conservation of Euros

On May 27, 2:18 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

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

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

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

We already build and export world-class airplanes but Joe Q.Public will
be hard-pressed to get a loan to buy a Boeing 777.

Joan Q. Public doesn't have to--the customer pays Fair tax.
Airplanes, paying tax. That's really cool, isn't it? I mean, the
implied resources used in producing the airplane, taxed at sale.
That's elegant.

[snip]

James Arthur

 

On May 27, 8:21 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2010 17:51:25 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 27, 9:56 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

snip

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, the Fair Tax makes that concession to "progressivity" so as to be
politically equivalent to our current system. That's on the
collections side.

The Fair Tax does not, however, tell politicians how to spend the
money they collect. That'll still be politics as usual.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On May 27, 8:30 pm, krw wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
krw wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

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

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

"Revolution is brewing" -- Tea Party sign

I liked "Obamanomics: Trickle up poverty"

More signs:

"I can't believe we still have to protest this crap"
"Spread your own wealth"

Green paper plate, hanging from cute collie's collar: "I didn't read
the bill either."

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On May 27, 8:34 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

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

snip

That, my friend, will do more to rein in spending and save the country
than just about anything else could.
You honestly believe that? It takes a wee political shift in a certain
direction and you have willy-nilly spending. Then ... "oh s..t!" ... we
have to raise the "fair tax" rate from 23% to 26%.

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

Sorry, but I don't expect that much from politicians. When they screw up
the budget like they did in CA they'd simply raise the rate. I don't
believe they care much about what people think.

Seriously, in this morning's paper there was an article where a certain
politician basically said "We should lower the pension fund estimates
and bill the balance to the taxpayer". That's how low it's gotten.

A former assembly speaker fessed up on our local TV, quite candidly
which really surprised me, here (they make you sit through one ad ...):

http://cbs13.com/video/?id=72...@kovr.dayport.com
http://cbs13.com/video/?id=72...@kovr.dayport.com

Sorry, those links didn't work for me, but there's a classic YouTube
of Bill Lockyear(sp?), CA Treasurer, speaking about their spending.
"Just STOP!" He says it several times.

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

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

So, back to the question above: Does this mean states would slap on an
extra "fair tax" at whatever rate they want?

The Fair Tax has nothing to do with states. It's a federal tax, that
replaces virtually all the other federal taxes, including the Medicare
tax, Social Security Tax, self-employment tax, payroll deduction
taxes, personal and corporate income taxes, to name a few.

The states are completely unaffected. They'd continue doing whatever
they want, as now.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On May 28, 6:05 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:00:26 -0700, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
Jeorg,
Let me chime in, here.

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

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

Added to them.  The 23% replaces *federal* taxes, including income and
employment taxes.  State bureaucrats still gotta live.

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

How would it?  It's not taxed until it's spent.

I think Charlie means he wouldn't have to pay income tax on the new
money, or pay any deductions, so he gets ahead on that.

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

There are a *lot* of assumptions with the fair tax.  One of which is that
Congresscritters will give up the power of the tax code.  You're right - not
happening.

Can't happen if no one tries, that's for sure, right?

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 20:47:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 28, 6:05 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:00:26 -0700, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
Jeorg,
Let me chime in, here.

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

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

Added to them.  The 23% replaces *federal* taxes, including income and
employment taxes.  State bureaucrats still gotta live.

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

How would it?  It's not taxed until it's spent.

I think Charlie means he wouldn't have to pay income tax on the new
money, or pay any deductions, so he gets ahead on that.

He gets ahead, but it'll catch up when he uses the money. No free lunch here
either.

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

There are a *lot* of assumptions with the fair tax.  One of which is that
Congresscritters will give up the power of the tax code.  You're right - not
happening.

Can't happen if no one tries, that's for sure, right?

Not sure it's the right thing, yet. OTOH, I'd love to see the debate, if such
a thing were possible anymore.

 

[Joerg]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 27, 2:18 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 11:04:27 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

I don't think it's remotely possible to produce a pair of jeans in
America that retails for $20-30, or a pair of sneakers for $30, or a DVD
player for $49, or ...
Of course not; those industries are gone and won't come back. But we
might build differentially more cars, airplanes, plywood, electronics.
The alternative is to build nothing in the USA.
We already build and export world-class airplanes but Joe Q.Public will
be hard-pressed to get a loan to buy a Boeing 777.

Joan Q. Public doesn't have to--the customer pays Fair tax.
Airplanes, paying tax. That's really cool, isn't it? I mean, the
implied resources used in producing the airplane, taxed at sale.
That's elegant.

That elegance quickly fizzles when the big foreign airlines then buy the
Airbus instead because that is now a much better deal. A lot of the cost
in an airplane is materials.

Of course, you could also say "Ok, we don't tax it when it's delivered
in Dubai" but then you'd be looking at even worse deficits.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:40:43 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 27, 2:18 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 11:04:27 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

I don't think it's remotely possible to produce a pair of jeans in
America that retails for $20-30, or a pair of sneakers for $30, or a DVD
player for $49, or ...
Of course not; those industries are gone and won't come back. But we
might build differentially more cars, airplanes, plywood, electronics.
The alternative is to build nothing in the USA.
We already build and export world-class airplanes but Joe Q.Public will
be hard-pressed to get a loan to buy a Boeing 777.

Joan Q. Public doesn't have to--the customer pays Fair tax.
Airplanes, paying tax. That's really cool, isn't it? I mean, the
implied resources used in producing the airplane, taxed at sale.
That's elegant.


That elegance quickly fizzles when the big foreign airlines then buy the
Airbus instead because that is now a much better deal. A lot of the cost
in an airplane is materials.

I'd imagine that most of the cost of an aircraft is money. Many never turn a
profit.

Of course, you could also say "Ok, we don't tax it when it's delivered
in Dubai" but then you'd be looking at even worse deficits.

Given your unproven assumption above, maybe.

 

[Joerg]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 27, 9:57 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 26, 8:18 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 26, 9:27 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 07:05:38 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:39:13 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
So let's see, since we can't have an assessor then John Q.Public must
self-file into some computer system. "Hmm, so what do we enter here for
the materials? One box of nails, a pack of drywall screws, the hot dog I
had outside Home Depot. Don't remember the rest ..."
That is all recorded in the tax receipts.
What receipts? Case in point, and I was right behind the guy: Dude had a
huge cart in tow at the cash register. A toilet, two sinks, tile, pipe,
mortar, the works. He could barely pull it. Ka-ching ... "That'll be
eighthundred Dollars and .." He whipped out a huge wallet and paid the
whole chebang in cash. Dollar bills. No check, no credit card, no name
given. Now how exactly is this going to be recorded?
At a bare minimum, in the tax receipts that the store reports (by sale).
They may not know just who paid, but they do know it _got paid_ on those
items.
Do you honestly believe this guy would dutifully file and remit the 23%
"fair tax" from the amount he collects from the homeowner?

Businesses that sell to the public have to collect Fair Tax, just like
they collect slaes tax today. Can they cheat? Sure, I guess,
especially if they're small. Not if they're large--they'll get
caught.

Again:

It would be the _installation_ that isn't taxed. The guy I mentioned
earlier certainly did not look like he was running an "official"
business, he'd most likely never collect any tax and also won't remit any.

Because of all the other record keeping involved with a real property
sale, yes.
What record keeping? I seriously doubt that uncle Leroy will remember
who rebuilt the deck 15 years ago. Or wants to remember.
Okay, I've got a short break so I'll try to catch up with you guys...
Uncle Leroy paid Fair Tax when he bought the building materials. If
he hired a contractor, Leroy pays Fair Tax when he pays the
contractor. No recordkeeping. End of story.
Not at all end of story. Read what I wrote above about the guy who
bought the complete remodel materials with hard cash. He's going to make
uncle Leroy a special deal, provided that no paperwork crosses the table
and there will be a cash payment. Meaning the guy who did the work puts
all it this cash in his pocket. IOW, nobody ever paid tax for the work,
only for the materials.
But it's possible and common to pay people "under the table right"
now, so I don't see how that's different. In your scenario at least
he would've paid Fair Tax on the materials, so you'd collect part of
the tax due. Under an income tax the cheater gets off totally scot-
free, labor and materials.
Big difference: The guys who work in the underground economy are
typically at the low end of the income scale already. Their regular job
went away et cetera. They would hardly pay an income tax anyhow, maybe
10%. What was the number of Americans that paid nothing this year? Over
40% AFAIR. Now if there would be a 23% flat tax the motivation to go
under the table will increase big time because that's an even bigger
chunk than the few bucks he'd have paid in income tax. And he'd have to
collect and pay that right now (talking about bureaucracy ...).

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

[...]

I guess (cringe) one advantage of a VAT is that it forces everyone to
become tax-collectors--no one wants to be stuck paying it, so they're
eager to collect their rebate from the next guy in the chain.
What rebate? If you aren't a business there will not be any rebate. "A
fond perdue" is how they often call that in Europe.

Rebate: for all the middlemen in the supply chain.

That would be the theory. The reality is that in many cases there's
going to be no middleman. There is the guy who buys all the materials at
a HW store, pays the tax on that, installs it, collects cold hard cash,
whistles innocently and drives home. It is sad that people do such
things but they will. Guaranteed. I've seen it in Europe where taxes on
services are the same as the VAT and very high.

In countries with high VAT the underground economy is rampant. I know
it, I lived in such countries. This so-called "fair tax" will have the
same effect as a VAT because to the people it works the same way. They
do not care how it's called, a tax is a tax is a tax.
Yes, but ditto for income tax.
It'll increase, because 23% is more than 10%.

But things people buy in store _will_ be taxed, offsetting that.

You'd be surprised how widespread the underground economy could get. All
the way back to a farmer selling milk or half a pig "on the side". On a
hiking trip in Europe our group bought fresh milk, right from the
farmer's tank. The money went straight into a bucket. There was no cash
register, there was no paper ...

I met a crew doing some work the other day. Of taxes, the chief said
"I don't pay those mthr'f'r's one f'n dime." He pays his crew, um,
discretely, too.

And that'll get worse. Because now we are already talking 23%.

--
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 27, 8:34 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 27, 9:56 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
snip
That, my friend, will do more to rein in spending and save the country
than just about anything else could.
You honestly believe that? It takes a wee political shift in a certain
direction and you have willy-nilly spending. Then ... "oh s..t!" ... we
have to raise the "fair tax" rate from 23% to 26%.
Yes, I believe that. You can raise the rate, but people will notice.
That's not currently true for more than half of us.
Sorry, but I don't expect that much from politicians. When they screw up
the budget like they did in CA they'd simply raise the rate. I don't
believe they care much about what people think.

Seriously, in this morning's paper there was an article where a certain
politician basically said "We should lower the pension fund estimates
and bill the balance to the taxpayer". That's how low it's gotten.

A former assembly speaker fessed up on our local TV, quite candidly
which really surprised me, here (they make you sit through one ad ...):

http://cbs13.com/video/?id=72...@kovr.dayport.com
http://cbs13.com/video/?id=72...@kovr.dayport.com

Sorry, those links didn't work for me, but there's a classic YouTube
of Bill Lockyear(sp?), CA Treasurer, speaking about their spending.
"Just STOP!" He says it several times.

That's why by now a lot of people say that "starving the beast" is the
only way out of this mess.

And what do you do with states that have dug themselves into a hole?
Like California with its reckless spending for super fat bureaucrat
pensions. Do you give them a bigger chunk of the "fair tax" than states
that knew how to do a budget well? And how are you going to muffle the
public backlash from doing that?
The Fair Tax assiduously avoids making those political judgements.
The Fair Tax is just a simpler way to collect the same amount of money
we currently collect. What the money is used for is up to the
politicians, as usual.
So, back to the question above: Does this mean states would slap on an
extra "fair tax" at whatever rate they want?

The Fair Tax has nothing to do with states. It's a federal tax, that
replaces virtually all the other federal taxes, including the Medicare
tax, Social Security Tax, self-employment tax, payroll deduction
taxes, personal and corporate income taxes, to name a few.

The states are completely unaffected. They'd continue doing whatever
they want, as now.

So you'd have the same state tax returns to file, with the same
bureaucratic effort by the taxpayer? Or like in my case paying a
licensed CPA to do it? And the states collecting income taxes from
employers like usual? There goes the much harped about illusion of
getting rid of compliance costs. Sorry, that alone makes the whole thing
a non-starter, IMHO.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 17:01:03 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 27, 8:34 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 27, 9:56 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
snip
That, my friend, will do more to rein in spending and save the country
than just about anything else could.
You honestly believe that? It takes a wee political shift in a certain
direction and you have willy-nilly spending. Then ... "oh s..t!" ... we
have to raise the "fair tax" rate from 23% to 26%.
Yes, I believe that. You can raise the rate, but people will notice.
That's not currently true for more than half of us.
Sorry, but I don't expect that much from politicians. When they screw up
the budget like they did in CA they'd simply raise the rate. I don't
believe they care much about what people think.

Seriously, in this morning's paper there was an article where a certain
politician basically said "We should lower the pension fund estimates
and bill the balance to the taxpayer". That's how low it's gotten.

A former assembly speaker fessed up on our local TV, quite candidly
which really surprised me, here (they make you sit through one ad ...):

http://cbs13.com/video/?id=72...@kovr.dayport.com
http://cbs13.com/video/?id=72...@kovr.dayport.com

Sorry, those links didn't work for me, but there's a classic YouTube
of Bill Lockyear(sp?), CA Treasurer, speaking about their spending.
"Just STOP!" He says it several times.


That's why by now a lot of people say that "starving the beast" is the
only way out of this mess.

Check out Paul Ryan's (Congresscritter from Wisconsin) plan. Sounds
reasonable. Never happen.

And what do you do with states that have dug themselves into a hole?
Like California with its reckless spending for super fat bureaucrat
pensions. Do you give them a bigger chunk of the "fair tax" than states
that knew how to do a budget well? And how are you going to muffle the
public backlash from doing that?
The Fair Tax assiduously avoids making those political judgements.
The Fair Tax is just a simpler way to collect the same amount of money
we currently collect. What the money is used for is up to the
politicians, as usual.
So, back to the question above: Does this mean states would slap on an
extra "fair tax" at whatever rate they want?

The Fair Tax has nothing to do with states. It's a federal tax, that
replaces virtually all the other federal taxes, including the Medicare
tax, Social Security Tax, self-employment tax, payroll deduction
taxes, personal and corporate income taxes, to name a few.

The states are completely unaffected. They'd continue doing whatever
they want, as now.


So you'd have the same state tax returns to file, with the same
bureaucratic effort by the taxpayer? Or like in my case paying a
licensed CPA to do it? And the states collecting income taxes from
employers like usual? There goes the much harped about illusion of
getting rid of compliance costs. Sorry, that alone makes the whole thing
a non-starter, IMHO.

States would necessarily have to change their own. The feds can't do that.
Constitution, ya know.

 

[Joerg]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 27, 8:56 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 26, 8:30 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

[snip]

Fair enough. But why not try to fix the current system first?
You mean of 1099s, Schedule C, D, E, and payroll and employer matching
taxes, of Social Security tax, Medicare Tax, Alternative Minimum Tax,
of Earned Income credits, and capital gains tax, each with their own
schedules and computations, each affecting the others?
Yes. We need to look at the tax code now and that from, say, 1960. Then
figure out why the heck it has gotten so complicated. Start rolling
back. One reason is easy and we already know it, it is evidenced in the
most recent 1099 reporting requirements.

I'm just really kind of at a loss. We're talking about replacing 26
op-amps, a few a/d's, a mess of power supplies, a handful of uC's and
a bag of trimpots with ... a resistor.

No. As you said yourself: The states retain their own little fiefdoms.
So they'll keep their 12 opamps, ADCs and power supplies and uCs in
there. Now that a lot of well-off retired folks along with their savings
high-tail it to Cancun or someplace, your lone resistor will eventually
start to glow, turn white and ... *phut*

You'd rather re-tweak the trimpots on the kludge? Re-program the
break-points? That just ... well, I scarcely know what to say.

I guess the thing is this: ignoring the many other taxes eliminated
under the Fair Tax, our current income tax system all by itself is as
complicated as it is because everyone wants it that way. Each wants
their special part of it. To reform that, you'd have to win battles
with each and every one of them, which is impossible.

It will be no different with the so-called "fair tax". In due course
that system would become as cluttered as the current system is.
Exemption over here, rate increase over yonder, the usual.

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

That's why a visible tax is good. It discourages shenanigans. It's
not perfect, but far more accountable than a thousand hidden taxes.

It would encourage dodging, big time. And it would make it rather easy.

In contrast, the announcement of a "fair tax" could be like
hitting the ignition button. Kablouie.


[snip]

What's your concern?
That all retirees would pull their money out and rush into more durable
investments such as real estate. You might see nothing but a plume of
dust where your local bank used to be ;-)
That makes no sense to me. Running out and buying stuff does not
improve your tax treatment, whether income-taxed savings are Fair Tax
exempted or not.
Sure it does. You buy that retirement place now -> You pay with taxed
money and the home is tax free. You buy the retirement place too late
when "fair tax" is in effect -> You pay with taxed money and you pay
another tax on the home.

Oh, now I see your point. But wouldn't that be great, a real, honest
"stimulus package"? That seems a darn sight better than bribing them
with taxpayer dollars to buy houses.

Sure it would stimulate the economy. In the Caribbean ...

If someone did want to buy a bunch of stuff, that stimulates
manufacturing and other business, so it's fine for the country. It
might be kind of dumb to blow all your dough, however.
The smart thing would be to take yourself, your family, your dough and
move to a place where there will be no new tax on stuff. Guadalajara
province is said to be nice ...

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

Not income--that's the same. The overall tax rate is the same, it's
just superbly easier to pay.

Yeah, you'd superbly easily pay twice. This money _was_ income and _has_
already been taxed. People do not wish to pay a tax twice, will seek
ways to avoid doing that, and will find ways.

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

We already discussed that. They'd compromise, and exempt Roth IRAs,
etc.

And what about regular savings? And how exactly are they going to do all
that? And why wasn't it prominently mentioned in the studies and
proposals? People will want some ironclad guarantees here.

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

Yes.

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

Fine, but that's when the people get engaged and say "No." Like with
property tax in California.

And what did body politicus do? Signed away the bank. Now we are looking
at a longterm pension shortfall north of 500 billion and they wrote into
law that the taxpayer must cover every penny the pension funds don't
have or have squandered.

Right now the changes are so complicated, we get hornswoggled and
hardly even know who bit us. (Who can read the 76,000 pages of current
IRS code and regulations that are amended, on average, twice a day?)

I am certain there'll be new and different hornswoggling in the new code

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

That issue is unrelated--it's Fair Tax neutral.

Meaning we'll all keep on having to do a tax return? Then the whole
notion about relieving the taxpayer from compliance costs sounds like a
joke.

(Sorry for the late post--I'm swamped.)

Similar here, but often simulator runs give me some time

(except that today SPICE drove the office from 82F to 85F)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 17:18:22 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 27, 8:56 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 26, 8:30 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

[snip]

Fair enough. But why not try to fix the current system first?
You mean of 1099s, Schedule C, D, E, and payroll and employer matching
taxes, of Social Security tax, Medicare Tax, Alternative Minimum Tax,
of Earned Income credits, and capital gains tax, each with their own
schedules and computations, each affecting the others?
Yes. We need to look at the tax code now and that from, say, 1960. Then
figure out why the heck it has gotten so complicated. Start rolling
back. One reason is easy and we already know it, it is evidenced in the
most recent 1099 reporting requirements.

I'm just really kind of at a loss. We're talking about replacing 26
op-amps, a few a/d's, a mess of power supplies, a handful of uC's and
a bag of trimpots with ... a resistor.


No. As you said yourself: The states retain their own little fiefdoms.

I didn't think you'd be one to toss the Constitution so easily.

So they'll keep their 12 opamps, ADCs and power supplies and uCs in
there. Now that a lot of well-off retired folks along with their savings
high-tail it to Cancun or someplace, your lone resistor will eventually
start to glow, turn white and ... *phut*

A lot of states use the IRS as a crutch now. There's no reason to believe
they won't follow suit.

<...>

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 20:43:48 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 27, 8:34 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 27, 9:56 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

snip

That, my friend, will do more to rein in spending and save the country
than just about anything else could.
You honestly believe that? It takes a wee political shift in a certain
direction and you have willy-nilly spending. Then ... "oh s..t!" .... we
have to raise the "fair tax" rate from 23% to 26%.

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

Sorry, but I don't expect that much from politicians. When they screw up
the budget like they did in CA they'd simply raise the rate. I don't
believe they care much about what people think.

Seriously, in this morning's paper there was an article where a certain
politician basically said "We should lower the pension fund estimates
and bill the balance to the taxpayer". That's how low it's gotten.

A former assembly speaker fessed up on our local TV, quite candidly
which really surprised me, here (they make you sit through one ad ....):

http://cbs13.com/video/?id=72...@kovr.dayport.com
http://cbs13.com/video/?id=72...@kovr.dayport.com

Sorry, those links didn't work for me, but there's a classic YouTube
of Bill Lockyear(sp?), CA Treasurer, speaking about their spending.
"Just STOP!" He says it several times.

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

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

So, back to the question above: Does this mean states would slap on an
extra "fair tax" at whatever rate they want?

The Fair Tax has nothing to do with states. It's a federal tax, that
replaces virtually all the other federal taxes, including the Medicare
tax, Social Security Tax, self-employment tax, payroll deduction
taxes, personal and corporate income taxes, to name a few.

The states are completely unaffected. They'd continue doing whatever
they want, as now.

Yes and no, many states that have income tax, model it after Feuderal
Income Taxes; and if that model goes away, the states (like Calipornia)
will be having sudden legislative sessions to unlink their systems.

 

On Jun 8, 6:50 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:40:43 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 27, 2:18 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

We already build and export world-class airplanes but Joe Q.Public will
be hard-pressed to get a loan to buy a Boeing 777.

Joan Q. Public doesn't have to--the customer pays Fair tax.
Airplanes, paying tax.  That's really cool, isn't it?  I mean, the
implied resources used in producing the airplane, taxed at sale.
That's elegant.

That elegance quickly fizzles when the big foreign airlines then buy the
Airbus instead because that is now a much better deal. A lot of the cost
in an airplane is materials.

I'd imagine that most of the cost of an aircraft is money.  Many never turn a
profit.

And labor. All the taxes on that labor would be collected in one fell
swoop: workers' income taxes, payroll, Medicare, Social Security,
etc., plus Boeing's corporate income tax, and so forth. Boeing would
save all those costs, and could sell the airplanes for less.

The answer to Joerg's worry about competitiveness is that right now,
today, Boeing's competitiveness is compromised by the system we have--
their price is artificially already inflated by all those hidden
taxes, plus paying the bean counters to count them.

Boeing has an advantage over Airbus in that Boeing's burden is still
superficially lower than Airbus'. Europe is worse. (I'm not sure it
is when our deficit spending is factored in.)

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Jun 8, 6:56 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 27, 9:57 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 26, 8:18 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 26, 9:27 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 07:05:38 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:39:13 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
So let's see, since we can't have an assessor then John Q.Public must
self-file into some computer system. "Hmm, so what do we enter here for
the materials? One box of nails, a pack of drywall screws, the hot dog I
had outside Home Depot. Don't remember the rest ..."
That is all recorded in the tax receipts.
What receipts? Case in point, and I was right behind the guy: Dude had a
huge cart in tow at the cash register. A toilet, two sinks, tile, pipe,
mortar, the works. He could barely pull it. Ka-ching ... "That'll be
eighthundred Dollars and .." He whipped out a huge wallet and paid the
whole chebang in cash. Dollar bills. No check, no credit card, no name
given. Now how exactly is this going to be recorded?
At a bare minimum, in the tax receipts that the store reports (by sale).
They may not know just who paid, but they do know it _got paid_ on those
items.
Do you honestly believe this guy would dutifully file and remit the 23%
"fair tax" from the amount he collects from the homeowner?

Businesses that sell to the public have to collect Fair Tax, just like
they collect sales tax today.  Can they cheat?  Sure, I guess,
especially if they're small.  Not if they're large--they'll get
caught.

Again:

It would be the _installation_ that isn't taxed. The guy I mentioned
earlier certainly did not look like he was running an "official"
business, he'd most likely never collect any tax and also won't remit any..

Yes, I understood that. Materials will be taxed, and small operators
might cheat paying tax on their services. Do you think that a
licensed handyman chain is going to cheat? That Roto-Rooter is going
to skip paying tax?

That's what I meant.

[snip: underground economy]

In countries with high VAT the underground economy is rampant. I know
it, I lived in such countries. This so-called "fair tax" will have the
same effect as a VAT because to the people it works the same way. They
do not care how it's called, a tax is a tax is a tax.
Yes, but ditto for income tax.
It'll increase, because 23% is more than 10%.

But things people buy in store _will_ be taxed, offsetting that.

You'd be surprised how widespread the underground economy could get. All
the way back to a farmer selling milk or half a pig "on the side". On a
hiking trip in Europe our group bought fresh milk, right from the
farmer's tank. The money went straight into a bucket. There was no cash
register, there was no paper ...

I met a crew doing some work the other day.  Of taxes, the chief said
"I don't pay those mthr'f'r's one f'n dime."  He pays his crew, um,
discretely, too.

And that'll get worse. Because now we are already talking 23%.

Well, here's what going to happen presently, if you have your way:
Paul Volcker, former Fed Chairman, is on the President's Orwellian-
titled Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Their plan to fix the
deficit? Raise income taxes, and a VAT, and a carbon tax:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100033178/obama%E2%80%99s-war-on-economic-liberty-paul-volcker%E2%80%99s-call-for-european-style-taxes-threatens-america/

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/vat_attack_RUxBOS7fspwKRdjNiWpXyO

Is that vision really what you want? A firestorm of taxation from all
directions? That will surely cost you far more, at every level--time,
money, quality of life, opportunity, and liberty--than any possible
alternative.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:40:43 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 27, 2:18 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 11:04:27 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
I don't think it's remotely possible to produce a pair of jeans in
America that retails for $20-30, or a pair of sneakers for $30, or a DVD
player for $49, or ...
Of course not; those industries are gone and won't come back. But we
might build differentially more cars, airplanes, plywood, electronics.
The alternative is to build nothing in the USA.
We already build and export world-class airplanes but Joe Q.Public will
be hard-pressed to get a loan to buy a Boeing 777.
Joan Q. Public doesn't have to--the customer pays Fair tax.
Airplanes, paying tax. That's really cool, isn't it? I mean, the
implied resources used in producing the airplane, taxed at sale.
That's elegant.

That elegance quickly fizzles when the big foreign airlines then buy the
Airbus instead because that is now a much better deal. A lot of the cost
in an airplane is materials.

I'd imagine that most of the cost of an aircraft is money. Many never turn a
profit.

Boeing does.

Of course, you could also say "Ok, we don't tax it when it's delivered
in Dubai" but then you'd be looking at even worse deficits.

Given your unproven assumption above, maybe.

Nothing unproven there. I have data but not at liberty to share. Think
about it: The large engines on most Boeings are from Rolls-Royce, are a
hugely expensive component of a jet airliner and AFAIK still made in
Derby. That happens to be located in the UK and they will in all
likelihood not participate in a "fair tax' scheme

--
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 Jun 8, 6:50 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:40:43 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 27, 2:18 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

We already build and export world-class airplanes but Joe Q.Public will
be hard-pressed to get a loan to buy a Boeing 777.
Joan Q. Public doesn't have to--the customer pays Fair tax.
Airplanes, paying tax. That's really cool, isn't it? I mean, the
implied resources used in producing the airplane, taxed at sale.
That's elegant.
That elegance quickly fizzles when the big foreign airlines then buy the
Airbus instead because that is now a much better deal. A lot of the cost
in an airplane is materials.
I'd imagine that most of the cost of an aircraft is money. Many never turn a
profit.

And labor. All the taxes on that labor would be collected in one fell
swoop: workers' income taxes, payroll, Medicare, Social Security,
etc., plus Boeing's corporate income tax, and so forth. Boeing would
save all those costs, and could sell the airplanes for less.

The answer to Joerg's worry about competitiveness is that right now,
today, Boeing's competitiveness is compromised by the system we have--
their price is artificially already inflated by all those hidden
taxes, plus paying the bean counters to count them.

Boeing has an advantage over Airbus in that Boeing's burden is still
superficially lower than Airbus'. Europe is worse. (I'm not sure it
is when our deficit spending is factored in.)

And the expensive Trent engines are imported from England, representing
a sizeabale chunk of the cost of each aircraft. Now how exactly are you
planning to get her majesty to sign up for "fair tax"?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 08:12:32 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 8, 6:50 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:40:43 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 27, 2:18 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

We already build and export world-class airplanes but Joe Q.Public will
be hard-pressed to get a loan to buy a Boeing 777.
Joan Q. Public doesn't have to--the customer pays Fair tax.
Airplanes, paying tax. That's really cool, isn't it? I mean, the
implied resources used in producing the airplane, taxed at sale.
That's elegant.
That elegance quickly fizzles when the big foreign airlines then buy the
Airbus instead because that is now a much better deal. A lot of the cost
in an airplane is materials.
I'd imagine that most of the cost of an aircraft is money. Many never turn a
profit.

And labor. All the taxes on that labor would be collected in one fell
swoop: workers' income taxes, payroll, Medicare, Social Security,
etc., plus Boeing's corporate income tax, and so forth. Boeing would
save all those costs, and could sell the airplanes for less.

The answer to Joerg's worry about competitiveness is that right now,
today, Boeing's competitiveness is compromised by the system we have--
their price is artificially already inflated by all those hidden
taxes, plus paying the bean counters to count them.

Boeing has an advantage over Airbus in that Boeing's burden is still
superficially lower than Airbus'. Europe is worse. (I'm not sure it
is when our deficit spending is factored in.)


And the expensive Trent engines are imported from England, representing
a sizeabale chunk of the cost of each aircraft. Now how exactly are you
planning to get her majesty to sign up for "fair tax"?

A consumption tax would be paid by anyone who consumes stuff. In the
case of direct imports, that would be the buyer, ultimately the
airline. As a Californian, you are already obliged to pay sales tax on
anything you buy from out of state.

If europeans subsidize their engine companies and airlines, I suppose
we could make adjustments to keep our companies from being
disadvantaged. There are already international trade agreements that
are supposed to do that, although the europeans cheat a lot.

Exports wouldn't be sales taxed, because the buyer is out of range.
This asymmetry helps the balance of trade.

John

 

[Joerg]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 8, 6:56 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 27, 9:57 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 26, 8:18 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 26, 9:27 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 07:05:38 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:39:13 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
So let's see, since we can't have an assessor then John Q.Public must
self-file into some computer system. "Hmm, so what do we enter here for
the materials? One box of nails, a pack of drywall screws, the hot dog I
had outside Home Depot. Don't remember the rest ..."
That is all recorded in the tax receipts.
What receipts? Case in point, and I was right behind the guy: Dude had a
huge cart in tow at the cash register. A toilet, two sinks, tile, pipe,
mortar, the works. He could barely pull it. Ka-ching ... "That'll be
eighthundred Dollars and .." He whipped out a huge wallet and paid the
whole chebang in cash. Dollar bills. No check, no credit card, no name
given. Now how exactly is this going to be recorded?
At a bare minimum, in the tax receipts that the store reports (by sale).
They may not know just who paid, but they do know it _got paid_ on those
items.
Do you honestly believe this guy would dutifully file and remit the 23%
"fair tax" from the amount he collects from the homeowner?
Businesses that sell to the public have to collect Fair Tax, just like
they collect sales tax today. Can they cheat? Sure, I guess,
especially if they're small. Not if they're large--they'll get
caught.
Again:

It would be the _installation_ that isn't taxed. The guy I mentioned
earlier certainly did not look like he was running an "official"
business, he'd most likely never collect any tax and also won't remit any.

Yes, I understood that. Materials will be taxed, and small operators
might cheat paying tax on their services. Do you think that a
licensed handyman chain is going to cheat? That Roto-Rooter is going
to skip paying tax?

Those will start to gradually lose business, which will then be picked
up by fly-under-radar-screen operators. I've seen that happen, in
Europe. Politicians thought that willy-nilly raises of the VAT whenever
they screwed up the budgets would just be swallowed by Joe Q.Public.
Well, Joe didn't.

A guy who worked in a tax investigator unit over there described it this
way: They go out to some construction site for a raid. But beforehand
they had to scope it out and place police at strategic and unusual
points. That is because on many construction sites just about everybody
was paid under the table and people were instructed to scurry away in
all directions when someone yelled "The goons are coming!"

That's what I meant.

[snip: underground economy]

In countries with high VAT the underground economy is rampant. I know
it, I lived in such countries. This so-called "fair tax" will have the
same effect as a VAT because to the people it works the same way. They
do not care how it's called, a tax is a tax is a tax.
Yes, but ditto for income tax.
It'll increase, because 23% is more than 10%.
But things people buy in store _will_ be taxed, offsetting that.
You'd be surprised how widespread the underground economy could get. All
the way back to a farmer selling milk or half a pig "on the side". On a
hiking trip in Europe our group bought fresh milk, right from the
farmer's tank. The money went straight into a bucket. There was no cash
register, there was no paper ...

I met a crew doing some work the other day. Of taxes, the chief said
"I don't pay those mthr'f'r's one f'n dime." He pays his crew, um,
discretely, too.
And that'll get worse. Because now we are already talking 23%.

Well, here's what going to happen presently, if you have your way:
Paul Volcker, former Fed Chairman, is on the President's Orwellian-
titled Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Their plan to fix the
deficit? Raise income taxes, and a VAT, and a carbon tax:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100033178/obama%E2%80%99s-war-on-economic-liberty-paul-volcker%E2%80%99s-call-for-european-style-taxes-threatens-america/

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/vat_attack_RUxBOS7fspwKRdjNiWpXyO

Is that vision really what you want? A firestorm of taxation from all
directions? That will surely cost you far more, at every level--time,
money, quality of life, opportunity, and liberty--than any possible
alternative.

Of course that is not my vision. But voters are ultimately making those
decisions and ... well, let's not go there. We'll just have to wait and
see what happens in November. Fact is, as you said before reckless
spending will simply continue and then it's "Oh, darn, we must raise the
"fair tax", again". "Borrowing" from the chunk that's supposed to go
towards social security is also going to be much easier because it
becomes much less visible.

Quote from your NY-Post link: [VAT] ... "Imposing it would pretty well
finish the transformation of our country into a European-style
slow-growth nation. The right way to close Uncle Sam's gaping deficits
is to reverse the continued explosion of federal spending." _That_ is
IMHO 100% correct. The slapping on of another VAT or consumption tax is not.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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