conservation of Euros

On May 26, 8:42 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 16:33:44 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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?

Yes, Sir Mr. Dr. Hobbs. He mentioned the concern about about people
having to pay Fair Tax on already income-taxed retirement savings in
another thread.

I still don't think it's a serious a penalty to people who've already
paid taxes on their savings (as I have). I mostly buy the argument
that selling prices will fall as mfrs' embedded tax-costs are stripped
away, preserving my buying power, and mostly offsetting the Fair Tax
I'll have to pay. (I believe in the power of free markets.)

Instead I look at the tax-deferred people as getting lucky--their
buying power will be increased. Good for them--maybe they'll buy more
stuff and pay more tax. I made my deal on that part of my money years
ago, and paid my dues under that regimen. Should I have bought Apple
stock instead? Sure, but I didn't.

Truthfully though, I so despise the current mess, and think it such an
unwieldy, wrong-headed and burdensome counter-productivity mess that
I'd take a new, simplified, better, system even if I had to take a bit
of a haircut (just a trim, please!), because I think it's so much
better for the country.

Reagan implemented basically a flat tax, kind of. He killed all the
deductions, and for a while we had a simple, three-tiered straight
percentage tax on income. The rates were lower, but it increased
collections, and it was a lot easier. That was 76,000 pages (the size
of the current code + regulations) ago.

People constantly weigh the money cost of tax compliance; I count the
human cost, the time and creativity misdirected and wasted, the
inventions and advances lost for all time, and think I'd more than get
back anything I lost in the transition to a Fair Tax. I think the
improved productivity of the nation for years to come would benefit us
all more than enough to repay me for any hit I might take.

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.

"Revolution is brewing" -- Tea Party sign

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On May 26, 8:18 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodb...@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.

But it's possible and common to pay people "under the table right"
now, so I don't see how that's different. In your scenario at least
he would've paid Fair Tax on the materials, so you'd collect part of
the tax due. Under an income tax the cheater gets off totally scot-
free, labor and materials.

Of course today Pelsoi would make you file a 1099 on the guy, getting
citizens to rat one another out.

I guess (cringe) one advantage of a VAT is that it forces everyone to
become tax-collectors--no one wants to be stuck paying it, so they're
eager to collect their rebate from the next guy in the chain.

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.

Yes, but ditto for income tax.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Joerg]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 26, 8:30 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@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

No, you're you. (!)

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?

The Fair Tax guys insist that, in the aggregate, their claim holds.

Well, then that's where they and I (and a whole lot of others) will not
be able to come to a concensus.

They recommended reading their analysis by industry, manufacturing in
particular. Sellers' hidden tax burdens fall dramatically--to zero--
their cost falls, and then their price. Free market economics.

An analysis on paper is nice but it will be necessary to drill down
further. The only way to do that is if Walmart or a similar company
opens the books. Take a clothing items, toys, whatever, and then drill
down the money flows. Sorry, but that has to be done first. Free market
economics

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?

You mean of 1099s, Schedule C, D, E, and payroll and employer matching
taxes, of Social Security tax, Medicare Tax, Alternative Minimum Tax,
of Earned Income credits, and capital gains tax, each with their own
schedules and computations, each affecting the others?

Yes. We need to look at the tax code now and that from, say, 1960. Then
figure out why the heck it has gotten so complicated. Start rolling
back. One reason is easy and we already know it, it is evidenced in the
most recent 1099 reporting requirements.

Things like AMT would have never become an issue at all if some
politicians wouldn't be so greedy.

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.

There's no reason not to stampede right now--the currency's being
debased. That issue is Fair Tax-neutral.

And some of it is happening. I personally met people who will wait no
longer than this November. However, since this is a slow process and
other currency zones such as Europe are doing the same thing it's not a
landslide. In contrast, the announcement of a "fair tax" could be like
hitting the ignition button. Kablouie.

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 ;-)

That makes no sense to me. Running out and buying stuff does not
improve your tax treatment, whether income-taxed savings are Fair Tax
exempted or not.

Sure it does. You buy that retirement place now -> You pay with taxed
money and the home is tax free. You buy the retirement place too late
when "fair tax" is in effect -> You pay with taxed money and you pay
another tax on the home.

If someone did want to buy a bunch of stuff, that stimulates
manufacturing and other business, so it's fine for the country. It
might be kind of dumb to blow all your dough, however.

The smart thing would be to take yourself, your family, your dough and
move to a place where there will be no new tax on stuff. Guadalajara
province is said to be nice ...

No joke, a lot of serious discretionary income would be gone.

One great advantage of the Fair Tax is that it removes moral hazard.
That is, it puts the tax you pay right out in front, for all to see.
And, unlike today, everyone pays it, so everyone has a vested interest
in keeping it low.

And some people will pay it twice. It's right in front of them, for all
to see.

That, my friend, will do more to rein in spending and save the country
than just about anything else could.

You honestly believe that? It takes a wee political shift in a certain
direction and you have willy-nilly spending. Then ... "oh s..t!" ... we
have to raise the "fair tax" rate from 23% to 26%.

And what do you do with states that have dug themselves into a hole?
Like California with its reckless spending for super fat bureaucrat
pensions. Do you give them a bigger chunk of the "fair tax" than states
that knew how to do a budget well? And how are you going to muffle the
public backlash from doing that?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

On May 26, 8:30 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodb...@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

No, you're you. (!)

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?

The Fair Tax guys insist that, in the aggregate, their claim holds.
They recommended reading their analysis by industry, manufacturing in
particular. Sellers' hidden tax burdens fall dramatically--to zero--
their cost falls, and then their price. Free market economics.

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?

You mean of 1099s, Schedule C, D, E, and payroll and employer matching
taxes, of Social Security tax, Medicare Tax, Alternative Minimum Tax,
of Earned Income credits, and capital gains tax, each with their own
schedules and computations, each affecting the others?

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.

There's no reason not to stampede right now--the currency's being
debased. That issue is Fair Tax-neutral.

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 ;-)

That makes no sense to me. Running out and buying stuff does not
improve your tax treatment, whether income-taxed savings are Fair Tax
exempted or not.

If someone did want to buy a bunch of stuff, that stimulates
manufacturing and other business, so it's fine for the country. It
might be kind of dumb to blow all your dough, however.

One great advantage of the Fair Tax is that it removes moral hazard.
That is, it puts the tax you pay right out in front, for all to see.
And, unlike today, everyone pays it, so everyone has a vested interest
in keeping it low.

That, my friend, will do more to rein in spending and save the country
than just about anything else could.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On May 26, 8:30 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 16:06:31 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

So? If Pedro wants to cheat right now he just doesn't report the
income, and doesn't pay income tax on his labor anyhow. Under the
Fair Tax cheaters pay at least something on part of it--you would've
gotten Fair Tax on the materials.

People will always make deals with their friends and neighbors, trade
stuff, lend things, etc. That's true now, and will be true then.

Gotta go--I'm about to lose power for the day!

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Joerg]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 26, 8:42 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 16:33:44 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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?

Yes, Sir Mr. Dr. Hobbs. He mentioned the concern about about people
having to pay Fair Tax on already income-taxed retirement savings in
another thread.

I still don't think it's a serious a penalty to people who've already
paid taxes on their savings (as I have). I mostly buy the argument
that selling prices will fall as mfrs' embedded tax-costs are stripped
away, preserving my buying power, and mostly offsetting the Fair Tax
I'll have to pay. (I believe in the power of free markets.)

I mostly do not buy that argument. Again, the bulk of consumer goods is
produced outside the US and, thanks to the power of free markets,
margins in the distribution on those are rather slim. The labor involved
in distribution is miniscule and the tiny domestic part of that is
pretty much the only place you'll see savings. When you order at Amazon
you are basically communicating with a robot, a.k.a. computer database
system.

Instead I look at the tax-deferred people as getting lucky--their
buying power will be increased. ...

So, tell us, what exactly is fair about that?

... Good for them--maybe they'll buy more
stuff and pay more tax. I made my deal on that part of my money years
ago, and paid my dues under that regimen. Should I have bought Apple
stock instead? Sure, but I didn't.

Truthfully though, I so despise the current mess, and think it such an
unwieldy, wrong-headed and burdensome counter-productivity mess that
I'd take a new, simplified, better, system even if I had to take a bit
of a haircut (just a trim, please!), because I think it's so much
better for the country.

Reagan implemented basically a flat tax, kind of. He killed all the
deductions, and for a while we had a simple, three-tiered straight
percentage tax on income. The rates were lower, but it increased
collections, and it was a lot easier. That was 76,000 pages (the size
of the current code + regulations) ago.

Now you've answered one of your questions from the other post. Things
can be fixed with the existing system if we put our minds to it. As was
demonstrated in Reagan's days. I still think he was one of the greatest
presidents our country ever had.

People constantly weigh the money cost of tax compliance; I count the
human cost, the time and creativity misdirected and wasted, the
inventions and advances lost for all time, and think I'd more than get
back anything I lost in the transition to a Fair Tax. I think the
improved productivity of the nation for years to come would benefit us
all more than enough to repay me for any hit I might take.

True. But compliance cost has gone up so high because the system is so
complicated that people (including myself) must use and pay a CPA to do
it. Reagan has show a viable path here. We could get back to the time
when filing a 1040 (and a schedule C in cases like mine) suffices for
most returns.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

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.

That's how it works for consultants in Europe. The payee gets the cash,
but in the end it's a wash. What that did was create yet another huge
bureaucracy. With public worker pensions, public worker health care et
cetera. Great.

--
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, 8:18 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@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.

But it's possible and common to pay people "under the table right"
now, so I don't see how that's different. In your scenario at least
he would've paid Fair Tax on the materials, so you'd collect part of
the tax due. Under an income tax the cheater gets off totally scot-
free, labor and materials.

Big difference: The guys who work in the underground economy are
typically at the low end of the income scale already. Their regular job
went away et cetera. They would hardly pay an income tax anyhow, maybe
10%. What was the number of Americans that paid nothing this year? Over
40% AFAIR. Now if there would be a 23% flat tax the motivation to go
under the table will increase big time because that's an even bigger
chunk than the few bucks he'd have paid in income tax. And he'd have to
collect and pay that right now (talking about bureaucracy ...).

Let's not forget, there's lots of people out there who wouldn't even
know how to file and pay that 23%. Because some have never even filed a
1040 (although of course they should have).

Of course today Pelsoi would make you file a 1099 on the guy, getting
citizens to rat one another out.

Won't happen in this case because the guy won't give his SSN and such
jobs are often done with the clear understanding that there won't be any
papers involved. In some cases he might not even have a SSN ...

I guess (cringe) one advantage of a VAT is that it forces everyone to
become tax-collectors--no one wants to be stuck paying it, so they're
eager to collect their rebate from the next guy in the chain.

What rebate? If you aren't a business there will not be any rebate. "A
fond perdue" is how they often call that in Europe.

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.

Yes, but ditto for income tax.

It'll increase, because 23% is more than 10%.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[John Larkin]

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.

Tax evasion is rampant in any system that includes cash transactions.
I wonder if my hair cutter (who I pay in cash) reports all her
earnings and tips.

Regular outlets, Wal Mart and Safeway and Amazon, won't be able to
evade a sales tax.

John

 

[John Larkin]

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".

California couldn't do much worse as regards driving away jobs.

All taxation drags down economies, but we need some. And the *type* of
taxation will have huge differential effects. Sales tax, instead of
corporate income tax, could collect the same amount of revenue but
have a hugely beneficial effect on domestic employment. People would
ultimately pay the same for the stuff they buy, but they'd be buying
more American stuff and so have jobs to make the paychecks to buy the
stuff.

John

 

[Joerg]

John Larkin wrote:

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".

California couldn't do much worse as regards driving away jobs.

All taxation drags down economies, but we need some. And the *type* of
taxation will have huge differential effects. Sales tax, instead of
corporate income tax, could collect the same amount of revenue but
have a hugely beneficial effect on domestic employment. People would
ultimately pay the same for the stuff they buy, but they'd be buying
more American stuff and so have jobs to make the paychecks to buy the
stuff.

I don't think it's remotely possible to produce a pair of jeans in
America that retails for $20-30, or a pair of sneakers for $30, or a DVD
player for $49, or ...

And do you honestly believe the 2000% pension cost increase that certain
elements have brought upon us will ever go away? It's just going to get
worse, and while states with a reasonable political crew may be fine
with their share of a 23% flat tax CA most certainly won't be. Because
that share won't be more than a fifth of thise 23%, and the feds won't
give CA more just because the budget is eternally screwed up.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 11:04:27 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
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".

California couldn't do much worse as regards driving away jobs.

All taxation drags down economies, but we need some. And the *type* of
taxation will have huge differential effects. Sales tax, instead of
corporate income tax, could collect the same amount of revenue but
have a hugely beneficial effect on domestic employment. People would
ultimately pay the same for the stuff they buy, but they'd be buying
more American stuff and so have jobs to make the paychecks to buy the
stuff.


I don't think it's remotely possible to produce a pair of jeans in
America that retails for $20-30, or a pair of sneakers for $30, or a DVD
player for $49, or ...

Of course not; those industries are gone and won't come back. But we
might build differentially more cars, airplanes, plywood, electronics.
The alternative is to build nothing in the USA.

And do you honestly believe the 2000% pension cost increase that certain
elements have brought upon us will ever go away? It's just going to get
worse, and while states with a reasonable political crew may be fine
with their share of a 23% flat tax CA most certainly won't be. Because
that share won't be more than a fifth of thise 23%, and the feds won't
give CA more just because the budget is eternally screwed up.

As I said, taxes will happen. The *types* of taxes have huge
differential effects. Taxing business exports business. Taxing
productivity reduces the incentive to be productive. Taxing
consumption restores some competitive advantage to US industries.

John

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Martin Brown wrote:

On 13/05/2010 04:49, JosephKK wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 14:36:14 -0700 (PDT), x x<noname.namenot@gmail.com
wrote:

Larkin, why don't you mind your own fucking business?

No big deal. We'll never pay it back.

The doomsday repayment scenario is a major earthquake in Tokyo resulting
in the Japanese calling in their huge loans to the US quickly to do a
rebuild. I think you will find it hard to resist paying up.

You live in a fantasy world. What would they do? Drag a couple
pieced together W.W. II Zeros out of a museum and threaten to bomb Pearl
Harbor? There is no pressure they could apply that wouldn't cause them
more problems. You know what happened the last time they got pushy.
The technology & yield are much better these days.

They would have better luck making Europe pay up.


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

 

[Joerg]

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2010 11:04:27 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
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".
California couldn't do much worse as regards driving away jobs.

All taxation drags down economies, but we need some. And the *type* of
taxation will have huge differential effects. Sales tax, instead of
corporate income tax, could collect the same amount of revenue but
have a hugely beneficial effect on domestic employment. People would
ultimately pay the same for the stuff they buy, but they'd be buying
more American stuff and so have jobs to make the paychecks to buy the
stuff.

I don't think it's remotely possible to produce a pair of jeans in
America that retails for $20-30, or a pair of sneakers for $30, or a DVD
player for $49, or ...

Of course not; those industries are gone and won't come back. But we
might build differentially more cars, airplanes, plywood, electronics.
The alternative is to build nothing in the USA.

We already build and export world-class airplanes but Joe Q.Public will
be hard-pressed to get a loan to buy a Boeing 777. Plywood? I don't
think so. Cars? With stuff like jobs banks going on? I don't think so.
Electronics? T750 high voltage drivers, yes, of course. TV sets, radios,
gadgets? No.

We need to realize that we are a high-wage country and thus will never
be able to compete with countries like China when it comes to mundane
technologies. You are right that businesses are over-taxed as it is. But
the reality is that we need to fix the spending side of it, not shift
the tax load from one source to another to another.

To illustrate the point I recently had tested a custom part from China
here in the lab, for a switch mode converter. Yeah, there was a
form-fit-function compatible catalog part (non-custom) from the usual
sources here but the custom part came in at about 25% of the cost. How
is the flat tax going to bring that back?

And do you honestly believe the 2000% pension cost increase that certain
elements have brought upon us will ever go away? It's just going to get
worse, and while states with a reasonable political crew may be fine
with their share of a 23% flat tax CA most certainly won't be. Because
that share won't be more than a fifth of thise 23%, and the feds won't
give CA more just because the budget is eternally screwed up.

As I said, taxes will happen. The *types* of taxes have huge
differential effects. Taxing business exports business. Taxing
productivity reduces the incentive to be productive. Taxing
consumption restores some competitive advantage to US industries.

I am against such a rapid switch if it taxes saved income twice. So will
a whole lot of other people. Then, they and their dough might move to
Cabo San Lucas.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 07:46:53 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
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.


That's how it works for consultants in Europe. The payee gets the cash,
but in the end it's a wash. What that did was create yet another huge
bureaucracy. With public worker pensions, public worker health care et
cetera. Great.

So what's different?

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2010 07:46:53 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
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.

That's how it works for consultants in Europe. The payee gets the cash,
but in the end it's a wash. What that did was create yet another huge
bureaucracy. With public worker pensions, public worker health care et
cetera. Great.

So what's different?

That the US high-tech sector is more healthy IMHO. But that can change
for the worse, and I am sure we all don't want that to happen. More
nonsensical bureaucracy = bad.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Charlie E.]

Jeorg,
Let me chime in, here.

Now, I have a bit of savings. Yes, those earning were all taxed when I
saved them, but they are in the bank now. They are earning a (very)
little interest.

Now, they implement this fair tax. That money doesn't go away, it is
still in the bank. Now, you can tell me that it was just de-valued by
the amount of the tax, lets say 23%, but that doesn't happen right
away. It only happens when I pull it out and spend it. Now, we never
agreed on what that 23% meant. Did it replace the existing sales
taxes? Or just add to them? If it added to them, then every think I
now have to buy just got a third more expensive. Not a good thing.

But, if I don't spend that money, it is still there and making
interest. If I wait, it doesn't loose any additional value. If I
make additional money, then I save on those funds.

I would probably do just fine on the fair tax, but they will never do
it...

Charlie

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 17:08:47 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 07:46:53 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
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.

That's how it works for consultants in Europe. The payee gets the cash,
but in the end it's a wash. What that did was create yet another huge
bureaucracy. With public worker pensions, public worker health care et
cetera. Great.

So what's different?


That the US high-tech sector is more healthy IMHO. But that can change
for the worse, and I am sure we all don't want that to happen. More
nonsensical bureaucracy = bad.

It hasn't been healthy in decades and is swirling the drain. Since our
economy is becoming Europeon, it's not surprising.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 17:51:25 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 27, 9:56 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

snip

That, my friend, will do more to rein in spending and save the country
than just about anything else could.

You honestly believe that? It takes a wee political shift in a certain
direction and you have willy-nilly spending. Then ... "oh s..t!" ... we
have to raise the "fair tax" rate from 23% to 26%.

Yes, I believe that. You can raise the rate, but people will notice.
That's not currently true for more than half of us.


And what do you do with states that have dug themselves into a hole?
Like California with its reckless spending for super fat bureaucrat
pensions. Do you give them a bigger chunk of the "fair tax" than states
that knew how to do a budget well? And how are you going to muffle the
public backlash from doing that?

The Fair Tax assiduously avoids making those political judgements.
The Fair Tax is just a simpler way to collect the same amount of money
we currently collect. What the money is used for is up to the
politicians, as usual.

But it *does* make political judgments. The "rebate" is such a judgment.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 04:24:16 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 26, 8:42 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 16:33:44 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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?

Yes, Sir Mr. Dr. Hobbs. He mentioned the concern about about people
having to pay Fair Tax on already income-taxed retirement savings in
another thread.

Oh, it was Joerg and I making the argument in this thread.

I still don't think it's a serious a penalty to people who've already
paid taxes on their savings (as I have). I mostly buy the argument
that selling prices will fall as mfrs' embedded tax-costs are stripped
away, preserving my buying power, and mostly offsetting the Fair Tax
I'll have to pay. (I believe in the power of free markets.)

If prices fall to where they are now, after taxes have been paid and I keep my
salary, I just got a free lunch. I *really* don't believe in a free lunches.

Instead I look at the tax-deferred people as getting lucky--their
buying power will be increased. Good for them--maybe they'll buy more
stuff and pay more tax. I made my deal on that part of my money years
ago, and paid my dues under that regimen. Should I have bought Apple
stock instead? Sure, but I didn't.

Well, 80% of my liquid (non-home, non-pension) investments are deferred, but I
still don't believe in a free lunch.

I did buy Apple, but sold it after it only double twice. Not greedy.

Truthfully though, I so despise the current mess, and think it such an
unwieldy, wrong-headed and burdensome counter-productivity mess that
I'd take a new, simplified, better, system even if I had to take a bit
of a haircut (just a trim, please!), because I think it's so much
better for the country.

I'm still on the fence, as proposed. I'm sure I'll be against anything that
makes it through Congress, like the current mess.

Reagan implemented basically a flat tax, kind of. He killed all the
deductions, and for a while we had a simple, three-tiered straight
percentage tax on income. The rates were lower, but it increased
collections, and it was a lot easier. That was 76,000 pages (the size
of the current code + regulations) ago.

I liked the Reagan "cuts". If only Congress took a shave too.

People constantly weigh the money cost of tax compliance; I count the
human cost, the time and creativity misdirected and wasted, the
inventions and advances lost for all time, and think I'd more than get
back anything I lost in the transition to a Fair Tax. I think the
improved productivity of the nation for years to come would benefit us
all more than enough to repay me for any hit I might take.

A flat tax would do nearly the same.

<snip>

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.

"Revolution is brewing" -- Tea Party sign

I liked "Obamanomics: Trickle up poverty"