flipper:
I'm lost. Who's supplying to whom that's exporting from to where?
Also our IRS gets lost. See Martin Brown's answer.
Ah, hah!. One of them trouble maker types 
Did I mention that he was not allowed to run again? ;-)
Well, as I also mentioned, the Republican Party, in the meanwhile,
disappeared for a scandal. They had accepted $120.000 for their "campaign
fund" by the same guy that, in the meanwhile, distributed $150 million to
*all* the parties.
Some $110M were traced by the judges, and that lead to the destruction of
almost all italian parties, except for the ex-fascists (because they never
ever had the slightest power) and the communist party (at the time it was
still named so) because they are honest.
Right. But what about the missing $40M (roughly proportional to PCI's
representativity in Parliament)?
Don't get me wrong. While I concentrate on the 'problems' and 'dopes'
we occasionally luck out and elect someone with sense.
But smart politicians never make the same mistake twice. ;-)
And if the voters are short-sighted and spoiled...
Well, I'm afraid that you may be close to it. Habitual evader.
I see. Well, that gets back to my comment that you *need* exports so I
don't get why that's 'bad'.
1) A "regular" company sums up all the VAT it has added to its invoices,
detracts the VAT that was added on the invoices from its suppliers and pays
the difference to the State.
2) If a company exports something, "she" does not add VAT on the invoice
for the exported goods, so she pays less to the State.
3) If a company exports most of "her" products, the amout to be paid to the
State becomes negative (because of the VAT she paid to suppliers), so she
has the right to a refund, a cumbersome and "scam-prone" procedure.
So the solution, for "habitual exporters" (case 3), was to have them not to
be charget VAT at all, because, statistically, their suppliers had more
"non exporting" customers than "exporting" (VAT exempt) ones, so they would
pay a little less VAT (as in case 2) and nobody would ask for a refund.
But, since it is more than 10 years that we have the F24 (the smart form I
talked about), and that the "abitual exporter" will have to pay the income
taxes and retirement for his employees (that, as we've seen, make 2/3 of
government income, while VAT and levies are just 1/3), they could be
charged full VAT and still have 1/3 of taxes to pay, without any need for
refunds.
Well, more or less. If the exporting company is just a "box mover" whith
high revenues but relatively low profit and few employees (= little added
value), it will need a refund, but such companies are a more and more rare
exception.
But, despite F24, we still have VAT exempt "habitual exporters".
Go figure...
And, if you are a very high added value (I design and build trivial
embedded systems) "company" with mostly "habitual exporters" (mostly to
perfectly italian ships) customers, you're screwed.
So far. I liked the Bushes much more that the current an pre-previous
president, but the fact that one was the father of the other, and this
after already having had the Kennedy dynasty, should ring some bells.
Yes. Although, I don't think anyone voted for the second 'because' of
the first.
Yes, but he was able to run (= collect donations and receive political
endorsements) mostly because of his father. Well, you may say, better
because of a father that was a President than an alcohol smuggler.
That was Clarence Thomas and the 59'th minute of the eleventh hour
Anita Hill 'sexual harassment' accusation.
Right.
Maybe I'm culturally deprived but I never heard of dropping pubic
hairs around, much less on a drink lid, as a 'come on'. That is, I
never heard of it till Anita Hill explained it to us.
LOL. I missed that explaination, since I did not have a TV, but not much,
since, when I got one, I only watched the newborn Comedy Central.