). One bad
side of that is that it establishes a culture of tax evasion at the
grass roots.


Yes, and that's why I think that any sort of tax on end user sales is
counter-productive. Here in Calfornia the dems regularly lament that
they need ever more money and that services should be taxed. Blissfully
unaware that this would make unemployment really shoot up and the
underground economy grow by leaps and bounds. So will a VAT. So will a
"fair tax".

Rebate a portion of the tax paid on labor and services. Submit receipt, get
cash.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 08:08:47 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 25/05/2010 23:26, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 08:27:32 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

snip

Omnivorous. Provided that you eat on average roughly the right amount.

..of everything.

Of edible foods. It isn't a good idea to eat tables or chairs for
instance.

Lots of fiber.

Raw 2*4s are cheaper! ;-)

Too much protein, fat or carbohydrate can be bad. The Atkins
guy with the faddish low carb slimming scheme didn't live all that long.

That's the point of eating the right amount of everything. Eat one thing and
you get to much of one dietary component.

His slimming scheme worked but put a lot of stress on the body.

High fructose corn syrup seems to be a dodgy concoction used in US soft
drinks that is delivering extremely high levels of diabetes for example.

You can blame Congress for that.

I suspect you should blame the corn lobby. Congress critters were only
doing what they were paid to do (with used notes in brown envelopes).

No, the corn lobby has nothing to do with it. The sugar lobby is responsible
for the sugar price supports.

I suppose bank robbers are OK, too, because they're only doing what they're
paid to do.

In Silicon valley you can get Coke made with real sucrose from Mexico.

At (somebody said) $1.50 a pop. That leaves $7/sixpack for the sugar lobby.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[JosephKK]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 21:20:30 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:18:32 -0700, the renowned Joerg
invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 26, 9:27 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 07:05:38 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:39:13 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
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 ..."
That is all recorded in the tax receipts.
What receipts? Case in point, and I was right behind the guy: Dude had a
huge cart in tow at the cash register. A toilet, two sinks, tile, pipe,
mortar, the works. He could barely pull it. Ka-ching ... "That'll be
eighthundred Dollars and .." He whipped out a huge wallet and paid the
whole chebang in cash. Dollar bills. No check, no credit card, no name
given. Now how exactly is this going to be recorded?
At a bare minimum, in the tax receipts that the store reports (by sale).
They may not know just who paid, but they do know it _got paid_ on those
items.
Do you honestly believe this guy would dutifully file and remit the 23%
"fair tax" from the amount he collects from the homeowner?
Because of all the other record keeping involved with a real property
sale, yes.
What record keeping? I seriously doubt that uncle Leroy will remember
who rebuilt the deck 15 years ago. Or wants to remember.

Okay, I've got a short break so I'll try to catch up with you guys...

Uncle Leroy paid Fair Tax when he bought the building materials. If
he hired a contractor, Leroy pays Fair Tax when he pays the
contractor. No recordkeeping. End of story.


Not at all end of story. Read what I wrote above about the guy who
bought the complete remodel materials with hard cash. He's going to make
uncle Leroy a special deal, provided that no paperwork crosses the table
and there will be a cash payment. Meaning the guy who did the work puts
all it this cash in his pocket. IOW, nobody ever paid tax for the work,
only for the materials.

In countries with high VAT the underground economy is rampant. I know
it, I lived in such countries. This so-called "fair tax" will have the
same effect as a VAT because to the people it works the same way. They
do not care how it's called, a tax is a tax is a tax.

Tax evasion/avoidance is attractive with a VAT where the end user does
not get the tax rebated (consumer) and the cost is mostly labor
(renovations, haircuts, car bodywork, house painting etc.). One bad
side of that is that it establishes a culture of tax evasion at the
grass roots.



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Only when combined with irresponsible liberal spending like in CA and DC.

 

[JosephKK]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:36:22 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 08:26:50 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 26/05/2010 08:17, JosephKK wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 07:06:36 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 04:43:23 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:


The nice thing about a sales tax is that you can elect to not buy
stuff and not pay the tax.

Except for food and utilities.

It's easy to exempt baseline goods.

John

But that immediately fills the can with worms again.

Why do you think that?

Becuase Congress is back in the exemption business.

Sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol are used in many countries.

Legislating sin is a large part of the problem.

I thought some US states were contemplating a sin tax on sugary soft
drinks to try and rescue the nations ever expanding waistline.

Right. Any color is fine, as long as it's a revenue worm. It's really about
the ever expanding waste line (see: Congressman).

VAT is zero rated for basic foods deliberately to make the essentials of
life cheaper. It works fine. There are a handful of ambiguous products
with roughly the same ingredients where one is luxury and the other
staple food (preserved sugared ginger for instance).

Irrelevant. How long before the sugar industry is exempted? Corn? Cars
built by government entities...

Keith, thanks for responding to his tiresome cackheaddedness.

 

[JosephKK]

On Tue, 25 May 2010 22:47:56 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 18:25:38 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 18:56:24 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:00:40 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 17:41:05 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2010 18:00:10 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2010 08:47:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 23, 3:22 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:00:00 -0700, Joerg <inva...@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. ;-)


Maybe be all send him a donation, one bag of Quikrete per poster

Sounds line an offer he cannot refuse.

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.


And people getting very miffed. There's a reason for all the tea
parties.

The press is doing everything it can to write off the tea partiers as kooks.

The Press is turning on Obama. Finally. So are a lot of Democrats, as
far as that goes.

I'm not convinced. We'll see.


Things are looking up in America:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Still 30 points too high.

Yep, and i think it sets a record for fastest and strongest crossover
from more strongly approve to more strongly disapprove of all newly
elected Presidents.