conservation of Euros

[Joerg]

John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:09:49 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:03:36 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:


That's actually how VAT works in Europe, with one major difference:
Businesses get a full refund on the VAT paid on oscilloscopes. Not on
beer consumed after hours though
How about beer consumed during working hours?

We pay sales tax on it, but we expense it too, so it reduces our
corporate income tax, which is (in a good year) a lot higher than
sales tax.

Yes, but: If you can expense 100% of the VAT, sales tax, whatever, then
that is a much better deal than expensing it. Because your corporate tax
rate isn't 100% even if you had the sales volume of Exxon.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:40:26 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 08:35:28 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
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.

I regard our constitution very highly. Wish everybody would. What I was
saying is that _if_ there is just one state refusing to go with this
flat system it is going to fail in terms of reducing compliance costs.
At least in those states. Completely. Because then there is not going to
be any noticeable reduction in compliance costs for Joe Q.Public.

Sure there will. Any states stupid enough to not get with the program will
starve as their jobs move to states that have. Fast.


I think you may be overestimating the ability of some politicians to
even notice when a exodus is happening right under their noses.

With a change that drastic to the federal tax structure they'd *have* to get
with the program. No choice, since there won't be any "1040 Line xxxx" to
copy from.

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.

In California that's a bit different. First, they have different
exemption levels. Lower ones, of course. Then they have sales taxes.

Of course Kalifornica is a "bit different". Though not so different with
taxes. Many states are similar, others rely more on the IRS (VT use "send us
24% of what you sent the fed" model, more or less).

Then they have property taxes.

Sure, that wouldn't necessarily change. Most states use property taxes to pay
for local government, schools, fire protection, and such.


Ah, so property tax remains. State sales tax remains. State income tax
remains. No thanks, then I don't want the "fair tax".

Of *course*. The "Fair Tax" is only federal. It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
them.

Voters luckily staved of the worst there
but in some other states retirees and others still get taxed out of
their homes. You have to undo _all_ of this and politicians of a certain
type will fight that kicking and screaming.

Again, you want the federal government to *Unconstitutionally* tell the states
how to raise their taxes.


Once more: No. We have several constitutional vehicle to get that done
in the US. Elected representative from the states and voters. Now if a
state doesn't want to do it, fine, but then the voters in that state
will not like a "fair tax" and won't vote in favor it it.

You seem to think the "Fair Tax" somehow should tell states how to run their
business. That *is* unconstitutional. If enough states (representatives,
actually) go for it, Kalifornica won't have any choice.

 

On Jun 9, 4:43 pm, Spehro Pefhany <speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat>
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:07:54 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

That would be similar to the European VAT system and there is no way
you'd ever be able to quench the "needs" of the current tax system with
23% or anything remotely close to that.

Well, let's see, total US federal state and local gov't revenue is
said to be about 4.8 trillion*, ignoring deficits for the moment. Say
100,000,000 households spending an average of $60K each per year at
23% tax.. hey that's only about a 3:1 shortfall. ;-)

*http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/classic.html

The formula is GDP * 23%, or about $14-15T * 23% = $3.2-3.5T.

Of course they'll have to adjust that rate weekly to keep up with this
President.

...if government spending is higher than the sum of all personal
income, what exactly does that mean?

Debt.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Jun 9, 8:37 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:40:26 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Ah, so property tax remains. State sales tax remains. State income tax
remains. No thanks, then I don't want the "fair tax".

Of *course*.  The "Fair Tax" is only federal.  It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
them.

To sum up the many points in play:

I don't think Joerg's understanding this at all: that the Fair Tax is
a federal tax that eliminates a huge federal mess.

And, the Constitution simply doesn't allow the federal government to
set, control, collect, or in any way determine how states collect
their revenues. That would be unconstitutional. So, the Fair Tax
can't eliminate state-stuff, that's up to each state.

But, the Fair Tax still simplifies things greatly--it eliminates the
many federal taxes I've listed repeatedly: personal income tax, Social
Security tax (6.5%-ish), Medicare tax, unemployment, matching taxes
paid by the employer[*], the new Obamacare taxes on income and
insurance, capital gains tax, alternative minimum tax, corporate
income tax, and more. All replaced with a single tax collected at
point-of-sale. Citizens would no longer have to file income tax
returns.

[*] So, theoretically, your employer could pay you more.

That's a significant step forward. (A giant leap forward?)

Joerg's concerned about potential double-taxation. I brought that
concern personally to the actual people, and they're very receptive to
doing that. Those things happen as amendments to bills as said bills
get debated and perfected in Congress. (In normal times, anyhow.)

My greatest qualm is the prebate. The idea of everyone getting
government checks just bugs me--it reeks of nanny-state. John
suggested exempting necessities; I like that better.


--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:43:42 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:09:49 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:03:36 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:


That's actually how VAT works in Europe, with one major difference:
Businesses get a full refund on the VAT paid on oscilloscopes. Not on
beer consumed after hours though
How about beer consumed during working hours?

We pay sales tax on it, but we expense it too, so it reduces our
corporate income tax, which is (in a good year) a lot higher than
sales tax.


Yes, but: If you can expense 100% of the VAT, sales tax, whatever, then
that is a much better deal than expensing it. Because your corporate tax
rate isn't 100% even if you had the sales volume of Exxon.

The VAT (which is credited, not expensed) is only a percentage of the
cost.

There are four possibilities (ignoring the partial deductiblity and
assigning taxable benefit to the employee options, which governments
won't necessarily do)

00 Pay sales tax, expense not deductible (counts as income for
the company).
01 Pay sales tax, write off total cost as business expense
10 Get sales tax rebated, expense counts as income for company
11 Get sales tax rebated, write off remainder as business expense

In case 0x01, if the corporate income tax rate is less than the
sales tax rate you're better off than you would be with case 0x10.
But the best case (for beer consumers) would be 0x11.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:37:37 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Of *course*. The "Fair Tax" is only federal. It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
them.

Couldn't they voluntarily agree to do so?

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:06:20 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:37:37 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


Of *course*. The "Fair Tax" is only federal. It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
them.

Couldn't they voluntarily agree to do so?

IMO, no. That said, it's done every day. Think: highway trust fund. Note
the strings that go with that mess (e.g. seat belt laws).

 

[Joerg]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 9, 8:37 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:40:26 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Ah, so property tax remains. State sales tax remains. State income tax
remains. No thanks, then I don't want the "fair tax".
Of *course*. The "Fair Tax" is only federal. It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
them.


To sum up the many points in play:

I don't think Joerg's understanding this at all: that the Fair Tax is
a federal tax that eliminates a huge federal mess.

I do understand that

And, the Constitution simply doesn't allow the federal government to
set, control, collect, or in any way determine how states collect
their revenues. That would be unconstitutional. So, the Fair Tax
can't eliminate state-stuff, that's up to each state.

But, the Fair Tax still simplifies things greatly--it eliminates the
many federal taxes I've listed repeatedly: personal income tax, Social
Security tax (6.5%-ish), Medicare tax, unemployment, matching taxes
paid by the employer[*], the new Obamacare taxes on income and
insurance, capital gains tax, alternative minimum tax, corporate
income tax, and more. All replaced with a single tax collected at
point-of-sale. Citizens would no longer have to file income tax
returns.

That is simply not true. It was discussed here ad nauseam that they will
still have to file their state tax returns as usual. _That_ is what
causes all the effort and compliance costs. It makes no difference
whether you file state or federal or both. One alone will generate
nearly all the compliance works and costs all by itself, the other
simply follows a similar pattern. You have to get all your 1099s in
order, all you interest income, all your deductions. If the states do
not change their system as well then the claim that a "fair tax"
eliminates compliance costs is a big old joke. Because it doesn't.

So, theoretically, your employer could pay you more.

That's a significant step forward. (A giant leap forward?)

Joerg's concerned about potential double-taxation. I brought that
concern personally to the actual people, and they're very receptive to
doing that. Those things happen as amendments to bills as said bills
get debated and perfected in Congress. (In normal times, anyhow.)

And then, pretty soon, we are on our merry way again to a goliath
70,000+ page tax code

My greatest qualm is the prebate. The idea of everyone getting
government checks just bugs me--it reeks of nanny-state. John
suggested exempting necessities; I like that better.

That can be risky because it fosters misapproriation. What really blew
my mind was what some French folks did back in the late 70's: They broke
a piece off of a baguette and wiped the table with it. Cheaper ...

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Joerg]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:43:42 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:09:49 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:03:36 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:


That's actually how VAT works in Europe, with one major difference:
Businesses get a full refund on the VAT paid on oscilloscopes. Not on
beer consumed after hours though
How about beer consumed during working hours?
We pay sales tax on it, but we expense it too, so it reduces our
corporate income tax, which is (in a good year) a lot higher than
sales tax.

Yes, but: If you can expense 100% of the VAT, sales tax, whatever, then
that is a much better deal than expensing it. Because your corporate tax
rate isn't 100% even if you had the sales volume of Exxon.

The VAT (which is credited, not expensed) is only a percentage of the
cost.

Sorry, the first incidence of expense should have read claim (as in file
for refund).

There are four possibilities (ignoring the partial deductiblity and
assigning taxable benefit to the employee options, which governments
won't necessarily do)

00 Pay sales tax, expense not deductible (counts as income for
the company).
01 Pay sales tax, write off total cost as business expense
10 Get sales tax rebated, expense counts as income for company
11 Get sales tax rebated, write off remainder as business expense

In case 0x01, if the corporate income tax rate is less than the
sales tax rate you're better off than you would be with case 0x10.
But the best case (for beer consumers) would be 0x11.

0x11 is how it works in Europe when companies buy something. Technically
the refunded amount of VAT counts as income but it's a wash because paid
VAT counts as expense. So they cancel. I've never understood the logic
behind that last part, maybe to increase the sales of toner and ink
cartriges.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Greegor]

On Jun 10, 5:50 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:06:20 -0400, Spehro Pefhany

speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:37:37 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Of *course*.  The "Fair Tax" is only federal.  It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
them.

SP >Couldn't they voluntarily agree to do so?

krw > IMO, no.  That said, it's done every day.
krw > Think: highway trust fund.  Note the
krw > strings that go with that mess (e.g. seat belt laws).

You're touching on a very interesting twist
having to do with state's rights.

It's not the only area in which the Federal
Government basically BUYS a law from each
state in exchange for massive funding.

A few years back the Feds pushed every
state to lower the Blood Alcohol level
for the legal standard for intoxication to
be so low that a person having a single
glass of wine with a meal at a supper club
could be nailed for Drunk Driving.

When I drove taxi I watched drunks STAGGER
to their cars and saw how unwilling they
were to give up the keys.

I saw a large number of SEVERELY drunk
people drive off. It occurs to me that Police
are now wasting a LOT of time on the
less severe cases and makes the reality
more about selective enforcement than
about addressing the more severe problems.

We have enough areas where laws are
set up to be enforced only when the
authorities have an axe to grind or
isn't related somehow to the "perp".

It's called "selective enforcement".

But the tactic of "buying laws" or "buying states rights"
has become much more common.

At some level it steam rollers over the
individuality of states and weakens
the distinction between states, trending
toward one huge nation state.

 

On Jun 10, 9:37 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:37 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:40:26 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Ah, so property tax remains. State sales tax remains. State income tax
remains. No thanks, then I don't want the "fair tax".
Of *course*.  The "Fair Tax" is only federal.  It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
them.

To sum up the many points in play:

I don't think Joerg's understanding this at all: that the Fair Tax is
a federal tax that eliminates a huge federal mess.

I do understand that

And, the Constitution simply doesn't allow the federal government to
set, control, collect, or in any way determine how states collect
their revenues.  That would be unconstitutional.  So, the Fair Tax
can't eliminate state-stuff, that's up to each state.

But, the Fair Tax still simplifies things greatly--it eliminates the
many federal taxes I've listed repeatedly: personal income tax, Social
Security tax (6.5%-ish), Medicare tax, unemployment, matching taxes
paid by the employer[*], the new Obamacare taxes on income and
insurance, capital gains tax, alternative minimum tax, corporate
income tax, and more.  All replaced with a single tax collected at
point-of-sale.  Citizens would no longer have to file income tax
returns.

That is simply not true. It was discussed here ad nauseam that they will
still have to file their state tax returns as usual.

Obviously, but that's STATE. Federal goes away.

_That_ is what
causes all the effort and compliance costs. It makes no difference
whether you file state or federal or both. One alone will generate
nearly all the compliance works and costs all by itself, the other
simply follows a similar pattern.

I beg to differ. States don't charge Social Security tax, Medicare
Tax, etc. States usually have simpler rules too for things like
capital gains.

You have to get all your 1099s in
order, all you interest income, all your deductions.

If your state requires those, I guess so. Mine doesn't.

If the states do
not change their system as well then the claim that a "fair tax"
eliminates compliance costs is a big old joke. Because it doesn't.

[*] So, theoretically, your employer could pay you more.

That's a significant step forward.  (A giant leap forward?)

Joerg's concerned about potential double-taxation.  I brought that
concern personally to the actual people, and they're very receptive to
doing that.  Those things happen as amendments to bills as said bills
get debated and perfected in Congress. (In normal times, anyhow.)

And then, pretty soon, we are on our merry way again to a goliath
70,000+ page tax code

Oh please. We've got 76,000 pages now. Would it really kill the deal
if it took two measly extra pages in the (very modest, easy-to-
understand) Fair Tax bill to exclude Roth IRAs?

My greatest qualm is the prebate.  The idea of everyone getting
government checks just bugs me--it reeks of nanny-state.  John
suggested exempting necessities; I like that better.

That can be risky because it fosters misapproriation. What really blew
my mind was what some French folks did back in the late 70's: They broke
a piece off of a baguette and wiped the table with it. Cheaper ...

Taxation fosters misappropriation. That's just about our whole
problem--giving the trust fund to the teenagers. And look what
they've done with it...

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Joerg]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 10, 9:37 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:37 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:40:26 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Ah, so property tax remains. State sales tax remains. State income tax
remains. No thanks, then I don't want the "fair tax".
Of *course*. The "Fair Tax" is only federal. It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
them.
To sum up the many points in play:
I don't think Joerg's understanding this at all: that the Fair Tax is
a federal tax that eliminates a huge federal mess.
I do understand that

And, the Constitution simply doesn't allow the federal government to
set, control, collect, or in any way determine how states collect
their revenues. That would be unconstitutional. So, the Fair Tax
can't eliminate state-stuff, that's up to each state.
But, the Fair Tax still simplifies things greatly--it eliminates the
many federal taxes I've listed repeatedly: personal income tax, Social
Security tax (6.5%-ish), Medicare tax, unemployment, matching taxes
paid by the employer[*], the new Obamacare taxes on income and
insurance, capital gains tax, alternative minimum tax, corporate
income tax, and more. All replaced with a single tax collected at
point-of-sale. Citizens would no longer have to file income tax
returns.
That is simply not true. It was discussed here ad nauseam that they will
still have to file their state tax returns as usual.

Obviously, but that's STATE. Federal goes away.

So? What's the tangible benefit for Joe Q.Public in terms of compliance
effort and cost? Next to nothing ...

_That_ is what
causes all the effort and compliance costs. It makes no difference
whether you file state or federal or both. One alone will generate
nearly all the compliance works and costs all by itself, the other
simply follows a similar pattern.

I beg to differ. States don't charge Social Security tax, Medicare
Tax, etc. States usually have simpler rules too for things like
capital gains.

Social, medicare and all that are one-liners. The effort in doing a tax
return is all the other stuff and the rules aren't much simpler there,
at least not in California. Sorry, but I don not buy the compliance cost
reduction. Not at all, unless the states change as well but that'll be
up to them.

You have to get all your 1099s in
order, all you interest income, all your deductions.

If your state requires those, I guess so. Mine doesn't.

Mine does. There's a reason that my clients send me the 1099s in
triplicate

If the states do
not change their system as well then the claim that a "fair tax"
eliminates compliance costs is a big old joke. Because it doesn't.

[*] So, theoretically, your employer could pay you more.
That's a significant step forward. (A giant leap forward?)
Joerg's concerned about potential double-taxation. I brought that
concern personally to the actual people, and they're very receptive to
doing that. Those things happen as amendments to bills as said bills
get debated and perfected in Congress. (In normal times, anyhow.)
And then, pretty soon, we are on our merry way again to a goliath
70,000+ page tax code

Oh please. We've got 76,000 pages now. Would it really kill the deal
if it took two measly extra pages in the (very modest, easy-to-
understand) Fair Tax bill to exclude Roth IRAs?

As I said, many older people have savings and investments other than
Roth. They do not wish those to be taxed again. How will all that be
handled?

My greatest qualm is the prebate. The idea of everyone getting
government checks just bugs me--it reeks of nanny-state. John
suggested exempting necessities; I like that better.
That can be risky because it fosters misapproriation. What really blew
my mind was what some French folks did back in the late 70's: They broke
a piece off of a baguette and wiped the table with it. Cheaper ...

Taxation fosters misappropriation. That's just about our whole
problem--giving the trust fund to the teenagers. And look what
they've done with it...

Yup :-(

And an increased consumption-based tax fosters an increase in
underground economy. Big time.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[JosephKK]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:28:53 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Jun 10, 5:50 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:06:20 -0400, Spehro Pefhany

speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:37:37 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Of *course*.  The "Fair Tax" is only federal.  It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
them.

SP >Couldn't they voluntarily agree to do so?

krw > IMO, no.  That said, it's done every day.
krw > Think: highway trust fund.  Note the
krw > strings that go with that mess (e.g. seat belt laws).

You're touching on a very interesting twist
having to do with state's rights.

It's not the only area in which the Federal
Government basically BUYS a law from each
state in exchange for massive funding.

A few years back the Feds pushed every
state to lower the Blood Alcohol level
for the legal standard for intoxication to
be so low that a person having a single
glass of wine with a meal at a supper club
could be nailed for Drunk Driving.

When I drove taxi I watched drunks STAGGER
to their cars and saw how unwilling they
were to give up the keys.

I saw a large number of SEVERELY drunk
people drive off. It occurs to me that Police
are now wasting a LOT of time on the
less severe cases and makes the reality
more about selective enforcement than
about addressing the more severe problems.

We have enough areas where laws are
set up to be enforced only when the
authorities have an axe to grind or
isn't related somehow to the "perp".

It's called "selective enforcement".

But the tactic of "buying laws" or "buying states rights"
has become much more common.

At some level it steam rollers over the
individuality of states and weakens
the distinction between states, trending
toward one huge nation state.

It seems that you remember the 55 mph game as well.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:38:00 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 10, 5:50 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:06:20 -0400, Spehro Pefhany

speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:37:37 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Of *course*.  The "Fair Tax" is only federal.  It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
them.

Couldn't they voluntarily agree to do so?

IMO, no.  That said, it's done every day.  Think: highway trust fund.  Note
the strings that go with that mess (e.g. seat belt laws).

Sure they could, why not? The states can do most anything they want,
unless it interferes with interstate commerce, etc.

Because the Federal government has no authority to even ask. Not that that
would stop them, but...

 

On Jun 11, 10:43 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 10, 9:37 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:37 pm, krw wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:40:26 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Ah, so property tax remains. State sales tax remains. State income tax
remains. No thanks, then I don't want the "fair tax".

Of *course*.  The "Fair Tax" is only federal.  It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
them.

[snip]

That is simply not true. It was discussed here ad nauseam that they will
still have to file their state tax returns as usual.

Obviously, but that's STATE.  Federal goes away.

So? What's the tangible benefit for Joe Q.Public in terms of compliance
effort and cost? Next to nothing ...

All the time you spend tax planning and retirement planning to avoid
tax, for one example. All the time and energy companies spend
avoiding tax. Investment tax.

Joe Q. isn't the guy who carries the burden, but at least he'd get his
full paycheck, with *no* deductions.

_That_ is what
causes all the effort and compliance costs. It makes no difference
whether you file state or federal or both. One alone will generate
nearly all the compliance works and costs all by itself, the other
simply follows a similar pattern.

I beg to differ.  States don't charge Social Security tax, Medicare
Tax, etc.  States usually have simpler rules too for things like
capital gains.

Social, medicare and all that are one-liners. The effort in doing a tax
return is all the other stuff and the rules aren't much simpler there,
at least not in California. Sorry, but I don not buy the compliance cost
reduction. Not at all, unless the states change as well but that'll be
up to them.

You have to get all your 1099s in
order, all you interest income, all your deductions.

If your state requires those, I guess so.  Mine doesn't.

Mine does. There's a reason that my clients send me the 1099s in
triplicate



If the states do
not change their system as well then the claim that a "fair tax"
eliminates compliance costs is a big old joke. Because it doesn't.

[*] So, theoretically, your employer could pay you more.
That's a significant step forward.  (A giant leap forward?)
Joerg's concerned about potential double-taxation.  I brought that
concern personally to the actual people, and they're very receptive to
doing that.  Those things happen as amendments to bills as said bills
get debated and perfected in Congress. (In normal times, anyhow.)
And then, pretty soon, we are on our merry way again to a goliath
70,000+ page tax code

Oh please.  We've got 76,000 pages now.  Would it really kill the deal
if it took two measly extra pages in the (very modest, easy-to-
understand) Fair Tax bill to exclude Roth IRAs?

As I said, many older people have savings and investments other than
Roth. They do not wish those to be taxed again. How will all that be
handled?

Look, this affects me far more than you can know. I still find it
very interesting.

What do you suggest?

You don't get it--this is _your_ chance. You can just wait for
someone else to do something you hate then grumble about it, or you
can offer a solution.

I already suggested just freezing those accounts from further
deposits and allowing their contents to be used without tax. It
wouldn't be any harder than the restrictions we have now on IRA /
401(k), HSA, and so forth. I brought that idea directly to the Fair
Tax people, in person. What do _you_ want?

My greatest qualm is the prebate.  The idea of everyone getting
government checks just bugs me--it reeks of nanny-state.  John
suggested exempting necessities; I like that better.
That can be risky because it fosters misapproriation. What really blew
my mind was what some French folks did back in the late 70's: They broke
a piece off of a baguette and wiped the table with it. Cheaper ...

Taxation fosters misappropriation.  That's just about our whole
problem--giving the trust fund to the teenagers.  And look what
they've done with it...

Yup :-(

And an increased consumption-based tax fosters an increase in
underground economy. Big time.

a) So does increased income tax. b) If not this, we'll be getting a
VAT, plus higher income taxes, plus more. Do you like that better?

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Jun 10, 5:50 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:06:20 -0400, Spehro Pefhany

speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:37:37 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Of *course*.  The "Fair Tax" is only federal.  It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
them.

Couldn't they voluntarily agree to do so?

IMO, no.  That said, it's done every day.  Think: highway trust fund.  Note
the strings that go with that mess (e.g. seat belt laws).

Sure they could, why not? The states can do most anything they want,
unless it interferes with interstate commerce, etc.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Jun 1, 10:29 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Jun 1, 4:04 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 30, 7:47 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On May 22, 6:35 am, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...@att.net> wrote:

On May 21, 3:24 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

After that you try to say you're
not trying to ""sell"" socialism??

Not really. Americans ignore the way the rest of the world does
things, despite the fact that some ways of running a country are
better managed outside the USA. Health care is the the classic example
- US health care cost half as much again per head as the best foreign
systems (in France and Germany) while providing no better health care
for prosperous employed Americans than the French and German systems
provide for everybody, while providng much worse health care for the
less well-off part of the US population.

Actually, health care costs in the US are inflated due to the
additional R&D costs other countries don't pay.

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/commentary/the-cost-of-free-governmen...

"Countries with government-run health care save money by relying on
the United States to pay the research and development costs for new
medical technology and medications. If we adopt the cost-control
policies that have limited innovation in other countries, everyone
will suffer."

The bulk of the R&D costs of drug development is paid for by the
companies developing thedrugs, and recovered from the people who buy
thedrugs,

Yes.

many of them outside the US.

Are you saying Europeans use the latestdrugs?

Yes. They also develop quite a few of them.

[snip]

Yahoo around a bit for "cancerdrugs" and your fave EU country.  When
I do I see loads of horror stories--desperate patients on old
therapies, unable to get the latest (American)drugsideal for their
specific conditions.  Too expensive, one assumes.

More likely, not cost-effective enough.

(...stumbled on these and thought of this thread)

Yep. Saving people is expensive. We still do it.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/340/jun11_2/c3145

Very thrifty, isn't that?

What they don't tell you is that "10 weeks average increased survival"
often means some people live much longer, while others get no
benefit. If you're in the 1st camp, you're a happy camper.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/03/my-drug-problem/7279/


[snip]

The British National Health Service is appreciably more careful with
its money than US health insurers

Wait, that's a change. I thought US insurers were greedy bastards
withholding treatment for profit. Now they're greedy penny-pinchers
and they foolishly blow megabux uselessly on hopeless patients?


--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Greegor]

On Jun 11, 8:54 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:28:53 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com
wrote:





On Jun 10, 5:50 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:06:20 -0400, Spehro Pefhany

speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:37:37 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Of *course*.  The "Fair Tax" is only federal.  It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
them.

SP  >Couldn't they voluntarily agree to do so?

krw > IMO, no.  That said, it's done every day.
krw > Think: highway trust fund.  Note the
krw > strings that go with that mess (e.g. seat belt laws).

You're touching on a very interesting twist
having to do with state's rights.

It's not the only area in which the Federal
Government basically BUYS a law from each
state in exchange for massive funding.

A few years back the Feds pushed every
state to lower the Blood Alcohol level
for the legal standard for intoxication to
be so low that a person having a single
glass of wine with a meal at a supper club
could be nailed for Drunk Driving.

When I drove taxi I watched drunks STAGGER
to their cars and saw how unwilling they
were to give up the keys.

I saw a large number of SEVERELY drunk
people drive off.  It occurs to me that Police
are now wasting a LOT of time on the
less severe cases and makes the reality
more about selective enforcement than
about addressing the more severe problems.

We have enough areas where laws are
set up to be enforced only when the
authorities have an axe to grind or
isn't related somehow to the "perp".

It's called "selective enforcement".

But the tactic of "buying laws" or "buying states rights"
has become much more common.

At some level it steam rollers over the
individuality of states and weakens
the distinction between states, trending
toward one huge nation state.

JKK > It seems that you remember the 55 mph game as well.

It's not restricted to highway laws either.

 

[Joerg]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 11, 10:43 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 10, 9:37 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:37 pm, krw wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:40:26 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Ah, so property tax remains. State sales tax remains. State income tax
remains. No thanks, then I don't want the "fair tax".
Of *course*. The "Fair Tax" is only federal. It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
them.

[snip]

That is simply not true. It was discussed here ad nauseam that they will
still have to file their state tax returns as usual.
Obviously, but that's STATE. Federal goes away.
So? What's the tangible benefit for Joe Q.Public in terms of compliance
effort and cost? Next to nothing ...

All the time you spend tax planning and retirement planning to avoid
tax, for one example. All the time and energy companies spend
avoiding tax. Investment tax.

So state taxes don't need to be planned for? Why is that?

Retirement planning will all get upset and become rather intense if they
don't exempt savings beyond Roths et cetera. Because people would have
to find a decent place outside the country.

Joe Q. isn't the guy who carries the burden, but at least he'd get his
full paycheck, with *no* deductions.

Sorry, wrong again. Obviously, from what you and Keith have written
here, he will see state tax withholding.

_That_ is what
causes all the effort and compliance costs. It makes no difference
whether you file state or federal or both. One alone will generate
nearly all the compliance works and costs all by itself, the other
simply follows a similar pattern.
I beg to differ. States don't charge Social Security tax, Medicare
Tax, etc. States usually have simpler rules too for things like
capital gains.
Social, medicare and all that are one-liners. The effort in doing a tax
return is all the other stuff and the rules aren't much simpler there,
at least not in California. Sorry, but I don not buy the compliance cost
reduction. Not at all, unless the states change as well but that'll be
up to them.

You have to get all your 1099s in
order, all you interest income, all your deductions.
If your state requires those, I guess so. Mine doesn't.
Mine does. There's a reason that my clients send me the 1099s in
triplicate



If the states do
not change their system as well then the claim that a "fair tax"
eliminates compliance costs is a big old joke. Because it doesn't.
[*] So, theoretically, your employer could pay you more.
That's a significant step forward. (A giant leap forward?)
Joerg's concerned about potential double-taxation. I brought that
concern personally to the actual people, and they're very receptive to
doing that. Those things happen as amendments to bills as said bills
get debated and perfected in Congress. (In normal times, anyhow.)
And then, pretty soon, we are on our merry way again to a goliath
70,000+ page tax code
Oh please. We've got 76,000 pages now. Would it really kill the deal
if it took two measly extra pages in the (very modest, easy-to-
understand) Fair Tax bill to exclude Roth IRAs?
As I said, many older people have savings and investments other than
Roth. They do not wish those to be taxed again. How will all that be
handled?

Look, this affects me far more than you can know. I still find it
very interesting.

What do you suggest?

You don't get it--this is _your_ chance. You can just wait for
someone else to do something you hate then grumble about it, or you
can offer a solution.

I did that: Fix the current system. Roll back exemptions and pork, ditch
AMT or at least properly inflation-index it, and so on. I cannot imagine
that you seriously believe that a so-called "fair tax" won't get
clobbered the same way the once simple income tax system has been. Just
faster, because budget shortfalls will happen faster.

As an engineer I am used to not just completely toss a clients system
and suggest a re-design from scratch. First I look at it, see what needs
to be fixed and optimized, and then come up with detailed suggestions
where, how, and what it's going to take.

I already suggested just freezing those accounts from further
deposits and allowing their contents to be used without tax. It
wouldn't be any harder than the restrictions we have now on IRA /
401(k), HSA, and so forth. I brought that idea directly to the Fair
Tax people, in person. What do _you_ want?

That this shows up in the written proposals. What concerns me is that
this rather important stuff wasn't mentioned at all in all the text I
read (from your links). Meaning the whole thing doesn't appear to be
that well thought out before going public.

What also needs to be in those proposals is just how exactly this is
going to work. How can you use it without tax if there is, as is
claimed, not to be any more paperwork? People have to give the Federales
their account statement? I don't think that's going to fly with the
people. And then what? You get a complete rebate? Must compile all
receipts for that? Forced to deplete your savings? Where's the
compliance cost going then?

Beside lofty goals there needs to be more meat: How exactly the whole
stuff is done in practice and administered.

My greatest qualm is the prebate. The idea of everyone getting
government checks just bugs me--it reeks of nanny-state. John
suggested exempting necessities; I like that better.
That can be risky because it fosters misapproriation. What really blew
my mind was what some French folks did back in the late 70's: They broke
a piece off of a baguette and wiped the table with it. Cheaper ...
Taxation fosters misappropriation. That's just about our whole
problem--giving the trust fund to the teenagers. And look what
they've done with it...
Yup :-(

And an increased consumption-based tax fosters an increase in
underground economy. Big time.

a) So does increased income tax. b) If not this, we'll be getting a
VAT, plus higher income taxes, plus more. Do you like that better?

If spending is rampant we will get that anyhow and it doesn't matter
what the tax is called. A flat sales tax isn't miraculously going to
make such increasing debt go away. In fact, it makes it a whole lot more
unpredictable. We have to start looking farther than our own borders.
Case in point is Germany where for many years consumers have clamped
down. They just kept a whole lot of their money, didn't spend it, and
that has resulted in serious VAT shortfalls. If the VAT or "fair tax" or
whatever is your only source you're screwed if that happens.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 08:10:42 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 11, 10:43 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 10, 9:37 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:37 pm, krw wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:40:26 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Ah, so property tax remains. State sales tax remains. State income tax
remains. No thanks, then I don't want the "fair tax".
Of *course*. The "Fair Tax" is only federal. It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
them.

[snip]

That is simply not true. It was discussed here ad nauseam that they will
still have to file their state tax returns as usual.
Obviously, but that's STATE. Federal goes away.
So? What's the tangible benefit for Joe Q.Public in terms of compliance
effort and cost? Next to nothing ...

All the time you spend tax planning and retirement planning to avoid
tax, for one example. All the time and energy companies spend
avoiding tax. Investment tax.


So state taxes don't need to be planned for? Why is that?

State taxes are, by far, simpler than federal income tax. Goin to the "Fair
Tax" would be a major simplification, even if the states didn't follow, which
they will (pretty much have to).

Retirement planning will all get upset and become rather intense if they
don't exempt savings beyond Roths et cetera. Because people would have
to find a decent place outside the country.

James has conceded this point.

Joe Q. isn't the guy who carries the burden, but at least he'd get his
full paycheck, with *no* deductions.


Sorry, wrong again. Obviously, from what you and Keith have written
here, he will see state tax withholding.

If the state doesn't follow, sure. Anyone living (or working) in a state with
an income tax will still have withholding.

<snip>

You don't get it--this is _your_ chance. You can just wait for
someone else to do something you hate then grumble about it, or you
can offer a solution.


I did that: Fix the current system. Roll back exemptions and pork, ditch
AMT or at least properly inflation-index it, and so on. I cannot imagine
that you seriously believe that a so-called "fair tax" won't get
clobbered the same way the once simple income tax system has been. Just
faster, because budget shortfalls will happen faster.

If it has *any* exemptions, yes it will. Washington likes to grease slippery
slopes. If there are *no* exemptions it's harder to slide into the abyss
we're in now. That said, before the Fair Tax could be implemented the 16th
amendment needs to be repealed. That won't happen either.

As an engineer I am used to not just completely toss a clients system
and suggest a re-design from scratch. First I look at it, see what needs
to be fixed and optimized, and then come up with detailed suggestions
where, how, and what it's going to take.

....and if you came across a design as broken as the US is now you'd change
some resistor values?

<snip>

And an increased consumption-based tax fosters an increase in
underground economy. Big time.

a) So does increased income tax. b) If not this, we'll be getting a
VAT, plus higher income taxes, plus more. Do you like that better?


If spending is rampant we will get that anyhow and it doesn't matter
what the tax is called. A flat sales tax isn't miraculously going to
make such increasing debt go away. In fact, it makes it a whole lot more
unpredictable. We have to start looking farther than our own borders.
Case in point is Germany where for many years consumers have clamped
down. They just kept a whole lot of their money, didn't spend it, and
that has resulted in serious VAT shortfalls. If the VAT or "fair tax" or
whatever is your only source you're screwed if that happens.

In high unemployment the income tax falls short, too. Many states are feeling
this pinch (no, it doesn't explain CA). The "Fair Tax" does make funding
government more obvious, which would tend to limit it more.

[*] I would suggest a straight sales tax or flat income tax for this purpose.