conservation of Euros

On May 17, 3:09 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 17 May 2010 12:57:38 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:



On May 17, 12:29 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:09:07 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On May 15, 9:27 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On May 14, 10:52 pm, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On May 14, 5:18 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 14, 9:51 am, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:16:49 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On May 13, 5:02 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On May 13, 8:20 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

The argument for progressive taxation is usually put in terms of those
with the broadest shoulders carrying more of the load.

Right.  That's how the Little Red Hen got a hold of all the other
animals' bread, greedy thing that she was.  She had broad shoulders.

This falls a
long way short of Marx -

Marx was kind of an idiot.

"The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e.,
that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely
requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer."
  --The Communist Manifesto

 See what I mean?

Yeah, he wouldn't understand a female plumber making $150K.

What created our modern wealth was engineers applying science.

Yep.  They made machines to relieve human toil, to improve the human
condition.

Evil capitalists.  Marx the Moocher should've stopped 'em.

Some of the capitalists were quite evil, as Martin Brown has pointed
out elsewhere in this thread. Trade unions were one of the mechanisms
that reigned in the greedy, evil, short-sighted minority.

No. Competition did.

Comptetion was one of the other mechanisms, once anti-trust
legislation had forced the greedy, evil and shorted sighted
capitalists to compete rather than conspire.

Conspiring is harmful.  Why, though, is it bad for capitalists, yet
infinitely good for labor?

Conspiracies among competing capitalists are inherently unstable. Like
OPEC, the players have competing interests; squabble, the alliances
fall apart, and they resume competing for advantage.  It's a beautiful
thing.

James Arthur

So we don't so much need anti-trust laws, as long as murder is
illegal?

To the contrary--anti-trust should apply to labor, too.  E.g.
government unions.

Agreed; all unions.

Sure. A union is nothing more than an attempt to monopolize labor.

But what ever happened to Jimmy Hoffa?

http://kenlayisalive.org/ken_lay_sightings.php

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On May 17, 3:13 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 17 May 2010 13:07:05 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

b) The Fair Tax economists calculate that when you buy a $1 item, 23
cents of the price of that item goes to covering the various taxes
that the people who made the item had to pay.

That is, if your laborer has to pay income tax, you have to pay him
more to compensate, and you have to raise your sales prices to recover
that loss from your customers.

c) So, when you buy an item, you *are* paying all the taxes of all the
people and entities that made the item.

Only if the product was made in the USA. If it's imported from China,
it didn't generate those taxes, certainly not into the US treasury.

A sales tax would apply to all sales, US or Chinese made. That would
be a boon for domestic industries and jobs.

And a boon to federal revenue--it makes imports pay "their fair
share," which should please protectionists.

James

 

On May 17, 3:41 pm, "keith...@gmail.com" <keith...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 17, 3:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:



On May 16, 11:48 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:29:11 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 15, 12:18 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:26:28 -0700, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

[...]

I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts
business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because
it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No
accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no
quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost.

Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a
person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be
jealous of his wealth.

A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved
for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The
money they saved _has_ already been taxed.

Simple fix: don't tax income.

Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but
not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat
VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair
at all.

As I suggested, exempt basics, like food, reasonable rent, generic
medicines. If people can afford a yacht, they can afford to pay sales
tax on it.

The point is that that money has already been taxed.  It shouldn't matter if
it is used to buy a yacht.  Taxing it again is wrong (one reason I don't trust
Roth IRAs).

As I suggested, eliminate income taxes and go to sales tax. Then
things are only taxed once.

You're missing the point.  Those millions of people who have saved all their
lives will be taxed a second time.  They've *already* been taxed on that
money.

The defense the Fair Tax people offer is that it really isn't an
increase at all--you're already paying that 2nd tax today.  It's
hidden in the price of everything you buy.

How so?  Inflation?  That increases investment values, as well.

The price of anything always includes all the taxes--ihe income, SS,
Medicare, and other taxes--paid by the people who made it.  Take those
out and the price of goods will fall.

Sure, but the *INCOME* tax has been paid and the new sales tax will also have
to be paid.  Without the change, there isn't a second tax on the income.  Yes,
the "fair" tax will include the income tax of the people paying now, but it
will also increase the real cost of the product the same as another income tax
would on the buyer.

Now you're not getting it...maybe equations would be clearer...  I'll
set out the reasoning, then you can have a go at rebutting it.

a) If you buy an item today--any item--the price of that item is
roughly

  price = raw materials
          + labor cost(wages + benefits + employer matching taxes)
          + overhead(rent, power, office help, advertising, phones)
          + business taxes
          + profit.

b) The Fair Tax economists calculate that when you buy a $1 item, 23
cents of the price of that item goes to covering the various taxes
that the people who made the item had to pay.

That is, if your laborer has to pay income tax, you have to pay him
more to compensate, and you have to raise your sales prices to recover
that loss from your customers.

c) So, when you buy an item, you *are* paying all the taxes of all the
people and entities that made the item.

Make sense so far?

d) Under the Fair Tax, with all those embedded taxes eliminated, the
manufacturer would now be able to make the same profit selling his $1
item for $0.77, which would be the new price.

e) At checkout, your (formerly) $1 item would now appear on the sales
ticket as
    1) price = $0.77, plus
    2) $0.23 in Fair Tax, collected at point-of-sale to pay all the
taxes of all the people who made the thing.

  Total = $1.00, just like before.  No difference.

There, I think that's basically their pitch.  I'm not a Fair Tax
expert, so I could've biffed something.

The Fair Tax--now separated and out in the open for all to see--is
simply the tax which you would've paid before anyhow, but without
knowing it.

No, it's not.  Yo can't tell me that money that has already been taxed has the
same value as money that hasn't.  Which would you rather have, $1M in an
conventional IRA (no tax yet paid), or $600K ($1M after tax) in a Roth, when
they change the tax to a consumption tax?

Depends on the tax rates.  Under the Fair Tax's 23% I'd rather have
the $1M, because that way I avoid the current system's higher rates.

That's the whole point.  Anyone with after-tax savings gets screwed
the second time.

But, the difference here is not made by getting taxed twice--per item
c) you are *already* paying the 23% tax built into the price of of an
purchase, and under today's system you *are* going to pay it when you
buy something.

Again, you're missing the point.  With after-tax savings you're
*already* paying that tax.  If the "Fair Tax" is implemented you get
to pay the "consumption tax" on the *AFTER-TAX* money.

I'm not missing the point, I just think you're mathematically wrong.
If the thing costs $1 today, or $0.77 plus $0.23 Fair Tax tomorrow,
what have you lost? Where have I gone wrong?

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 17 May 2010 08:14:14 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2010 23:51:07 -0500, the renowned
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:20:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2010 16:00:15 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:54:00 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

[...]

I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts
business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because
it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No
accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no
quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost.

Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a
person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be
jealous of his wealth.

A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved
for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The
money they saved _has_ already been taxed.

Simple fix: don't tax income.


Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but
not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat
VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair
at all.

Gosh, are your savings all that significant?

Many do have significant savings over their lifetimes. Having enough to live
on the rest of their lives, isn't uncommon.

Actually it is quite uncommon according to BLS data.

Balloney.

Don't you pay (an ever
increasing in CA) sales tax already? Please to explain the difference.

Compound interest tends to cancel inflation.

Not all that well. It really fell behind during Carter era.

And has recovered, quite nicely. You can prove any crackpot theory you want
if you cherry-pick the data. It's called a "lie".

Interestingly, credit card rates never came back down.

Not so interestingly, it's completely irrelevant, particularly to this
discussion (millionaires tend to not pay credit card interest).

We need a new word to replace millionaire. The guy who owns a hot dog
wagon is probably a millionaire. My plumber certainly is.

At age 65 a cash megabuck is certainly livable. Dave Ramsey, though I'm not
convinced, claims that 12% isn't difficult over the long haul. Your plumber
will likely not have any problems in retirement, except for the ones
government throws down in front of him. BTW, I knew a hotdog vendor who had
well over $100K, cash, in his home safe. Amazing what you can do with a cash
business.

 

[keithw86@gmail.com]

On May 17, 3:53 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 17, 3:41 pm, "keith...@gmail.com" <keith...@gmail.com> wrote:



On May 17, 3:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 16, 11:48 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:29:11 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 15, 12:18 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:26:28 -0700, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid..invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

[...]

I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts
business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because
it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No
accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no
quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost.

Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a
person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be
jealous of his wealth.

A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved
for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The
money they saved _has_ already been taxed.

Simple fix: don't tax income.

Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but
not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat
VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that.. Not fair
at all.

As I suggested, exempt basics, like food, reasonable rent, generic
medicines. If people can afford a yacht, they can afford to pay sales
tax on it.

The point is that that money has already been taxed.  It shouldn't matter if
it is used to buy a yacht.  Taxing it again is wrong (one reason I don't trust
Roth IRAs).

As I suggested, eliminate income taxes and go to sales tax. Then
things are only taxed once.

You're missing the point.  Those millions of people who have saved all their
lives will be taxed a second time.  They've *already* been taxed on that
money.

The defense the Fair Tax people offer is that it really isn't an
increase at all--you're already paying that 2nd tax today.  It's
hidden in the price of everything you buy.

How so?  Inflation?  That increases investment values, as well.

The price of anything always includes all the taxes--ihe income, SS,
Medicare, and other taxes--paid by the people who made it.  Take those
out and the price of goods will fall.

Sure, but the *INCOME* tax has been paid and the new sales tax will also have
to be paid.  Without the change, there isn't a second tax on the income.  Yes,
the "fair" tax will include the income tax of the people paying now, but it
will also increase the real cost of the product the same as another income tax
would on the buyer.

Now you're not getting it...maybe equations would be clearer...  I'll
set out the reasoning, then you can have a go at rebutting it.

a) If you buy an item today--any item--the price of that item is
roughly

  price = raw materials
          + labor cost(wages + benefits + employer matching taxes)
          + overhead(rent, power, office help, advertising, phones)
          + business taxes
          + profit.

b) The Fair Tax economists calculate that when you buy a $1 item, 23
cents of the price of that item goes to covering the various taxes
that the people who made the item had to pay.

That is, if your laborer has to pay income tax, you have to pay him
more to compensate, and you have to raise your sales prices to recover
that loss from your customers.

c) So, when you buy an item, you *are* paying all the taxes of all the
people and entities that made the item.

Make sense so far?

d) Under the Fair Tax, with all those embedded taxes eliminated, the
manufacturer would now be able to make the same profit selling his $1
item for $0.77, which would be the new price.

e) At checkout, your (formerly) $1 item would now appear on the sales
ticket as
    1) price = $0.77, plus
    2) $0.23 in Fair Tax, collected at point-of-sale to pay all the
taxes of all the people who made the thing.

  Total = $1.00, just like before.  No difference.

There, I think that's basically their pitch.  I'm not a Fair Tax
expert, so I could've biffed something.

The Fair Tax--now separated and out in the open for all to see--is
simply the tax which you would've paid before anyhow, but without
knowing it.

No, it's not.  Yo can't tell me that money that has already been taxed has the
same value as money that hasn't.  Which would you rather have, $1M in an
conventional IRA (no tax yet paid), or $600K ($1M after tax) in a Roth, when
they change the tax to a consumption tax?

Depends on the tax rates.  Under the Fair Tax's 23% I'd rather have
the $1M, because that way I avoid the current system's higher rates.

That's the whole point.  Anyone with after-tax savings gets screwed
the second time.

But, the difference here is not made by getting taxed twice--per item
c) you are *already* paying the 23% tax built into the price of of an
purchase, and under today's system you *are* going to pay it when you
buy something.

Again, you're missing the point.  With after-tax savings you're
*already* paying that tax.  If the "Fair Tax" is implemented you get
to pay the "consumption tax" on the *AFTER-TAX* money.

I'm not missing the point, I just think you're mathematically wrong.
If the thing costs $1 today, or $0.77 plus $0.23 Fair Tax tomorrow,
what have you lost?  Where have I gone wrong?

Because it cost me $1.40 yesterday (when I earned it) to have the
$1.00 today, and tomorrow (after I retire, take it out of the bank,
and spend it) it only buys $.77 worth of stuff. If I tax-deferred the
$1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that
is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 17, 4:05 pm, "keith...@gmail.com" <keith...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 17, 3:53 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:



On May 17, 3:41 pm, "keith...@gmail.com" <keith...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 17, 3:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 16, 11:48 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:29:11 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 15, 12:18 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:26:28 -0700, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

[...]

I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts
business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because
it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No
accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no
quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost.

Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a
person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be
jealous of his wealth.

A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved
for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The
money they saved _has_ already been taxed.

Simple fix: don't tax income.

Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but
not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat
VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair
at all.

As I suggested, exempt basics, like food, reasonable rent, generic
medicines. If people can afford a yacht, they can afford to pay sales
tax on it.

The point is that that money has already been taxed.  It shouldn't matter if
it is used to buy a yacht.  Taxing it again is wrong (one reason I don't trust
Roth IRAs).

As I suggested, eliminate income taxes and go to sales tax. Then
things are only taxed once.

You're missing the point.  Those millions of people who have saved all their
lives will be taxed a second time.  They've *already* been taxed on that
money.

The defense the Fair Tax people offer is that it really isn't an
increase at all--you're already paying that 2nd tax today.  It's
hidden in the price of everything you buy.

How so?  Inflation?  That increases investment values, as well.

The price of anything always includes all the taxes--ihe income, SS,
Medicare, and other taxes--paid by the people who made it.  Take those
out and the price of goods will fall.

Sure, but the *INCOME* tax has been paid and the new sales tax will also have
to be paid.  Without the change, there isn't a second tax on the income.  Yes,
the "fair" tax will include the income tax of the people paying now, but it
will also increase the real cost of the product the same as another income tax
would on the buyer.

Now you're not getting it...maybe equations would be clearer...  I'll
set out the reasoning, then you can have a go at rebutting it.

a) If you buy an item today--any item--the price of that item is
roughly

  price = raw materials
          + labor cost(wages + benefits + employer matching taxes)
          + overhead(rent, power, office help, advertising, phones)
          + business taxes
          + profit.

b) The Fair Tax economists calculate that when you buy a $1 item, 23
cents of the price of that item goes to covering the various taxes
that the people who made the item had to pay.

That is, if your laborer has to pay income tax, you have to pay him
more to compensate, and you have to raise your sales prices to recover
that loss from your customers.

c) So, when you buy an item, you *are* paying all the taxes of all the
people and entities that made the item.

Make sense so far?

d) Under the Fair Tax, with all those embedded taxes eliminated, the
manufacturer would now be able to make the same profit selling his $1
item for $0.77, which would be the new price.

e) At checkout, your (formerly) $1 item would now appear on the sales
ticket as
    1) price = $0.77, plus
    2) $0.23 in Fair Tax, collected at point-of-sale to pay all the
taxes of all the people who made the thing.

  Total = $1.00, just like before.  No difference.

There, I think that's basically their pitch.  I'm not a Fair Tax
expert, so I could've biffed something.

The Fair Tax--now separated and out in the open for all to see--is
simply the tax which you would've paid before anyhow, but without
knowing it.

No, it's not.  Yo can't tell me that money that has already been taxed has the
same value as money that hasn't.  Which would you rather have, $1M in an
conventional IRA (no tax yet paid), or $600K ($1M after tax) in a Roth, when
they change the tax to a consumption tax?

Depends on the tax rates.  Under the Fair Tax's 23% I'd rather have
the $1M, because that way I avoid the current system's higher rates.

That's the whole point.  Anyone with after-tax savings gets screwed
the second time.

But, the difference here is not made by getting taxed twice--per item
c) you are *already* paying the 23% tax built into the price of of an
purchase, and under today's system you *are* going to pay it when you
buy something.

Again, you're missing the point.  With after-tax savings you're
*already* paying that tax.  If the "Fair Tax" is implemented you get
to pay the "consumption tax" on the *AFTER-TAX* money.

I'm not missing the point, I just think you're mathematically wrong.
If the thing costs $1 today, or $0.77 plus $0.23 Fair Tax tomorrow,
what have you lost?  Where have I gone wrong?

Because it cost me $1.40 yesterday (when I earned it) to have the
$1.00 today,

If you paid taxes already under the old system then you were screwed
*yesterday*. That can't be fixed-it's gone. Sorry. Me too.

No, I was playing the game by the rules yesterday. Today the government
change the rules after the game was in play. The winner is the one who spent
every dime he ever made, not the one who took care of his life.

and tomorrow (after I retire, take it out of the bank,
and spend it) it only buys $.77 worth of stuff.

$1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people
(AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price.

Fine, if it really works, but that was not my point.

 If I tax-deferred the
$1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff.  Any after-tax savings (that
is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*.

If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the
old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it).

If they don't, I'll yank it all out and spend it. I may do that anyway.
Property looks like the only thing worth having.

Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left
still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded
tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax)
both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power.
That's the contention, AIUI.

Ok, but that doesn't help the people who have saved all their lives, which was
the point of this threadlet.

 

On May 17, 4:05 pm, "keith...@gmail.com" <keith...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 17, 3:53 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:



On May 17, 3:41 pm, "keith...@gmail.com" <keith...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 17, 3:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 16, 11:48 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:29:11 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 15, 12:18 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:26:28 -0700, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

[...]

I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts
business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because
it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No
accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no
quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost.

Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a
person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be
jealous of his wealth.

A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved
for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The
money they saved _has_ already been taxed.

Simple fix: don't tax income.

Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but
not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat
VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair
at all.

As I suggested, exempt basics, like food, reasonable rent, generic
medicines. If people can afford a yacht, they can afford to pay sales
tax on it.

The point is that that money has already been taxed.  It shouldn't matter if
it is used to buy a yacht.  Taxing it again is wrong (one reason I don't trust
Roth IRAs).

As I suggested, eliminate income taxes and go to sales tax. Then
things are only taxed once.

You're missing the point.  Those millions of people who have saved all their
lives will be taxed a second time.  They've *already* been taxed on that
money.

The defense the Fair Tax people offer is that it really isn't an
increase at all--you're already paying that 2nd tax today.  It's
hidden in the price of everything you buy.

How so?  Inflation?  That increases investment values, as well.

The price of anything always includes all the taxes--ihe income, SS,
Medicare, and other taxes--paid by the people who made it.  Take those
out and the price of goods will fall.

Sure, but the *INCOME* tax has been paid and the new sales tax will also have
to be paid.  Without the change, there isn't a second tax on the income.  Yes,
the "fair" tax will include the income tax of the people paying now, but it
will also increase the real cost of the product the same as another income tax
would on the buyer.

Now you're not getting it...maybe equations would be clearer...  I'll
set out the reasoning, then you can have a go at rebutting it.

a) If you buy an item today--any item--the price of that item is
roughly

  price = raw materials
          + labor cost(wages + benefits + employer matching taxes)
          + overhead(rent, power, office help, advertising, phones)
          + business taxes
          + profit.

b) The Fair Tax economists calculate that when you buy a $1 item, 23
cents of the price of that item goes to covering the various taxes
that the people who made the item had to pay.

That is, if your laborer has to pay income tax, you have to pay him
more to compensate, and you have to raise your sales prices to recover
that loss from your customers.

c) So, when you buy an item, you *are* paying all the taxes of all the
people and entities that made the item.

Make sense so far?

d) Under the Fair Tax, with all those embedded taxes eliminated, the
manufacturer would now be able to make the same profit selling his $1
item for $0.77, which would be the new price.

e) At checkout, your (formerly) $1 item would now appear on the sales
ticket as
    1) price = $0.77, plus
    2) $0.23 in Fair Tax, collected at point-of-sale to pay all the
taxes of all the people who made the thing.

  Total = $1.00, just like before.  No difference.

There, I think that's basically their pitch.  I'm not a Fair Tax
expert, so I could've biffed something.

The Fair Tax--now separated and out in the open for all to see--is
simply the tax which you would've paid before anyhow, but without
knowing it.

No, it's not.  Yo can't tell me that money that has already been taxed has the
same value as money that hasn't.  Which would you rather have, $1M in an
conventional IRA (no tax yet paid), or $600K ($1M after tax) in a Roth, when
they change the tax to a consumption tax?

Depends on the tax rates.  Under the Fair Tax's 23% I'd rather have
the $1M, because that way I avoid the current system's higher rates..

That's the whole point.  Anyone with after-tax savings gets screwed
the second time.

But, the difference here is not made by getting taxed twice--per item
c) you are *already* paying the 23% tax built into the price of of an
purchase, and under today's system you *are* going to pay it when you
buy something.

Again, you're missing the point.  With after-tax savings you're
*already* paying that tax.  If the "Fair Tax" is implemented you get
to pay the "consumption tax" on the *AFTER-TAX* money.

I'm not missing the point, I just think you're mathematically wrong.
If the thing costs $1 today, or $0.77 plus $0.23 Fair Tax tomorrow,
what have you lost?  Where have I gone wrong?

Because it cost me $1.40 yesterday (when I earned it) to have the
$1.00 today,

If you paid taxes already under the old system then you were screwed
*yesterday*. That can't be fixed-it's gone. Sorry. Me too.

and tomorrow (after I retire, take it out of the bank,
and spend it) it only buys $.77 worth of stuff.

$1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people
(AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price.

 If I tax-deferred the
$1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff.  Any after-tax savings (that
is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*.

If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the
old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it).

Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left
still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded
tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax)
both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power.
That's the contention, AIUI.


--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On May 17, 3:31 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 16, 11:48 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

Sure, but the *INCOME* tax has been paid and the new sales tax will also have
to be paid.  Without the change, there isn't a second tax on the income.  Yes,
the "fair" tax will include the income tax of the people paying now, but it
will also increase the real cost of the product the same as another income tax
would on the buyer.

Now you're not getting it...maybe equations would be clearer...  I'll
set out the reasoning, then you can have a go at rebutting it.

a) If you buy an item today--any item--the price of that item is
roughly

  price = raw materials
          + labor cost(wages + benefits + employer matching taxes)
          + overhead(rent, power, office help, advertising, phones)
          + business taxes
          + profit.

b) The Fair Tax economists calculate that when you buy a $1 item, 23
cents of the price of that item goes to covering the various taxes
that the people who made the item had to pay.

Wrong.

I'm just summarizing what I gleaned skimming their site. I could be
misrepresenting what they said, or they could've erred in their
estimates; both are possible.

That is, if your laborer has to pay income tax, you have to pay him
more to compensate, and you have to raise your sales prices to recover
that loss from your customers.

c) So, when you buy an item, you *are* paying all the taxes of all the
people and entities that made the item.

Make sense so far?

d) Under the Fair Tax, with all those embedded taxes eliminated, the
manufacturer would now be able to make the same profit selling his $1
item for $0.77, which would be the new price.

e) At checkout, your (formerly) $1 item would now appear on the sales
ticket as
    1) price = $0.77, plus
    2) $0.23 in Fair Tax, collected at point-of-sale to pay all the
taxes of all the people who made the thing.

  Total = $1.00, just like before.  No difference.

There, I think that's basically their pitch.  I'm not a Fair Tax
expert, so I could've biffed something.

Ahm, major bug in the calcs:

The price of a piece of merchandise does _not_ consist of lots of labor.
If MLO (materials+labor+overhead) is anywhere north of 30% on a mass
product then it is already doomed.

That's an average. The Fair Tax economists worked from gross averages
applied across all of society; services are nearly 100% labor, mass-
produced Joerg-designed items not so much.

I can't speak to their methods or calculations, but I'd sure love it
if you'd read their material and report back on it! (I'm still busy
marking up the mandatory health insurance purchase and regulation
bill, re-reading Marx, and other nonsense. Oh, plus designing a CNC
turret tool-changer.)

<snip>

I don't have an IRA because I don't have confidence in the premise
that tax rates will be lower in the future.  Without that the numbers
don't make sense.  Bob Pease actually had a pretty good column on this
a decade or so ago; he concluded the same.

Besides, I don't like having my money at the whim of Congress.  They
burned me ex post facto with my 401k, charging me a penalty for doing
something that was allowed when I did it, then changing the law
retroactively months later.

You couldn't sue?

Nope. You can't sue Congress. Sovereign immunity. (Impunity,
really.)

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Greegor]

On May 17, 5:27 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On May 15, 10:15 am, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

Sloman seems to be some kind of idealogue,
a sort of cartoon of liberal thought.

What other people might easily recognize as
indoctrination and propaganda, he blithely
considers to be factual scientific education.

Any ideological challenge is an assault on his religion.

Gregor post his opinions without reference to any external evidence,
and complains that what I post - which does refer to objective and
widely recognised facts, which I do point to - is "indoctrination and
propaganda" while it is actually pointing out that his kind of opinion
does reflect his exposure to precisely that kind of misinfomration.

It seems like when liberals live in very liberal places
they start believing their own BS and they get
into the "crowd mentality" or "riot mentality"
where they presume they are superior and
they are large and in charge.  Sometimes they get
so carried away with this they do outrageous
things.

Like invading Irak?

It seems to be akin to "risky shift" in juries
or "confirmation bias" in scientific endeavors.

Police routinely whack a few heads and it
breaks the mental spell.

Reality bashed Dubbya's head quite hard in Irak without breaking the
mental spell that had taken hold of the neo-cons, and still seems to
infest whatever it is that you use instead of a brain.

Consider Sloman's advice and ""proof""
almost as you would advice on US
economics from a Russian Stalinist.

Consider Gregor's advice and **proof** exactly was you would economic
advice from a US monetarist. Not that Gregor bothers to point to
anything remotely ressembling objective evidence to support his silly
ideas. If I thought that he could think, I could claim that it was
because he knows that such evidence doesn't exist, but in fact he
doesn't understand the concept of evidence in the first place, and
thinks that his delusions have to be true just because he believes
them.

Ask him how he likes capitalism!  

Unbridled free market capitalism generates a series of booms and busts
in the economic environment. The free market is a good device for
matching supply and demand, but it does need a stabilising mechanism.
Keynes described one such mechanism which works pretty well, though it
can stall the economy in a state where it grows more slowly that it
ideally could. His followers have worked out some improvements, but
politicians don't like their prescriptions and prefer the plausible
nonsense they get to hear from monetarists, so we get more booms and
busts.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

You praised Marx and Engels.
Are you not an outright Marxist, Sloman?

 

[Greegor]

dagmar > I think the buzzword is "GRA" or something
dagmar > like that.  Guaranteed return annuity.
dagmar > Basically, give Obama your IRA today,
dagmar > and he'll gladly pay you back Tuesday
dagmar > with interest.

"I'll gladly pay you TUESDAY for a hamburger today!" - Wimpy

In how many Popeye cartoons did Wimpy say this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Wellington_Wimpy

seen grinding meat or eating burgers almost the entire time – however,
he is usually too cheap to pay for them himself. A recurring joke
involves Wimpy's attempts to con other patrons of the diner into
buying his meal for him. His best-known catchphrase started in 1931 as
"Cook me up a hamburger. I'll pay you Thursday." In 1932, this then
became the famous "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today".
[4] This phrase is now commonly used to illustrate fiscal
irresponsibility[5][6][7] and still appears in modern comedies such as
The Drew Carey Show and The Office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ6xBaZ92uA

 

[Joerg]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 17, 3:31 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

[...]

That is, if your laborer has to pay income tax, you have to pay him
more to compensate, and you have to raise your sales prices to recover
that loss from your customers.
c) So, when you buy an item, you *are* paying all the taxes of all the
people and entities that made the item.
Make sense so far?
d) Under the Fair Tax, with all those embedded taxes eliminated, the
manufacturer would now be able to make the same profit selling his $1
item for $0.77, which would be the new price.
e) At checkout, your (formerly) $1 item would now appear on the sales
ticket as
1) price = $0.77, plus
2) $0.23 in Fair Tax, collected at point-of-sale to pay all the
taxes of all the people who made the thing.
Total = $1.00, just like before. No difference.
There, I think that's basically their pitch. I'm not a Fair Tax
expert, so I could've biffed something.
Ahm, major bug in the calcs:

The price of a piece of merchandise does _not_ consist of lots of labor.
If MLO (materials+labor+overhead) is anywhere north of 30% on a mass
product then it is already doomed.

That's an average. The Fair Tax economists worked from gross averages
applied across all of society; services are nearly 100% labor, mass-
produced Joerg-designed items not so much.

I'd have to see their math. Most of what we buy is not services but
cars, TV set, washing machines, lumber, groceries, beer and so on. Labor
is a small fraction of the cost in these products. Say it was 10%, then
this whole "fair tax" of 23% would turn into a de facto 20% ripoff for
all those folks in or close to retirement who have diligently saved.
Because those savings are from income that has already been taxed.
Nothing fair about that at all.

Even in high-tech medical devices labor wasn't a whole lot, and there I
speak from experience because I ran a division including production.
Health care costs would instantly shoot up if they did that extra sales
tax. On top of the tax increases we just got in that domain. We have to
think about those consequences.

I can't speak to their methods or calculations, but I'd sure love it
if you'd read their material and report back on it! ...

This one?

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I can only see lots of text, no hard math. The calculator produced a
safety warning and the site notoriously wants to set cookies (disallowed
here). I think they need a new web designer.

... (I'm still busy
marking up the mandatory health insurance purchase and regulation
bill, re-reading Marx, and other nonsense. Oh, plus designing a CNC
turret tool-changer.)

snip

I don't have an IRA because I don't have confidence in the premise
that tax rates will be lower in the future. Without that the numbers
don't make sense. Bob Pease actually had a pretty good column on this
a decade or so ago; he concluded the same.
Besides, I don't like having my money at the whim of Congress. They
burned me ex post facto with my 401k, charging me a penalty for doing
something that was allowed when I did it, then changing the law
retroactively months later.
You couldn't sue?

Nope. You can't sue Congress. Sovereign immunity. (Impunity,
really.)

If a law is deemed unfair it can be challenged in court. Not Congress,
but the law. Slamming people retroactively sure sounds unfair to me (and
probably to a judge or jury).

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:11:54 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:13:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2010 00:18:43 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:26:28 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
[...]

I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts
business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because
it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No
accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no
quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost.

Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a
person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be
jealous of his wealth.

A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved
for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The
money they saved _has_ already been taxed.
Simple fix: don't tax income.

Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but
not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat
VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair
at all.
As I suggested, exempt basics, like food, reasonable rent, generic
medicines. If people can afford a yacht, they can afford to pay sales
tax on it.
The point is that that money has already been taxed. It shouldn't matter if
it is used to buy a yacht. Taxing it again is wrong (one reason I don't trust
Roth IRAs).
As I suggested, eliminate income taxes and go to sales tax. Then
things are only taxed once.
You're missing the point. Those millions of people who have saved all their
lives will be taxed a second time. They've *already* been taxed on that
money.

Not to bust your bubble, but i am already paying both taxes.


When income tax gets turned into a point-of-sale tax you'll have paid
even more (if you have saved after-tax money).

I only have a little of such, most is in other (post income tax) forms.
erp. ^^^^/pre

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 16 May 2010 22:35:56 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:05:18 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2010 00:18:43 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:26:28 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

[...]

I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts
business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because
it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No
accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no
quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost.

Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a
person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be
jealous of his wealth.

A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved
for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The
money they saved _has_ already been taxed.

Simple fix: don't tax income.


Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but
not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat
VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair
at all.

As I suggested, exempt basics, like food, reasonable rent, generic
medicines. If people can afford a yacht, they can afford to pay sales
tax on it.

The point is that that money has already been taxed. It shouldn't matter if
it is used to buy a yacht. Taxing it again is wrong (one reason I don't trust
Roth IRAs).

As I suggested, eliminate income taxes and go to sales tax. Then
things are only taxed once.

You're missing the point. Those millions of people who have saved all their
lives will be taxed a second time. They've *already* been taxed on that
money.

Not to bust your bubble, but i am already paying both taxes.

How so? Did you die?

Californica taxes my income, my spending, and my real property (primary
residence).

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 16 May 2010 22:38:03 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:03:01 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

[...]

I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts
business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because
it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No
accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no
quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost.

Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a
person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be
jealous of his wealth.

A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved
for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The
money they saved _has_ already been taxed.

Simple fix: don't tax income.


Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but
not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat
VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair
at all.

As I suggested, exempt basics, like food, reasonable rent, generic
medicines. If people can afford a yacht, they can afford to pay sales
tax on it.

The point is that that money has already been taxed. It shouldn't matter if
it is used to buy a yacht. Taxing it again is wrong (one reason I don't trust
Roth IRAs).

So, i am not the only one to notice the recent attacks on them for tax
money. I know people who have actually had attempts to tax their Roth
IRA savings.

Do you have more information on this? I know it's been rumored that the
Demonicrats want to seize all IRAs, but I've seen nothing about it already
occurring.

Since i have only a short list of people to ask, i will. It will be
weeks at least to verify.

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 17 May 2010 06:49:06 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:04:22 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
[...]

I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts
business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because
it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No
accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no
quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost.

Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a
person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be
jealous of his wealth.

A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved
for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The
money they saved _has_ already been taxed.
Simple fix: don't tax income.

Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but
not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat
VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair
at all.
Gosh, are your savings all that significant? Don't you pay (an ever
increasing in CA) sales tax already? Please to explain the difference.

The difference is this: Yes, I do save for retirement. And yes, one has
to make sacrifices to do that.

So do I.


That's good, not many people do that.


Such as not buying a new car every five
years.

Let's see, my car is model year 1994, bought used. ...


Ok, model year 1995 for the Toyota, the Mits is two years younger. You
win that one


... Do you want to continue?


Yeah. How many miles on it? The Toyota is somewhere around 45k, the Mits
is 67k or so.

Somewhere past 120,000.

As said several times this money _has_ already been taxed. So if
the income of the paycheck-to-paycheck guy gets taxed only at
consumption he has only paid tax once.

Same for me. You have not made a case for yourself yet.
This hypothetical person does not exist yet.


You mean the hand-to-mouth guy? I could show you dozens. In fact, that
seems to be the MO for most people.

Most of what i am seeing is debt to mouth instead.

I have then paid twice. That is
simply unfair.

A. Life IS unfair.


It doesn't have to be and one can do something about it. That's why I
would squarely oppose such a shift. And I sure would know a lot of
retirees who'd march to Washington if that ever were to happen.

OK.

B. I would be in the same boat. Pretty much only kids would "benefit"


Right. And we can't let that happen. I remember when Sweden "fixed" the
problems caused by wanton spending, by socking it to the retired.


Are you really thinking CA will give up their "normal" sales tax? You
must be dreaming ...

It'll also lead to tricks that people play. Lots of Europeans who must
pay a painfully high VAT come to the US and buy tons of stuff.
Electronics, clothes, you name it. If they manage to sneak it past
customs when going back home the vacation they enjoyed was often largely
"free".

SO NOT NEWS. 'Murcans do it too.


What I am saying is that it'll multiply. Big time.
OK.
You would see jobs
over here shrivel up at a pace never heard before.

Maybe, i've been working for quite a few years now. Saw the piece of the
company where i worked go through some 15 consecutive RIFs during about
10 years before i got hit in 1992. Lots of unemployed engineers at the
time.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:40:27 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2010 22:35:56 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:05:18 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2010 00:18:43 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:26:28 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

[...]

I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts
business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because
it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No
accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no
quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost.

Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a
person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be
jealous of his wealth.

A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved
for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The
money they saved _has_ already been taxed.

Simple fix: don't tax income.


Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but
not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat
VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair
at all.

As I suggested, exempt basics, like food, reasonable rent, generic
medicines. If people can afford a yacht, they can afford to pay sales
tax on it.

The point is that that money has already been taxed. It shouldn't matter if
it is used to buy a yacht. Taxing it again is wrong (one reason I don't trust
Roth IRAs).

As I suggested, eliminate income taxes and go to sales tax. Then
things are only taxed once.

You're missing the point. Those millions of people who have saved all their
lives will be taxed a second time. They've *already* been taxed on that
money.

Not to bust your bubble, but i am already paying both taxes.

How so? Did you die?

Californica taxes my income, my spending, and my real property (primary
residence).

Silly.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:54:06 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2010 22:38:03 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:03:01 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

[...]

I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts
business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because
it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No
accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no
quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost.

Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a
person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be
jealous of his wealth.

A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved
for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The
money they saved _has_ already been taxed.

Simple fix: don't tax income.


Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but
not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat
VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair
at all.

As I suggested, exempt basics, like food, reasonable rent, generic
medicines. If people can afford a yacht, they can afford to pay sales
tax on it.

The point is that that money has already been taxed. It shouldn't matter if
it is used to buy a yacht. Taxing it again is wrong (one reason I don't trust
Roth IRAs).

So, i am not the only one to notice the recent attacks on them for tax
money. I know people who have actually had attempts to tax their Roth
IRA savings.

Do you have more information on this? I know it's been rumored that the
Demonicrats want to seize all IRAs, but I've seen nothing about it already
occurring.

Since i have only a short list of people to ask, i will. It will be
weeks at least to verify.

No hurry. I hope.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 17 May 2010 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

To the contrary--anti-trust should apply to labor, too.  E.g.
government unions.

Agreed; all unions.

Sure. A union is nothing more than an attempt to monopolize labor.

Sad day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act#Exemptions


John

 

On May 17, 7:15 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:

dagmar > I think the buzzword is "GRA" or something
dagmar > like that.  Guaranteed return annuity.
dagmar > Basically, give Obama your IRA today,
dagmar > and he'll gladly pay you back Tuesday
dagmar > with interest.

"I'll gladly pay you TUESDAY for a hamburger today!" - Wimpy

I guess "GRA = G-ive barack your i-RA; he'll gladly pay you Tuesday"
would've been better.

In how many Popeye cartoons did Wimpy say this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Wellington_Wimpy

seen grinding meat or eating burgers almost the entire time – however,
he is usually too cheap to pay for them himself. A recurring joke
involves Wimpy's attempts to con other patrons of the diner into
buying his meal for him. His best-known catchphrase started in 1931 as
"Cook me up a hamburger. I'll pay you Thursday." In 1932, this then
became the famous "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today".
[4] This phrase is now commonly used to illustrate fiscal
irresponsibility[5][6][7] and still appears in modern comedies such as
The Drew Carey Show and The Office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ6xBaZ92uA

Yep. That's our guy.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On May 17, 8:43 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 17, 3:31 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

[...]



That is, if your laborer has to pay income tax, you have to pay him
more to compensate, and you have to raise your sales prices to recover
that loss from your customers.
c) So, when you buy an item, you *are* paying all the taxes of all the
people and entities that made the item.
Make sense so far?
d) Under the Fair Tax, with all those embedded taxes eliminated, the
manufacturer would now be able to make the same profit selling his $1
item for $0.77, which would be the new price.
e) At checkout, your (formerly) $1 item would now appear on the sales
ticket as
    1) price = $0.77, plus
    2) $0.23 in Fair Tax, collected at point-of-sale to pay all the
taxes of all the people who made the thing.
  Total = $1.00, just like before.  No difference.
There, I think that's basically their pitch.  I'm not a Fair Tax
expert, so I could've biffed something.
Ahm, major bug in the calcs:

The price of a piece of merchandise does _not_ consist of lots of labor.
If MLO (materials+labor+overhead) is anywhere north of 30% on a mass
product then it is already doomed.

That's an average.  The Fair Tax economists worked from gross averages
applied across all of society; services are nearly 100% labor, mass-
produced Joerg-designed items not so much.

I'd have to see their math. Most of what we buy is not services but
cars, TV set, washing machines, lumber, groceries, beer and so on. Labor
is a small fraction of the cost in these products. Say it was 10%, then
this whole "fair tax" of 23% would turn into a de facto 20% ripoff for
all those folks in or close to retirement who have diligently saved.
Because those savings are from income that has already been taxed.
Nothing fair about that at all.

Even in high-tech medical devices labor wasn't a whole lot, and there I
speak from experience because I ran a division including production.
Health care costs would instantly shoot up if they did that extra sales
tax. On top of the tax increases we just got in that domain. We have to
think about those consequences.

I can't speak to their methods or calculations, but I'd sure love it
if you'd read their material and report back on it! ...

This one?

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

This document gives figures, but not methods:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/DocServer/What_the_federal_tax_system_is_costing_you-Tax_complianc.pdf?docID=7581

This is the main info page:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

There's too much, really, and kind of scattered across white
papers, .PDFs, and FAQs.

About the FairTax-->Basics has some numbers:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_basics_main

I can only see lots of text, no hard math.

I haven't read thru all their papers--there are so many. I remember
hitting a couple that looked well-considered, but I was really just
skimming.

The calculator produced a
safety warning and the site notoriously wants to set cookies (disallowed
here). I think they need a new web designer.

Yes. I set FireFox to accept cookies, but automatically delete them
when the session closes.

                                             ... (I'm still busy
marking up the mandatory health insurance purchase and regulation
bill, re-reading Marx, and other nonsense.  Oh, plus designing a CNC
turret tool-changer.)

snip

I don't have an IRA because I don't have confidence in the premise
that tax rates will be lower in the future.  Without that the numbers
don't make sense.  Bob Pease actually had a pretty good column on this
a decade or so ago; he concluded the same.
Besides, I don't like having my money at the whim of Congress.  They
burned me ex post facto with my 401k, charging me a penalty for doing
something that was allowed when I did it, then changing the law
retroactively months later.
You couldn't sue?

Nope.  You can't sue Congress.  Sovereign immunity.  (Impunity,
really.)

If a law is deemed unfair it can be challenged in court. Not Congress,
but the law. Slamming people retroactively sure sounds unfair to me (and
probably to a judge or jury).

It *is* unfair--even unconstitutional[*]--but there's Supreme Court
precedent for it.

[*] "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed" --US
Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9.

I've cribbed this from an earlier post, Nov. 22, 2009:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/b3f726c5d69b722b/e075062237db96b7?


In United States v. Darusmont, 449 U.S. 292 (1981)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/449/292/case.html
a couple sold their house (a triplex)--to relocate for a new job--
after carefully consulting with their tax guys to sell in a way
minimizing their tax. Congress changed the law later that year, and
then IRS came after the couple for more tax.

The homeowners argued that tax change was a violation of their due
process rights under the 5th Amendment; the justices said no, because
the issue had been under discussion in Congress for a year prior, so
the
homeowners *should've* known. Further, the Court said changing the
tax rate of an existing law was not the same as enacting a new /ex
post facto/ law.

This started under Franklin Delano Obama. He's back, so beware.

Everything's fair once you stop following the Constitution.

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is
in session."
--Judge Gideon J. Tucker (1826-1899)

--
Cheers,
James Arthur