Re: conservation of Euros

Huh? It's just one big wire transfer.

I think it's a non-starter and sure hope it stays that way. At least for the next 40-50 years :-)

"Next", that's just the problem. Yesterday I heard another of the countless stories where renters had totally trashed a nice home. Fixing it back up will likely cost all the collected rent income (before they stopped paying), and then some.

Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price quickly?

There'll be new tax land-mines, like who gets to pay ficticious rent tax, how much, and who doesn't. Et cetera.

You think you can just wire money out of the country without government intervention? More than $10K requires all sorts of paperwork, and taxes paid.

Given that congress likes (to play with) the current tax code, it's not going to happen. I think it would be a giant step forward, but I'd prefer the "flat" tax. Perhaps only because I understand it better, though.

I meant, what's the next drive-in theater or golf course investment scheme. I agree, you don't want to deal with people.

Because there is more than one manufacturer.

That part still seems iffy, yes.

spent

already

Got any links? That would completely squish international trade. I know people who have bought rather pricey stuff overseas, and just wired the payment. Plus they can't make you pay taxes on already taxed money.

With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is often zero.

IMHO the whole idea is iffy. Fair means it has to be fair to just about everyone and not just part of the population. And that's not the case.

spent

already

No, but it's been in the news lately, with Obama's attack on the Swiss banks. Apparently if you move cash out of the country you have to pay the equivalent of the death tax.

already

Keith is confused. The $10K CASH reporting requirement does not apply to wires. ...Jim Thompson

I don't see the relevance.

The only hole I see in it is savings, that we both object to. I may not agree (or understand completely) the economics of taxing large items (homes and cars) heavily.

already

paid.

Domestically, no. You're not allowed to take more than $10K out of the country without declaring it, and possibly paying tax on it. Different issue.

The relevance is this:

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

a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule.

b. The percentage of labor in the COGS even for products made in the US is much smaller than they anticipate.

There would be some major stampedes if it ever were to happen (or even seriously discussed, after the recent retroactive stuff). And as people not only in the Wild West know stampedes are usually dangerous.

spent

already

paid.

This cannot be the case. I have clients who buy expensive machines overseas because they have to. They don't pay a death tax.

spent

already

paid.

Corporations "living" in the US.

get

government

spent

it

already

paid.

And proprietors living in the US. So what's the (legal, in terms of those taxes) difference between them and John Q.Public?

is_...

basics_main

Right. If you pay rent, it's taxed. But, you paid no income tax, so you're still ahead.

It's dirt simple. Above they're just tallying the taxable flows, which they have to do to estimate revenues.

Buildings have a high labor content, and thus a high hidden tax content. Remove those costs, and the price of building will fall to compensate. How much will they fall? You could reasonably expect them to fall by nearly however much the builder's cost is reduced.

Further, you'd be paying with money you got straight from your job, invested for however many years, all without ever paying any tax.

Well, stop naysaying and fix it. That's what engineers do.

We could simply exempt all existing taxed savings and investments, and create accounts for those, with tax-free debit cards, or whatever. Anything you buy with that debit card from that account either a) isn't taxed at sale or b) you keep your statements and file for a refund. Blah, blah, blah.

It ain't rocket science.

All these considerations only apply for a transition period anyhow, then they go away. Since you're still working you'll get years of income-tax-free benefits from the thing, if enacted. Wouldn't that be great?

The alternative is this: last year Obama spent $1.60 for every $1.00 he took in. Of that $1.00, he got roughly $0.50 from income tax, and $0.50 from SS tax. To fix that, assuming interest rates stay low (which they won't), he'd have to raise income taxes by double just to break even, or every other tax in the book by 50% or so, plus make up some more.

There is no"fictitious" rent tax, and no assessor. You never need assessors, since taxes are based on actual sales price--that's the assessment.

AIUI "imputed rent" is the implied _value_ you're getting from living in or using a property you own. Economists tally that for their own calculations. It isn't taxed if you already own the property and are simply living there on the one hand because there's no sale; however, if you buy a new property, the "imputed rent" of you living there in the future is effectively taxed because the sale pays the Fair Tax. Nothing wrong with that.

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com

people

(that

of the

left

embedded

Tax)

pay

delay

price=20

is=20

=20

=20

I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for example.

have

that

post-taxes

land-

like

rent=20

about=20

case.

not agree

and

Much of that will depend on how property tax on homes and use tax on vehicles gets changed. 40 years of property tax adds up.

on

When I buy a house from saved and already taxed money I wish not to pay ficticious rent. Anyhow, that alone will kill such proposals because AARP and others will likely blast them.

And the buyer who buys from already taxed savings gets socked. No, I am against that.

I generally do not fix things that aren't worth fixing. We can instead simplify the income tax code. That's what would be a useful project. In engineering it's often best not to nuke an exisiting design just to replace it by an equally risky or more risky new one. And this one can seriously blow up. I'd venture to say, it will.

Yup, put them into escrow. We're the government, register them here by Dec-31, trust us, oh yeah ...

And suddenly all the people who were diligent savers will use those accounts to buy stuff and front-load the country with a debt that makes our current and already bad one look like peanuts. Then we'd become another Greece.

That's one reason everyone in this here neighborhood is looking at the November elections, at least that's what people told me :-)

So, how exactly do you suggest that's done when Joe Q.Public fires up his circular saw and builds himself a nice big extra wing on his house? Or the friend of his brother-in-law's friend builds him a granny flat? The underground economy will become rampant because an extra 23% savings is to be had.

Majorly wrong: As I said, if people buy a condo in a retirement community and do so from already taxed savings this is grossly unfair. They will all struggle to find a "pre-flat-tax" built condo but eventually (meaning within very few months, or shall I say days?) those are all gone, snapped up by people with adequate funds, "for later".

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

agree

You can bet on it that a certain kind of politician will only agree to all that if it result in a serious net increase in taxes squeezed out of the public.

Well, the China content of a moderately high-tech electronics item that is "made in China" is probably less than 20% of the retail price. The rest goes in the large retail markup (which is domestic) and the imported components and raw materials (and imported IP).

Similarly name-brand sneakers- they get part of a few dollars for making them, and they end up on the store shelves for $150.