conservation of Euros

On Sat, 22 May 2010 19:19:25 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 20:43:16 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:36:06 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:10:57 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
major snippage and attributions...

$1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people
(AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price.
If I tax-deferred the
$1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that
is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*.
If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the
old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it).
Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left
still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded
tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax)
both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power.
That's the contention, AIUI.
The other false assumption is that the price would drop
instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed.
I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order
effects.

In reality,
the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay
off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I
wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise.
I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay
for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest.

Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price
quickly?
Because there is more than one manufacturer.

With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is
often zero.
I don't see the relevance.
The relevance is this:

When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because
the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent
that assumption is flawed for two reasons:

a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota
will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor
associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule.
I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and
labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for
example.
I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll
crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or
you don't have pickles for lunch :)

You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage,
and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta
price per unit versus volume.
What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever,
competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same
is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make
$1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea.
Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea.

Mine was made in Nagoya.
Why do you insist that anecdote = data?
Why do you think the NUMMI plant was shut down? It might get a little
glimmer of hope now that Tesla wants to build electric cars there in a
little corner of that huge plant. But Toyota doesn't build there
anymore, that's now history.
Why do you think Toyota moved out of Kalifornica? Why haven't you? ...

Ever tried to sell a house here lately?

You didn't see this coming? What has changed since Grayout Davis?


It's kind of tough to live out of state while running a business :)

Businesses can be run from just about anywhere.

Besides, we are quite firmly entrenched in community, church and
volunteering out here. Especially my wife, if she left with me that
would cause a lot of sadness in some assisted living places around here.

So it's not about selling your house. ;-)

... Toyota
still manufactures a *lot* of their NA cars in the US. Hundai has a plant
fifty miles down the road from me and Kia has a new plant 30 miles the other
way.

Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko.
...and Canuckistan. Wouldn't have one. Why are you changing the subject?

To make the point. Sure, about 55% of foreign cars sold here are built here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465005,00.html

However, one has to subtract from that several positions:

a. Many times the engines, transmissions and submodules are coming in
via container ship, from overseas. So the labor in those is foreign labor.

b. A lot of US brand cars are no longer made in the US, engines come
from Canada, and so on. All that needs to be subtracted.

The value added tax will be the same on the imported car and the domestic car.
It'll even the playing field more and making domestic production more
profitable. THis argument is one *for* the "fair tax" (NOT the VAT).


Now you changed the subject.

No, in reality I was trying to bring it back to what it was, the fair tax. I'm
not convinced about it and discussions help.

This was about that there'd be a clean
shift, exchanging income taxes of workers for a consumption tax, and
that such would cause dropping prices accordingly. My point is that it
is not revenue-neutral, not by a longshot, and in most cases would not
drop prices accordingly. To John Q.Public a so-called "fair tax" and a
VAT are the same thing, he simply has to pay 23% more for stuff

He won't pay income tax or employment (SS) tax and neither will the
corporations paying him and selling him his stuff.

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.

Most retirees already have houses, furniture, pots and pans, so won't
pay a huge amount of sales tax. Basic survival stuff could be
exempted. And a lot of retirees have taxable income, which taxes will
go away.
A lot of people downsize their homes after they retire. That money (capital
gains) is currently not taxed but will be under the "fair" tax.
No change is going to please everybody.
Penalizing those who have played the game according to the rules is not
"fair". It's no better than what Obummer is doing to business.

The nice thing about a sales tax is that you can elect to not buy
stuff and not pay the tax.
Not under the "Fair Tax". *Everything* is taxed, even homes. AIUI, only new
houses have the tax charged, but the cost difference between new and old has
to equalize.
 
On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:05:29 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 19:19:25 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 20:43:16 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:36:06 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:10:57 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
major snippage and attributions...

$1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people
(AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price.
If I tax-deferred the
$1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that
is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*.
If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the
old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it).
Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left
still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded
tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax)
both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power.
That's the contention, AIUI.
The other false assumption is that the price would drop
instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed.
I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order
effects.

In reality,
the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay
off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I
wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise.
I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay
for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest.

Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price
quickly?
Because there is more than one manufacturer.

With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is
often zero.
I don't see the relevance.
The relevance is this:

When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because
the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent
that assumption is flawed for two reasons:

a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota
will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor
associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule.
I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and
labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for
example.
I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll
crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or
you don't have pickles for lunch :)

You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage,
and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta
price per unit versus volume.
What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever,
competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same
is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make
$1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea.
Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea.

Mine was made in Nagoya.
Why do you insist that anecdote = data?
Why do you think the NUMMI plant was shut down? It might get a little
glimmer of hope now that Tesla wants to build electric cars there in a
little corner of that huge plant. But Toyota doesn't build there
anymore, that's now history.
Why do you think Toyota moved out of Kalifornica? Why haven't you? ...

Ever tried to sell a house here lately?

You didn't see this coming? What has changed since Grayout Davis?


It's kind of tough to live out of state while running a business :)

Businesses can be run from just about anywhere.

Besides, we are quite firmly entrenched in community, church and
volunteering out here. Especially my wife, if she left with me that
would cause a lot of sadness in some assisted living places around here.

So it's not about selling your house. ;-)

... Toyota
still manufactures a *lot* of their NA cars in the US. Hundai has a plant
fifty miles down the road from me and Kia has a new plant 30 miles the other
way.

Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko.
...and Canuckistan. Wouldn't have one. Why are you changing the subject?

To make the point. Sure, about 55% of foreign cars sold here are built here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465005,00.html

However, one has to subtract from that several positions:

a. Many times the engines, transmissions and submodules are coming in
via container ship, from overseas. So the labor in those is foreign labor.

b. A lot of US brand cars are no longer made in the US, engines come
from Canada, and so on. All that needs to be subtracted.

The value added tax will be the same on the imported car and the domestic car.
It'll even the playing field more and making domestic production more
profitable. THis argument is one *for* the "fair tax" (NOT the VAT).


Now you changed the subject.

No, in reality I was trying to bring it back to what it was, the fair tax. I'm
not convinced about it and discussions help.

This was about that there'd be a clean
shift, exchanging income taxes of workers for a consumption tax, and
that such would cause dropping prices accordingly. My point is that it
is not revenue-neutral, not by a longshot, and in most cases would not
drop prices accordingly. To John Q.Public a so-called "fair tax" and a
VAT are the same thing, he simply has to pay 23% more for stuff

He won't pay income tax or employment (SS) tax and neither will the
corporations paying him and selling him his stuff.

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.

Most retirees already have houses, furniture, pots and pans, so won't
pay a huge amount of sales tax. Basic survival stuff could be
exempted. And a lot of retirees have taxable income, which taxes will
go away.

A lot of people downsize their homes after they retire. That money (capital
gains) is currently not taxed but will be under the "fair" tax.
I don't know about a "fair" tax. What I suggest is a sales tax, a tax
on consumption. It could easily exempt capital gains, which isn't
sales or consumption.

No change is going to please everybody.

Penalizing those who have played the game according to the rules is not
"fair". It's no better than what Obummer is doing to business.

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

Not under the "Fair Tax". *Everything* is taxed, even homes. AIUI, only new
houses have the tax charged, but the cost difference between new and old has
to equalize.
So tune it.

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

So let's see, since we can't have an assessor then John Q.Public must
self-file into some computer system. "Hmm, so what do we enter here for
the materials? One box of nails, a pack of drywall screws, the hot dog I
had outside Home Depot. Don't remember the rest ..."

That is all recorded in the tax receipts.


What receipts? Case in point, and I was right behind the guy: Dude had a
huge cart in tow at the cash register. A toilet, two sinks, tile, pipe,
mortar, the works. He could barely pull it. Ka-ching ... "That'll be
eighthundred Dollars and .." He whipped out a huge wallet and paid the
whole chebang in cash. Dollar bills. No check, no credit card, no name
given. Now how exactly is this going to be recorded?
At a bare minimum, in the tax receipts that the store reports (by sale).
They may not know just who paid, but they do know it _got paid_ on those
items.
 
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:39:13 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

We have to use it as is (A), fix it (B), replace it (C), other
_______________(D); (A/B/C/D)

Jeorg, please answer the immediately above question.


My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or
most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not.
OK. Lets start talking about ways to do that then.
 
On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:02:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Joerg wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
We have to use it as is (A), fix it (B), replace it (C), other
_______________(D); (A/B/C/D)
Jeorg, please answer the immediately above question.

My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or
most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not.

Some politicains were engineers.

True, but with engineer I mean active, not "got a degree twentysome
years ago and framed it".


Pull your head out of your ass.


Bring some good examples instead of ad hominem attacks ...


No one in their right mind would call someone an engineer if they had
never worked in that field. BTW, you are a very poor troll.
Except for the minor nuisance that i know P.E.s that have never done any
work in their field. (Not academics, but supposedly working engineers)
What made galling is that were proud of it.
 
On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:01:14 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 22:39:39 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:09:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:22:50 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
We have to use it as is (A), fix it (B), replace it (C), other
_______________(D); (A/B/C/D)
Jeorg, please answer the immediately above question.

My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or
most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not.


Some politicains were engineers.


True, but with engineer I mean active, not "got a degree twentysome
years ago and framed it".

Carter was an "engineer" :-(


From what I'd heard, Jimmy Carter never finished the Nuclear engineer
course because he had to resign his Naval Commission after six years, to
return to his family farm to run the business. The only degree he had
was in mathematics.

His bios say that he received a Bachellor of Science at the Naval Academy.
They don't say what sort of science. As far as a nuke engineer (from
http://www.search.com/reference/Jimmy_Carter#Naval_career/):

"Carter completed an introductory course in nuclear reactor power at
Union College starting in March 1953."


1953 was the year his dad died, and he left the US Navy, wasn't it?

I think so. That's why he only completed the first course of the graduate
Nuke-E program.

He did complete training as a diesel sub commander, but never served on a
nuke. A hint of that is that he was discharged from the Navy in 1953 and
bottle wasn't broken on the Nautilus' snout until 1954. So much for the
yellow booties.
Just the same i always thought of him as a peanut farmer.
 
On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:45:44 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
major snippage and attributions...

$1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people
(AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price.
If I tax-deferred the
$1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that
is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*.
If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the
old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it).
Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left
still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded
tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax)
both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power.
That's the contention, AIUI.
The other false assumption is that the price would drop
instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed.
I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order
effects.

In reality,
the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay
off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I
wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise.
I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay
for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest.

Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price
quickly?
Because there is more than one manufacturer.

With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is
often zero.
I don't see the relevance.
The relevance is this:

When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because
the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent
that assumption is flawed for two reasons:

a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota
will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor
associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule.
I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and
labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for
example.

I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll
crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or
you don't have pickles for lunch :)

You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage,
and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta
price per unit versus volume.


What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever,
competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same
is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make
$1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea.

Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea.

Dealers usually get mote than that, like 3k to 5k per car, more for
luxury lines like Lexus. Go ask if you don't believe me.

No, they really don't. It's usually closer to $300 than $3000 and often
negative. Dealerships don't make a lot of money on the sale of a new car.

...
Even the dealerships that stay afloat on their shop cannot get by on that
little. You have to pay rent and taxes on the lot, plus utilities and
commissions or salaries. That money doesn't come from nowhere, it comes
from retail markup. Now, the corporate net on each car sold is nearly
zero for sound business reasons.
 
On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:05:29 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 19:19:25 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 20:43:16 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:36:06 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
<SNIP>

He won't pay income tax or employment (SS) tax and neither will the
corporations paying him and selling him his stuff.

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.

Most retirees already have houses, furniture, pots and pans, so won't
pay a huge amount of sales tax. Basic survival stuff could be
exempted. And a lot of retirees have taxable income, which taxes will
go away.

A lot of people downsize their homes after they retire. That money (capital
gains) is currently not taxed but will be under the "fair" tax.
A. That is a recent tax law change.
B. The delta price in existing homes due to fair tax will be split about
50/50 between buyer and seller.
No change is going to please everybody.

Penalizing those who have played the game according to the rules is not
"fair". It's no better than what Obummer is doing to business.
And healthcare.
The nice thing about a sales tax is that you can elect to not buy
stuff and not pay the tax.
Except for food and utilities.
Not under the "Fair Tax". *Everything* is taxed, even homes. AIUI, only new
houses have the tax charged, but the cost difference between new and old has
to equalize.
 
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:50:50 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
major snippage and attributions...

$1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people
(AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price.
If I tax-deferred the
$1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that
is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*.
If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the
old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it).
Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left
still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded
tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax)
both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power.
That's the contention, AIUI.
The other false assumption is that the price would drop
instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed.
I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order
effects.

In reality,
the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay
off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I
wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise.
I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay
for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest.

Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price
quickly?
Because there is more than one manufacturer.

With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is
often zero.
I don't see the relevance.
The relevance is this:

When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because
the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent
that assumption is flawed for two reasons:

a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota
will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor
associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule.
I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and
labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for
example.
I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll
crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or
you don't have pickles for lunch :)

You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage,
and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta
price per unit versus volume.

What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever,
competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same
is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make
$1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea.

Dealers usually get mote than that, like 3k to 5k per car, more for
luxury lines like Lexus. Go ask if you don't believe me.


Nope, not so. I was being generous here, they usually do not even get
anything close to 10%:

http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/09/sales-drop-pushes-prices-down-squeezes-dealer-margins.html

That is gross profit, not markup.

Please respond to the volume pricing at Digikey (and most electronic
retailer/wholesalers).


Digikey is different, and not at all a factor in this game. Their higher
prices for small volumes have simple reasons. For example, someone has
to pay for the antistatic bag for the lone AD603 you order to test an
AGC. The people (or increasingly robots) who pick must be amortized by
the minute. Same for shipping department space and so on. All this cost
is nearly identical whether you buy one AD603 or a whole reel.
Consequently you must pay $10.50 for one, $7.10/ea for 100, and $6.50/ea
if you buy bulk. Sound pretty normal to me. Hint: For lower quantities
you can often get by with a lesser penalty at Mouser but they search
engine is the pits, IMHO.

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

So let's see, since we can't have an assessor then John Q.Public must
self-file into some computer system. "Hmm, so what do we enter here for
the materials? One box of nails, a pack of drywall screws, the hot dog I
had outside Home Depot. Don't remember the rest ..."
That is all recorded in the tax receipts.

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


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

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

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
 
On Sun, 23 May 2010 04:43:23 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:


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

Except for food and utilities.
It's easy to exempt baseline goods.

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

We have to use it as is (A), fix it (B), replace it (C), other
_______________(D); (A/B/C/D)
Jeorg, please answer the immediately above question.

My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or
most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not.

OK. Lets start talking about ways to do that then.

First, start rolling back all those myriad deductions and special
treatments. Of course only for new events (such as investments), I don't
want to unfairly treat people who acted in good faith, like the "fair
tax" would. Now, you can gradually reduce the tax rates.

Then, get rid of the state tax systems. If a state wants to collect
state income tax let them be honest and simply tell their population
(and voters ...) "We will collect 6% on top of your fed taxes. Period."
That brings clarity and a large number of bureaucrats are no longer
needed, they could do other things.

Treat everyone fairly. For example thanks to the Bush administration we
self-employed can deduct health premiums, before that we had to pay it
all after-tax and employees didn't. We still pay FICA tax on that and
employees don't, not fair, so get rid of that. Also, why must I enter
this on my tax return and employees don't? Generates compliance costs
and bureaucracy. Get rid of all those unnesessary bureaucratic steps.
Simplify, simplify, simplify.

I could go on and on but it's moot, nobody on the hill or in Sacramento
will listen. One owner of a large electronics company (now gone, could
have been Max Grundig) did such streamlining and problem solving this
way when it really had to be accomplished: He got all the folks into the
meeting section of the building, locked the door and chucked the key out
the window. "Now listen up, guys, I will call my wife to come by and
toss it back up but only after we've fixed what's before us tonight".

As a consultant I am confronted with a lot of designs where a client
says "It can't do XYZ or this and that part has become unobtanium, can
you do something non-drastic about it?". Often after they've been to
other consultants who basically told them that it has to be completely
scrapped and designed from scratch. Then I sit down and see what can be
done with modest efforts and without throwing their production a major
curve. Upsetting the apple cart is ok but it can also lead the apple
cart to tip and crash. With engineerring as well as with fiscal policies.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
 
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:36:06 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:10:57 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
major snippage and attributions...

$1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people
(AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price.
If I tax-deferred the
$1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that
is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*.
If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the
old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it).
Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left
still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded
tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax)
both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power.
That's the contention, AIUI.
The other false assumption is that the price would drop
instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed.
I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order
effects.

In reality,
the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay
off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I
wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise.
I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay
for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest.

Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price
quickly?
Because there is more than one manufacturer.

With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is
often zero.
I don't see the relevance.
The relevance is this:

When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because
the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent
that assumption is flawed for two reasons:

a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota
will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor
associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule.
I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and
labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for
example.
I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll
crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or
you don't have pickles for lunch :)

You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage,
and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta
price per unit versus volume.
What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever,
competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same
is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make
$1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea.
Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea.

Mine was made in Nagoya.
Why do you insist that anecdote = data?
Why do you think the NUMMI plant was shut down? It might get a little
glimmer of hope now that Tesla wants to build electric cars there in a
little corner of that huge plant. But Toyota doesn't build there
anymore, that's now history.
Why do you think Toyota moved out of Kalifornica? Why haven't you? ...
Ever tried to sell a house here lately?
You didn't see this coming? What has changed since Grayout Davis?

It's kind of tough to live out of state while running a business :)

Businesses can be run from just about anywhere.
Not this one. It was high-tech and the market expected major new
features at every key trade show, and those happen yearly. Losing half
your engineers (and we would have likely lost even more) can then be
catastrophic.


Besides, we are quite firmly entrenched in community, church and
volunteering out here. Especially my wife, if she left with me that
would cause a lot of sadness in some assisted living places around here.

So it's not about selling your house. ;-)
True, financial things matter much less in our lives compared to higher
callings.


... Toyota
still manufactures a *lot* of their NA cars in the US. Hundai has a plant
fifty miles down the road from me and Kia has a new plant 30 miles the other
way.

Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko.
...and Canuckistan. Wouldn't have one. Why are you changing the subject?
To make the point. Sure, about 55% of foreign cars sold here are built here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465005,00.html

However, one has to subtract from that several positions:

a. Many times the engines, transmissions and submodules are coming in
via container ship, from overseas. So the labor in those is foreign labor.

b. A lot of US brand cars are no longer made in the US, engines come
from Canada, and so on. All that needs to be subtracted.

The value added tax will be the same on the imported car and the domestic car.
It'll even the playing field more and making domestic production more
profitable. THis argument is one *for* the "fair tax" (NOT the VAT).

Now you changed the subject.

No, in reality I was trying to bring it back to what it was, the fair tax. I'm
not convinced about it and discussions help.
I am not at all convinced about the fairness of it. I am especially
against anything that conveys the message "Squander everything, we'll
just sock it to the guys who didn't and you'd be whole again". It's not
the American way. Or at least it wasn't ...


This was about that there'd be a clean
shift, exchanging income taxes of workers for a consumption tax, and
that such would cause dropping prices accordingly. My point is that it
is not revenue-neutral, not by a longshot, and in most cases would not
drop prices accordingly. To John Q.Public a so-called "fair tax" and a
VAT are the same thing, he simply has to pay 23% more for stuff

He won't pay income tax or employment (SS) tax and neither will the
corporations paying him and selling him his stuff.
As said before, the Asian corporations that make the bulk of our goods
will keep paying all that, so prices won't come down nearly as much as
hope. You can't turn time back, let's face it, we've lost manufacturing
of most non-industry good. Whether it's shoes or TV sets. This is why
there is a trade deficit.


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 :-(

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
 
John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 20:43:16 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:36:06 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[...]

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.

Most retirees already have houses, furniture, pots and pans, so won't
pay a huge amount of sales tax. Basic survival stuff could be
exempted. And a lot of retirees have taxable income, which taxes will
go away.

No change is going to please everybody.

The nice thing about a sales tax is that you can elect to not buy
stuff and not pay the tax.
This definitely does not work for most people. You might be lucky like
my great grandpa who died shortly before his 103rd birthday in his
sleep, and never saw a hospital as a patient (other than MASH units
during war time). Most of us will eventually have to sell their homes or
that nice cabin in Truckee or give it to the kids, then buy a place in
an assisted living village. Since such a "fair tax" will likely trigger
a stampede out of cash all the exisiting units there will have been
snapped up already so you must buy a newly constructed one. Meaning
you'll be socked with tax and fictitious rent tax.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
 
JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:50:50 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
major snippage and attributions...

$1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people
(AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price.
If I tax-deferred the
$1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that
is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*.
If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the
old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it).
Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left
still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded
tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax)
both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power.
That's the contention, AIUI.
The other false assumption is that the price would drop
instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed.
I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order
effects.

In reality,
the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay
off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I
wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise.
I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay
for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest.

Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price
quickly?
Because there is more than one manufacturer.

With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is
often zero.
I don't see the relevance.
The relevance is this:

When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because
the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent
that assumption is flawed for two reasons:

a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota
will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor
associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule.
I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and
labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for
example.
I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll
crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or
you don't have pickles for lunch :)

You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage,
and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta
price per unit versus volume.
What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever,
competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same
is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make
$1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea.
Dealers usually get mote than that, like 3k to 5k per car, more for
luxury lines like Lexus. Go ask if you don't believe me.

Nope, not so. I was being generous here, they usually do not even get
anything close to 10%:

http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/09/sales-drop-pushes-prices-down-squeezes-dealer-margins.html

That is gross profit, not markup.

On some models it looks even more grim for the dealers:

http://www.intellichoice.com/1-11-2010-95-2/2010-honda-insight-prices.html

Of course, they'll make that up on luxury models such as the Corvette
although even there people now do Internet shopping and have no problems
picking it up 300 miles down the state. The Internet has all but crushed
fat mark-ups.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
 
On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:05:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 20:43:16 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:36:06 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:


[...]

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.

Most retirees already have houses, furniture, pots and pans, so won't
pay a huge amount of sales tax. Basic survival stuff could be
exempted. And a lot of retirees have taxable income, which taxes will
go away.

No change is going to please everybody.

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


This definitely does not work for most people. You might be lucky like
my great grandpa who died shortly before his 103rd birthday in his
sleep, and never saw a hospital as a patient (other than MASH units
during war time). Most of us will eventually have to sell their homes or
that nice cabin in Truckee or give it to the kids, then buy a place in
an assisted living village. Since such a "fair tax" will likely trigger
a stampede out of cash all the exisiting units there will have been
snapped up already so you must buy a newly constructed one. Meaning
you'll be socked with tax and fictitious rent tax.
The current tax system is destroying jobs. If we keep it forever
because some retirees like things the way they are, their kids and
grandkids will live under the current mess. Any change will
inconvenience someone.

Taxing consumption and not income or profits will create jobs and
encourage people to keep working.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/05/23/global-home/23europe-graphic.html?ref=europe


John
 
On Sun, 23 May 2010 04:28:05 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:45:44 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
major snippage and attributions...

$1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people
(AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price.
If I tax-deferred the
$1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that
is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*.
If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the
old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it).
Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left
still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded
tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax)
both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power.
That's the contention, AIUI.
The other false assumption is that the price would drop
instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed.
I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order
effects.

In reality,
the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay
off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I
wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise.
I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay
for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest.

Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price
quickly?
Because there is more than one manufacturer.

With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is
often zero.
I don't see the relevance.
The relevance is this:

When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because
the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent
that assumption is flawed for two reasons:

a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota
will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor
associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule.
I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and
labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for
example.

I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll
crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or
you don't have pickles for lunch :)

You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage,
and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta
price per unit versus volume.


What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever,
competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same
is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make
$1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea.

Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea.

Dealers usually get mote than that, like 3k to 5k per car, more for
luxury lines like Lexus. Go ask if you don't believe me.

No, they really don't. It's usually closer to $300 than $3000 and often
negative. Dealerships don't make a lot of money on the sale of a new car.

...

Even the dealerships that stay afloat on their shop cannot get by on that
little. You have to pay rent and taxes on the lot, plus utilities and
commissions or salaries. That money doesn't come from nowhere, it comes
from retail markup. Now, the corporate net on each car sold is nearly
zero for sound business reasons.
You're wrong. They make their money in the back, as you say, and in used car
sales. Carrying new cars 1) gives them a supply of good used cars, 2) a ready
supply of repair customers (warranty work), and 3) credibility for both used
car sales and repair. Dealers haven't made money on new car sales since the
'60s, when everyone found out about the "Invoice Price" (Edmunds, et. al.
published it). I've never paid more than a few hundred dollars over invoice.

If you're going to claim the dealer "hold back" as profit, you'd better also
figure in the average time a car sits on the lot and the interest paid. Hint:
that often goes negative.
 
On Sun, 23 May 2010 04:47:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:50:50 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
major snippage and attributions...

$1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people
(AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price.
If I tax-deferred the
$1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that
is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*.
If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the
old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it).
Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left
still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded
tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax)
both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power.
That's the contention, AIUI.
The other false assumption is that the price would drop
instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed.
I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order
effects.

In reality,
the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay
off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I
wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise.
I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay
for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest.

Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price
quickly?
Because there is more than one manufacturer.

With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is
often zero.
I don't see the relevance.
The relevance is this:

When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because
the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent
that assumption is flawed for two reasons:

a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota
will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor
associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule.
I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and
labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for
example.
I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll
crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or
you don't have pickles for lunch :)

You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage,
and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta
price per unit versus volume.

What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever,
competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same
is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make
$1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea.

Dealers usually get mote than that, like 3k to 5k per car, more for
luxury lines like Lexus. Go ask if you don't believe me.


Nope, not so. I was being generous here, they usually do not even get
anything close to 10%:

http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/09/sales-drop-pushes-prices-down-squeezes-dealer-margins.html

That is gross profit, not markup.
Huh? Gross profit is markup. Price - cost.
 
John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:05:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 20:43:16 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:36:06 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

[...]

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.
Most retirees already have houses, furniture, pots and pans, so won't
pay a huge amount of sales tax. Basic survival stuff could be
exempted. And a lot of retirees have taxable income, which taxes will
go away.

No change is going to please everybody.

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

This definitely does not work for most people. You might be lucky like
my great grandpa who died shortly before his 103rd birthday in his
sleep, and never saw a hospital as a patient (other than MASH units
during war time). Most of us will eventually have to sell their homes or
that nice cabin in Truckee or give it to the kids, then buy a place in
an assisted living village. Since such a "fair tax" will likely trigger
a stampede out of cash all the exisiting units there will have been
snapped up already so you must buy a newly constructed one. Meaning
you'll be socked with tax and fictitious rent tax.

The current tax system is destroying jobs. If we keep it forever
because some retirees like things the way they are, their kids and
grandkids will live under the current mess. Any change will
inconvenience someone.

Taxing consumption and not income or profits will create jobs and
encourage people to keep working.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/05/23/global-home/23europe-graphic.html?ref=europe
What is destroying jobs is not the tax system per se, although tweaks by
certain political interests will. Such as the temp worker crackdown that
was announced. How that can possibly be announced at these economic
times is beyond me.

What needs to be done is reel in spending. Case in point: CalPERS just
sent the state a bill upping the payment by the state by (IIRC) 18%.
Largely because they had screwed up. By law (!) the state must pay
whatever they please to bill. How sick is that?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
 
JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:02:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Joerg wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
We have to use it as is (A), fix it (B), replace it (C), other
_______________(D); (A/B/C/D)
Jeorg, please answer the immediately above question.

My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or
most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not.

Some politicains were engineers.

True, but with engineer I mean active, not "got a degree twentysome
years ago and framed it".


Pull your head out of your ass.


Bring some good examples instead of ad hominem attacks ...


No one in their right mind would call someone an engineer if they had
never worked in that field. BTW, you are a very poor troll.

Except for the minor nuisance that i know P.E.s that have never done any
work in their field. (Not academics, but supposedly working engineers)
What made galling is that were proud of it.

Most idiots are proud off their stupidity, too. :(


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

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top