conservation of Euros

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 22:32:16 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

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:
snip

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.

Again you're missing the point. The point is that these folks have used their
house as savings - the *largest* part of their life's savings for most.
Currently this savings is exempted from taxes (up to 1/2M for married). Put
in a consumption tax and this savings is now taxed the same as income. ...even
the after-tax part (principal) of this savings.

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.

That's how we got in this mess; Congress "tuning" the tax code.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

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

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.

If you want to call 20 years, "recent".

B. The delta price in existing homes due to fair tax will be split about
50/50 between buyer and seller.

Rectal extraction? Why would the buyer get anything?

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.

Ok. Both will be dead within a decade.

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.

Right. That's the regressive part of 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.

Which is why the buyer won't get anything.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:00:00 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

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.

I thought your business was you.

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.

Those higher callings aren't going to matter much when you're broke and your
neighbors are now Jim's neighbors. ;-)

... 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 ...

I agree, however most of the tax I think I like. The double tax part isn't
the part that I like and I don't see *any* of the talking heads give it the
TOD. Maybe I should call Boortz' radio show and ask him. ;-)

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.

If the Asian prices don't come down they'll get competition from the now
cheaper US companies. Looks like a win to me.

and will be mighty miffed if he's a retiree.

*That* is the component I'm not happy about. I don't see anyone addressing
it, either.


I did, many times over in this thread, but hardly anyone understands :-(

We did, but I don't see any of the talking heads recognize it, on either side.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:23:53 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 22:32:16 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

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:
snip

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.

Again you're missing the point. The point is that these folks have used their
house as savings - the *largest* part of their life's savings for most.
Currently this savings is exempted from taxes (up to 1/2M for married). Put
in a consumption tax and this savings is now taxed the same as income. ...even
the after-tax part (principal) of this savings.

Savings aren't consumption. I never suggested taxing savings, and I
did suggest exempting basics. If you want a yacht, you'd have to pay
sales tax on it.

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.

That's how we got in this mess; Congress "tuning" the tax code.

Start over with something simple, an it will take a while to get
complex again. But imagine no tax returns, no record keeping, no
inheritance taxes, no estate planning, no property tax, lots of jobs
for your kids... unless they want to be lawyers or accountants.

John

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 23 May 2010 12:40:01 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:23:53 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 22:32:16 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

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:
snip

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.

Again you're missing the point. The point is that these folks have used their
house as savings - the *largest* part of their life's savings for most.
Currently this savings is exempted from taxes (up to 1/2M for married). Put
in a consumption tax and this savings is now taxed the same as income. ...even
the after-tax part (principal) of this savings.

Savings aren't consumption. I never suggested taxing savings, and I
did suggest exempting basics. If you want a yacht, you'd have to pay
sales tax on it.

Crap, you *still* aren't getting it. They paid tax on the principal of their
home and under your plan will pay tax on that again. As it stands they don't
pay tax on 1/2M of their *gains*. They'll have to pay that tax on their next
home, even if it isn't a yacht.

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.

That's how we got in this mess; Congress "tuning" the tax code.

Start over with something simple, an it will take a while to get
complex again. But imagine no tax returns, no record keeping, no
inheritance taxes, no estate planning, no property tax, lots of jobs
for your kids... unless they want to be lawyers or accountants.

It'll never start out simple and certainly never stay simple. As long as
there is *one* exemption, it'll be perverted as badly as it is now in short
order.

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:00:00 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

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:

[...]

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.

I thought your business was you.

Now it is, but too late. And yeah, I can work from just about anywhere,
particularly since now the majority of my clients is no longer in CA.

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.

Those higher callings aren't going to matter much when you're broke and your
neighbors are now Jim's neighbors. ;-)

It's pretty multi-cultural here already. I actually like that.

... 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 ...

I agree, however most of the tax I think I like. The double tax part isn't
the part that I like and I don't see *any* of the talking heads give it the
TOD. Maybe I should call Boortz' radio show and ask him. ;-)

This question needs to be asked. And will be, if this scheme would ever
be discussed more seriously in public. But I am afraid most folks will
simply react the instant they have their "oh, oh!" moment. And that will
not be pretty for our financial market, not pretty at all.

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.

If the Asian prices don't come down they'll get competition from the now
cheaper US companies. Looks like a win to me.

No win there. First, there are no US television or sneaker or clothes
manufacturers left. Even if there were or new ones would be sprouting up
they could not possibly compete with the made-in-China pair of $29.99
jogging shoes that consumers have come to expect at places like Costco.
It would be, "Oh, look, we can make the same sneakers for $60 instead of
$75 because of the "fair tax". Big deal.

and will be mighty miffed if he's a retiree.
*That* is the component I'm not happy about. I don't see anyone addressing
it, either.

I did, many times over in this thread, but hardly anyone understands :-(

We did, but I don't see any of the talking heads recognize it, on either side.

Then the whole thing should remain a non-starter. At least I hope so.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 12:40:01 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:23:53 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 22:32:16 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

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:
snip

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.
Again you're missing the point. The point is that these folks have used their
house as savings - the *largest* part of their life's savings for most.
Currently this savings is exempted from taxes (up to 1/2M for married). Put
in a consumption tax and this savings is now taxed the same as income. ...even
the after-tax part (principal) of this savings.
Savings aren't consumption. I never suggested taxing savings, and I
did suggest exempting basics. If you want a yacht, you'd have to pay
sales tax on it.

Crap, you *still* aren't getting it. They paid tax on the principal of their
home and under your plan will pay tax on that again. As it stands they don't
pay tax on 1/2M of their *gains*. They'll have to pay that tax on their next
home, even if it isn't a yacht.

Worse, if they did a reverse mortgage they'd pay tax on the whole thing.
Again. The millisecond they use that to buy something.

And yacht sales? The bottom would fall out of that and similar markets
like RVs because suddenly those become much more expensive. Maybe with
the exception of super-large yachts for people to whom a million more or
less feels like small change. But those guys have clever accountants on
staff who will advise them on how to minimize the impact by buying and
keeping it registered in places in Mexiko or somewhere.

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.
That's how we got in this mess; Congress "tuning" the tax code.
Start over with something simple, an it will take a while to get
complex again. But imagine no tax returns, no record keeping, no
inheritance taxes, no estate planning, no property tax, lots of jobs
for your kids... unless they want to be lawyers or accountants.

It'll never start out simple and certainly never stay simple. As long as
there is *one* exemption, it'll be perverted as badly as it is now in short
order.

Amen! We already had the ficticious rent tax where you need a flurry of
assessors and whatnot.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On 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.

That's usually quite laudable. We had a stellar process engineer who one
day came into my office and said he'd need to resign. WHAT? Turns out
his father-in-law had terminal cancer and he said he'd have to step up
to the plate and take over the farm. He was most certainly not looking
forward to checking out of the high-tech job he loved so much. When I
held a meeting to announce this and commended him for being there for
his folks back home some people got moist eyes.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:05:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

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.


That's usually quite laudable. We had a stellar process engineer who one
day came into my office and said he'd need to resign. WHAT? Turns out
his father-in-law had terminal cancer and he said he'd have to step up
to the plate and take over the farm. He was most certainly not looking
forward to checking out of the high-tech job he loved so much. When I
held a meeting to announce this and commended him for being there for
his folks back home some people got moist eyes.

Did he have the degree he claimed to have? Did his experience match his
resume? Carter claimed to be a Nuke-E, yet passed *one* class on the way. He
implied that he was a Navy Nuke-E on a sub, when that's clearly impossible.
Yes, giving up what you want for family is laudable. Doctored resumes, not so
much.

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:05:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

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.

That's usually quite laudable. We had a stellar process engineer who one
day came into my office and said he'd need to resign. WHAT? Turns out
his father-in-law had terminal cancer and he said he'd have to step up
to the plate and take over the farm. He was most certainly not looking
forward to checking out of the high-tech job he loved so much. When I
held a meeting to announce this and commended him for being there for
his folks back home some people got moist eyes.

Did he have the degree he claimed to have? Did his experience match his
resume? ...

Our guy? I don't know what degree he had, "credentials" do not matter
much to me. He did keep our processes going no matter how difficult the
task was and whenever there was a hard question regarding materials
science or chemistry people would first go to him. And then usually have
their answer along with a few solutions.

... Carter claimed to be a Nuke-E, yet passed *one* class on the way. He
implied that he was a Navy Nuke-E on a sub, when that's clearly impossible.
Yes, giving up what you want for family is laudable. Doctored resumes, not so
much.

That I don't know. But I agree, if a person would interview with me and
I'd find out that the resume is doctored the interview would be over.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 23 May 2010 15:55:22 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:05:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

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.

That's usually quite laudable. We had a stellar process engineer who one
day came into my office and said he'd need to resign. WHAT? Turns out
his father-in-law had terminal cancer and he said he'd have to step up
to the plate and take over the farm. He was most certainly not looking
forward to checking out of the high-tech job he loved so much. When I
held a meeting to announce this and commended him for being there for
his folks back home some people got moist eyes.

Did he have the degree he claimed to have? Did his experience match his
resume? ...


Our guy? I don't know what degree he had, "credentials" do not matter
much to me. He did keep our processes going no matter how difficult the
task was and whenever there was a hard question regarding materials
science or chemistry people would first go to him. And then usually have
their answer along with a few solutions.

No, I was really making the point that Carter's resignation from the Navy was
irrelevant. *His* resume was stuffed.

... Carter claimed to be a Nuke-E, yet passed *one* class on the way. He
implied that he was a Navy Nuke-E on a sub, when that's clearly impossible.
Yes, giving up what you want for family is laudable. Doctored resumes, not so
much.


That I don't know. But I agree, if a person would interview with me and
I'd find out that the resume is doctored the interview would be over.

You would do the same for any political candidate, no? How anyone can support
Blumenthal after last week is beyond me, but CT isn't a stronghold of sanity.

 

On May 23, 3:22 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:00:00 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:


If the Asian prices don't come down they'll get competition from the now
cheaper US companies.  Looks like a win to me.

No win there. First, there are no US television or sneaker or clothes
manufacturers left. Even if there were or new ones would be sprouting up
they could not possibly compete with the made-in-China pair of $29.99
jogging shoes that consumers have come to expect at places like Costco.
It would be, "Oh, look, we can make the same sneakers for $60 instead of
$75 because of the "fair tax". Big deal.

and will be mighty miffed if he's a retiree.
*That* is the component I'm not happy about.  I don't see anyone addressing
it, either.

I did, many times over in this thread, but hardly anyone understands :-(

We did, but I don't see any of the talking heads recognize it, on either side.

Then the whole thing should remain a non-starter. At least I hope so.

Sorry, I spent yesterday talking in person to the actual Fair Tax
guys, along with some U.S. congressmen. I'll chime in later, but for
now I'm swamped and pooped, with a left-handed shovel and a whole lot
of ____.

Short version: no it's not in there, but yes, they're open to amending
their bill so as to exempt savings that have already been taxed.

Of all the alternatives, I still find it very appealing, especially
compared to the current system. That doesn't mean I'm fully buying it
yet--I still haven't considered all the possible gotchas.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On May 23, 3:28 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 12:40:01 -0700, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:23:53 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 22:32:16 -0700, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:05:29 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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

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.
Again you're missing the point.  The point is that these folks have used their
house as savings - the *largest* part of their life's savings for most.
Currently this savings is exempted from taxes (up to 1/2M for married).  Put
in a consumption tax and this savings is now taxed the same as income.. ...even
the after-tax part (principal) of this savings.  
Savings aren't consumption. I never suggested taxing savings, and I
did suggest exempting basics. If you want a yacht, you'd have to pay
sales tax on it.

Crap, you *still* aren't getting it.  They paid tax on the principal of their
home and under your plan will pay tax on that again.  As it stands they don't
pay tax on 1/2M of their *gains*.  They'll have to pay that tax on their next
home, even if it isn't a yacht.

Worse, if they did a reverse mortgage they'd pay tax on the whole thing.
Again. The millisecond they use that to buy something.

And yacht sales? The bottom would fall out of that and similar markets
like RVs because suddenly those become much more expensive. Maybe with
the exception of super-large yachts for people to whom a million more or
less feels like small change. But those guys have clever accountants on
staff who will advise them on how to minimize the impact by buying and
keeping it registered in places in Mexiko or somewhere.



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.
That's how we got in this mess; Congress "tuning" the tax code.
Start over with something simple, an it will take a while to get
complex again. But imagine no tax returns, no record keeping, no
inheritance taxes, no estate planning, no property tax, lots of jobs
for your kids... unless they want to be lawyers or accountants.

It'll never start out simple and certainly never stay simple.  As long as
there is *one* exemption, it'll be perverted as badly as it is now in short
order.

Amen! We already had the ficticious rent tax where you need a flurry of
assessors and whatnot.

Under the current system? The Fair Tax doesn't have any fictitious
rents--that's incorrect. No assessors.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Greegor]

On May 23, 10:41 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 04:47:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:50:50 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

dagmargoodb...@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-squ....

JKK >That is gross profit, not markup.

krw > Huh?  Gross profit is markup.  Price - cost.

W 100
R 120
GP 20
MU 20 % ( GP/W )
Gross Profit Margin 16 % ( GP/R )

Business insiders tend to focus on margin.

Consumers often focus on the markup.

Net margin would correct for overhead costs,
but is not as reliably calculable.

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 15:55:22 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

[..]

... Carter claimed to be a Nuke-E, yet passed *one* class on the way. He
implied that he was a Navy Nuke-E on a sub, when that's clearly impossible.
Yes, giving up what you want for family is laudable. Doctored resumes, not so
much.

That I don't know. But I agree, if a person would interview with me and
I'd find out that the resume is doctored the interview would be over.

You would do the same for any political candidate, no? How anyone can support
Blumenthal after last week is beyond me, but CT isn't a stronghold of sanity.

I would, but obviously other wouldn't. At least I don't think so after,
for example, tax "lapses" were discovered with major office holders.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Joerg]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

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

If the Asian prices don't come down they'll get competition from the now
cheaper US companies. Looks like a win to me.
No win there. First, there are no US television or sneaker or clothes
manufacturers left. Even if there were or new ones would be sprouting up
they could not possibly compete with the made-in-China pair of $29.99
jogging shoes that consumers have come to expect at places like Costco.
It would be, "Oh, look, we can make the same sneakers for $60 instead of
$75 because of the "fair tax". Big deal.

and will be mighty miffed if he's a retiree.
*That* is the component I'm not happy about. I don't see anyone addressing
it, either.
I did, many times over in this thread, but hardly anyone understands :-(
We did, but I don't see any of the talking heads recognize it, on either side.
Then the whole thing should remain a non-starter. At least I hope so.

Sorry, I spent yesterday talking in person to the actual Fair Tax
guys, along with some U.S. congressmen. I'll chime in later, but for
now I'm swamped and pooped, with a left-handed shovel and a whole lot
of ____.

Oh, oh, major spill somewhere? I hate whan that happens, but been there :-(

Short version: no it's not in there, but yes, they're open to amending
their bill so as to exempt savings that have already been taxed.

This is extremely important. First, because they will get a ton of flak
from seniors and their organizations without taking care of this.
Secondly, people who have diligently saved want some _ironclad_
guarantees there, in a way that thise guarantees cannot be changed
later. Recent retroactive law changes have eroded a whole lot of trust,
so this will now be much more difficult to achieve than years ago. In
essence, folks that have saved should not pay any tax until all that
savings is used up. Except for what's gained in future interest, of
course, because one must also be fair in the other direction. But here
we will have the first major bureaucratic job coming at it.

Of all the alternatives, I still find it very appealing, especially
compared to the current system. That doesn't mean I'm fully buying it
yet--I still haven't considered all the possible gotchas.

I am not even considering it unless the savings issue is taken care of.
Not so much for the sake of myself but for that of our country because
the repercussions for the financial market could be (or I should say
would be) devastating.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 10:16:55 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:58:43 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:21:57 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:12:51 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 23:36:35 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 21:01:34 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:15:21 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:17:31 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:49 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:35:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"keithw86@gmail.com" wrote:

On May 21, 10:37 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-
My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin



jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato
chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the
contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as
3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they
manage to come so close when the quantization is so large?

I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution...

You are partially right.

John

Small chips ?

Salt


Nothing wrong with salt. I have to use five to seven times the
recommended amount to prevent pressure sores.

There is a lot wrong with salt. Some need more than others, but almost
everyone gets far more than they need. Many get dangerous levels.

From the wikipedia page on salt...


Meta-analysis in 2009 found that the sodium consumption of 19,151
individuals from 33 countries fit into the narrow range of 2,700 to
4,900 mg/day. The small range across many cultures, together with
animal studies, suggest that sodium intake is tightly controlled by
feedback loops in the body, making recommendations to reduce sodium
consumption below 2,700 mg/day potentially futile.[72]


...which is interesting. Salt intake is not particularly associated
with Western diets. I trust my body to self-regulate basic stuff like
this.

What do you mean mot associated with Western diets. We eat a *ton* of salt.
It's added, in massive quantities, to just about everything. You may be able
to trust your body to self-regulate, but add a little kidney or heart damage
and that won't work out so well.

Well, just now, I'm cooking up a pot of home-made chicken broth, which
includes no salt. It just tastes so much better than the commercial
junk.

But I think bodies know what they want and don't want. And excrete
whatever they have too much of. Why would my body absorb more salt
than it needs, when it could just let it pass through?

If the kidneys or heart are damaged it can't "just pass through".

Why not? Why would my intestines import more salt than my body needs?

Because they aren't very smart. The regulation is on the other end. If the
kidney doesn't work the salt builds up.

Maybe your body isn't very smart. Mine is. It regulates tens of
thousands of chemicals, temperatures, pressures, and emotions a lot
better than any computer (or any doctor) could.

Don't be ridiculous (I know it's in your blood). Anecdote isn't data.

Your body doesn't automatically regulate temperature, pH, insulin
levels, electrolytes, hormones, antibodies, white cell production,
blood gasses? You have to do all that stuff manually? If you forget to
breathe, will you die? All that must be annoying.

Bodies have all sorts of excellent regulatory mechanisms. Maybe a lot
of salt is bad for people whose systems are damaged, but normal people
regulate their appetites and chemistry just fine. We evolved to do
that.

Like all systems, it works to a point. We regulate sugar, too. Don't try
abusing that regulation for thirty years, though.

I've eaten all the sugar I wanted for twice 30 years now. And
everything is working fine.

Again, anecdote isn't data. I'm not allergic to poison ivy/oak/whatever but I
don't tempt fate, either.

It wasn't that long ago that doctors told us to eat margarine instead
of butter.

Yes, it didn't take long for them to figure out that margarine wasn't such a
good idea.

Just 90 years or so.

Just because the government (and ag lobby) didn't get it doesn't mean it
wasn't known.

So far, most nutritional advice gets overturned every couple of
decades. Turns out that there's a lot of very bad statistics floating
around.

John

 

[Martin Brown]

On 24/05/2010 17:06, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 10:16:55 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:58:43 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:21:57 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:12:51 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Why not? Why would my intestines import more salt than my body needs?

Because in the dim and distant past for hunter gatherers salt intake was
important to maintain electrolyte balance and not always available. Salt
was used as a currency in the ancient world - hence salary.

If you stuff your face like crazy your body will quite happily absorb
and store all the calories it can get for future lean times. But it does
you no good at all to be morbidly obese - why on earth do you think it
is a good idea to overdose on salt?

Because they aren't very smart. The regulation is on the other end. If the
kidney doesn't work the salt builds up.

Maybe your body isn't very smart. Mine is. It regulates tens of
thousands of chemicals, temperatures, pressures, and emotions a lot
better than any computer (or any doctor) could.

No he is right. It is easily possible with a western diet of processed
food to completely overwhelm the kidneys ability to get rid of excess
salt. The result is higher salt levels in the blood leading to
hypertension or raised blood pressure with associated risk of stroke or
heart attack.

Don't be ridiculous (I know it's in your blood). Anecdote isn't data.

Your body doesn't automatically regulate temperature, pH, insulin
levels, electrolytes, hormones, antibodies, white cell production,
blood gasses? You have to do all that stuff manually? If you forget to
breathe, will you die? All that must be annoying.

It is pretty good in most healthy people, but there are a lot of
unhealthy people about thanks to heavily processed popular junk food
diets with massive amounts of fat, salt and sugar added to everything.

Bodies have all sorts of excellent regulatory mechanisms. Maybe a lot
of salt is bad for people whose systems are damaged, but normal people
regulate their appetites and chemistry just fine. We evolved to do
that.

Like all systems, it works to a point. We regulate sugar, too. Don't try
abusing that regulation for thirty years, though.

I've eaten all the sugar I wanted for twice 30 years now. And
everything is working fine.

Again, anecdote isn't data. I'm not allergic to poison ivy/oak/whatever but I
don't tempt fate, either.

Urushiol can be very unforgiving. It also forms the basis of Japanese
lacquer - safe enough once it has cured but hell to work with. You can
never be sure if you have become sensitised.

It wasn't that long ago that doctors told us to eat margarine instead
of butter.

Yes, it didn't take long for them to figure out that margarine wasn't such a
good idea.

Just 90 years or so.

Just because the government (and ag lobby) didn't get it doesn't mean it
wasn't known.

So far, most nutritional advice gets overturned every couple of
decades. Turns out that there's a lot of very bad statistics floating
around.

The connection between raised salt (sodium) levels in the blood and
excessive salt intake is well established. You ignore it at your peril.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 5/24/2010 12:06 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 10:16:55 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:58:43 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Again, anecdote isn't data. I'm not allergic to poison ivy/oak/whatever but I
don't tempt fate, either.

It wasn't that long ago that doctors told us to eat margarine instead
of butter.

Yes, it didn't take long for them to figure out that margarine wasn't such a
good idea.

Just 90 years or so.

Just because the government (and ag lobby) didn't get it doesn't mean it
wasn't known.

So far, most nutritional advice gets overturned every couple of
decades. Turns out that there's a lot of very bad statistics floating
around.

John

Don't forget baby formula. Whenever people get up on their hind legs
and tell me how I should eat, I reply "My answer to nutritionists?
Margarine and baby formula."

We know that you need vitamins, and that being fat is very bad for you.
Beyond that, there isn't much content to most nutritional doctrine,
AFAICT.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:31:34 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 24/05/2010 17:06, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 10:16:55 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:58:43 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:21:57 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:12:51 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Why not? Why would my intestines import more salt than my body needs?

Because in the dim and distant past for hunter gatherers salt intake was
important to maintain electrolyte balance and not always available. Salt
was used as a currency in the ancient world - hence salary.

If you stuff your face like crazy your body will quite happily absorb
and store all the calories it can get for future lean times. But it does
you no good at all to be morbidly obese - why on earth do you think it
is a good idea to overdose on salt?

Because they aren't very smart. The regulation is on the other end. If the
kidney doesn't work the salt builds up.

Maybe your body isn't very smart. Mine is. It regulates tens of
thousands of chemicals, temperatures, pressures, and emotions a lot
better than any computer (or any doctor) could.

No he is right. It is easily possible with a western diet of processed
food to completely overwhelm the kidneys ability to get rid of excess
salt. The result is higher salt levels in the blood leading to
hypertension or raised blood pressure with associated risk of stroke or
heart attack.

Don't be ridiculous (I know it's in your blood). Anecdote isn't data.

Your body doesn't automatically regulate temperature, pH, insulin
levels, electrolytes, hormones, antibodies, white cell production,
blood gasses? You have to do all that stuff manually? If you forget to
breathe, will you die? All that must be annoying.

It is pretty good in most healthy people, but there are a lot of
unhealthy people about thanks to heavily processed popular junk food
diets with massive amounts of fat, salt and sugar added to everything.

Bodies have all sorts of excellent regulatory mechanisms. Maybe a lot
of salt is bad for people whose systems are damaged, but normal people
regulate their appetites and chemistry just fine. We evolved to do
that.

Like all systems, it works to a point. We regulate sugar, too. Don't try
abusing that regulation for thirty years, though.

I've eaten all the sugar I wanted for twice 30 years now. And
everything is working fine.

Again, anecdote isn't data. I'm not allergic to poison ivy/oak/whatever but I
don't tempt fate, either.

Urushiol can be very unforgiving. It also forms the basis of Japanese
lacquer - safe enough once it has cured but hell to work with. You can
never be sure if you have become sensitised.

It wasn't that long ago that doctors told us to eat margarine instead
of butter.

Yes, it didn't take long for them to figure out that margarine wasn't such a
good idea.

Just 90 years or so.

Just because the government (and ag lobby) didn't get it doesn't mean it
wasn't known.

So far, most nutritional advice gets overturned every couple of
decades. Turns out that there's a lot of very bad statistics floating
around.

The connection between raised salt (sodium) levels in the blood and
excessive salt intake is well established. You ignore it at your peril.

So far so good. I can outthink and outski most people 1/2 or 1/3 my
age. I eat and drink what my body wants, but I'm careful to not let it
be fooled by things that evolution hasn't adjusted for yet, like trans
fats and fake flavors and cilantro. Exceptions are made for Crunchy
Cheetos, beer nuts, and dark chocolate, all worth dying for.

People are like bears and pigs; we can eat most anything.

John