Re: conservation of Euros

addressing

side.

Hey, I'm not Phil :-)

I disagree with that and think I've explained why. Remember, unfortunately we are an import country with a rather large trade imbalance. With the stuff that Joe Q.Publich buys it's even worse, other than food it pretty much all comes from countries like China. On the export side it's more investment goods, Boeing airplanes and such. Yeah, a Boeing 777 will become cheaper but how's that going to help John Q.Public?

Fair enough. But why not try to fix the current system first?

That's why I think a stampede would be unavoidable.

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 ;-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Joerg
Loading thread data ...

I

That's where the submarine sails. Leroy doesn't pay Fair tax on Pedro's labor. No record keeping. No story to end.

Reply to
krw

Becuase Congress is back in the exemption business.

Legislating sin is a large part of the problem.

Right. Any color is fine, as long as it's a revenue worm. It's really about the ever expanding waste line (see: Congressman).

Irrelevant. How long before the sugar industry is exempted? Corn? Cars built by government entities...

Reply to
krw

"without a difference" comes to mind.

Reply to
krw

addressing

side.

Phil?

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.

Reality.

Reply to
krw

I

Tax evasion/avoidance is attractive with a VAT where the end user does not get the tax rebated (consumer) and the cost is mostly labor (renovations, haircuts, car bodywork, house painting etc.). One bad side of that is that it establishes a culture of tax evasion at the grass roots.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Spehro Pefhany
[snip]

That's bad ?:-) ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

Arguable, but I think so, especially if those of us who won't/can't cheat end up shouldering much more of the burden as a result.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

for

dog I

Yes, and that's why I think that any sort of tax on end user sales is counter-productive. Here in Calfornia the dems regularly lament that they need ever more money and that services should be taxed. Blissfully unaware that this would make unemployment really shoot up and the underground economy grow by leaps and bounds. So will a VAT. So will a "fair tax".

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Joerg

for

dog I

a

Rebate a portion of the tax paid on labor and services. Submit receipt, get cash.

Reply to
krw

Q.Public must

here for

hot dog I

Dude had a

tile, pipe,

"That'll be

paid the

no name

sale).

on those

the 23%

property

remember

make=20

table=20

=20

=20

Only when combined with irresponsible liberal spending like in CA and DC.

Reply to
JosephKK

about

of=20

Cars

Keith, thanks for responding to his tiresome cackheaddedness.

Reply to
JosephKK

from the now

clothes

sprouting up

$29.99

like Costco.

instead of

anyone addressing

understands :-(

it, on either side.

hope so.

Tax

but for

whole lot

been there :-(

:-)

amending

taxed.

of flak=20

=20

as kooks.

Yep, and i think it sets a record for fastest and strongest crossover from more strongly approve to more strongly disapprove of all newly elected Presidents.

Reply to
JosephKK

he now

es

ng up

99

tco.

ad of

ne addressing

nds :-(

either side.

o.

for

t

e :-(

ng

k

Yes, Sir Mr. Dr. Hobbs. He mentioned the concern about about people having to pay Fair Tax on already income-taxed retirement savings in another thread.

I still don't think it's a serious a penalty to people who've already paid taxes on their savings (as I have). I mostly buy the argument that selling prices will fall as mfrs' embedded tax-costs are stripped away, preserving my buying power, and mostly offsetting the Fair Tax I'll have to pay. (I believe in the power of free markets.)

Instead I look at the tax-deferred people as getting lucky--their buying power will be increased. Good for them--maybe they'll buy more stuff and pay more tax. I made my deal on that part of my money years ago, and paid my dues under that regimen. Should I have bought Apple stock instead? Sure, but I didn't.

Truthfully though, I so despise the current mess, and think it such an unwieldy, wrong-headed and burdensome counter-productivity mess that I'd take a new, simplified, better, system even if I had to take a bit of a haircut (just a trim, please!), because I think it's so much better for the country.

Reagan implemented basically a flat tax, kind of. He killed all the deductions, and for a while we had a simple, three-tiered straight percentage tax on income. The rates were lower, but it increased collections, and it was a lot easier. That was 76,000 pages (the size of the current code + regulations) ago.

People constantly weigh the money cost of tax compliance; I count the human cost, the time and creativity misdirected and wasted, the inventions and advances lost for all time, and think I'd more than get back anything I lost in the transition to a Fair Tax. I think the improved productivity of the nation for years to come would benefit us all more than enough to repay me for any hit I might take.

e of

"Revolution is brewing" -- Tea Party sign

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

must

ere for

ot dog I

had a

pipe,

be

the

name

ale).

those

23%

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.

Of course today Pelsoi would make you file a 1099 on the guy, getting citizens to rat one another out.

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.

Yes, but ditto for income tax.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

e now

s

g up

9

co.

d of

e addressing

ds :-(

ither side.

.

or

e :-(

g
k

No, you're you. (!)

ic?

The Fair Tax guys insist that, in the aggregate, their claim holds. They recommended reading their analysis by industry, manufacturing in particular. Sellers' hidden tax burdens fall dramatically--to zero-- their cost falls, and then their price. Free market economics.

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?

s
o

There's no reason not to stampede right now--the currency's being debased. That issue is Fair Tax-neutral.

it

.
l

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.

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.

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.

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

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

c must

here for

hot dog I

e had a

pipe,

be

d the

name

sale).

those

23%
y
s

So? If Pedro wants to cheat right now he just doesn't report the income, and doesn't pay income tax on his labor anyhow. Under the Fair Tax cheaters pay at least something on part of it--you would've gotten Fair Tax on the materials.

People will always make deals with their friends and neighbors, trade stuff, lend things, etc. That's true now, and will be true then.

Gotta go--I'm about to lose power for the day!

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

addressing

side.

Well, then that's where they and I (and a whole lot of others) will not be able to come to a concensus.

An analysis on paper is nice but it will be necessary to drill down further. The only way to do that is if Walmart or a similar company opens the books. Take a clothing items, toys, whatever, and then drill down the money flows. Sorry, but that has to be done first. Free market economics :-)

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.

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

And some of it is happening. I personally met people who will wait no longer than this November. However, since this is a slow process and other currency zones such as Europe are doing the same thing it's not a landslide. In contrast, the announcement of a "fair tax" could be like hitting the ignition button. Kablouie.

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.

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.

And some people will pay it twice. It's right in front of them, for all to see.

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%.

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?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Joerg

addressing

side.

I mostly do not buy that argument. Again, the bulk of consumer goods is produced outside the US and, thanks to the power of free markets, margins in the distribution on those are rather slim. The labor involved in distribution is miniscule and the tiny domestic part of that is pretty much the only place you'll see savings. When you order at Amazon you are basically communicating with a robot, a.k.a. computer database system.

So, tell us, what exactly is fair about that?

Now you've answered one of your questions from the other post. Things can be fixed with the existing system if we put our minds to it. As was demonstrated in Reagan's days. I still think he was one of the greatest presidents our country ever had.

True. But compliance cost has gone up so high because the system is so complicated that people (including myself) must use and pay a CPA to do it. Reagan has show a viable path here. We could get back to the time when filing a 1040 (and a schedule C in cases like mine) suffices for most returns.

[...]
--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Joerg

must

for

dog I

had a

pipe,

sale).

those

That's how it works for consultants in Europe. The payee gets the cash, but in the end it's a wash. What that did was create yet another huge bureaucracy. With public worker pensions, public worker health care et cetera. Great.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Joerg

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.