Joerg wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

That the French are on par with USA intruiged me though. It kind of kills the popular US myth about 'socialism' being
anti-business.

Socialism is anti-business.

So how do you explain the equal productivity ? Of course Europe isn't full-blown Socialist of course (despite the ranting of
some loonies here). We've simply adopted the best bits for our social policies.

It's not quite equal :-)

I found another source that put France ahead of the USA actually.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:


Joerg wrote:


Eeyore wrote:


So, what's your life expectancy in the USA if you get seriously sick and don't have a private medical insurance policy ?
That's something like 25% of the US population.

The serioulsy sick are always treated, whether they are covered or not.
It's the law and hospitals stick to that law.


But they're not given top quality treatment are they ? It's quite limited in scope AIUI. Worse than they'd get under our NHS for
sure.


"AIUI". That's the problem. You don't live here and you do not visit
such people at the hospital. For example, people who have exhausted
their retirement savings or who are on welfare. The care is pretty good,
actually.

The problems are in an area that the health system cannot influence. For
example people who exhibit a haphazard pattern when taking their
medications because that's how they approach life in general.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Eeyore wrote:


Joerg wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

Also, I gather that your popular HMO policies restrict the treatment available to you.

Mine does not. In fact, I know people insured with my HMO (Kaiser) that
got PET scans authorized within the hour after finding a speck of
cancer. The stories I've heard from European cancer patients paint a
very different picture.


I didn't mean just about PET scans.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=hmo+restrictions


There will always be restrictions, else systems will be abused.

What HMOs do pay for is sometimes stunning. For example, friends of ours
had a full blown in vitro, resulting in beautiful twins. All paid for by
the HMO. I don't make this up, I held one of them in my arms.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Eeyore wrote:


Joerg wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

Joerg wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

That the French are on par with USA intruiged me though. It kind of kills the popular US myth about 'socialism' being
anti-business.

Socialism is anti-business.

So how do you explain the equal productivity ? Of course Europe isn't full-blown Socialist of course (despite the ranting of
some loonies here). We've simply adopted the best bits for our social policies.

It's not quite equal :-)


I found another source that put France ahead of the USA actually.


And the link would be?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:41:26 GMT, Ross Herbert
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:29:34 GMT, Joerg
wrote:

Also, they are definitely not on par WRT
services such as health care. If you get really sick over there your
chances of dying are quite a bit higher than in the US. Most
certainly so in the UK.


I suppose you haven't seen Michael Moore's Sicko....?

Quite frankly, it seemed pretty truthful to me and I would hate for
the Australian health care system to go the way of the US system. In
fact GW and little Johnny Howard are such good mates that the US -
Australia FTA which was negotiated recently has a hidden agenda item.
If the US allows access for Australian farm produce we have to relax
our very generous Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Over here we pay
very little for a long list of drugs which are assessed for inclusion
on the PBS and the big drug manufacturers don't like it. They are
doing their damndest to put a spike in the wheel by way of the FTA, so
that we have to pay as much for the same drugs as you do in the US.

I have come to wonder whether a private citizen with one of these diseases,
(who happens to be a chemical engineer) might be better off synthesising
his own drugs from the information in the patent descriptions and journal
articles, rather than buying the drugs. It is possibly close to the point
where a fairly good pharmaceutical lab could be assembled for the cost of a
few years worth of drugs, and the equipment could likely be sold afterwards
if not needed because the health outcome had resolved itself one way or the
other. I remember watching an interview with a Swiss man who could have
paid for his treatment by selling the family house and taking out some
loans, but he decided on economic grounds that it would be better for his
family if he decided to live a bit shorter life and let them keep the
house, car, trust fund etc. for their future.

And GW is pushing the agenda through his little lap-dog Johnny Howard.

Ummm? Who elected this lap dog? Why don't you put the blame back
where it belongs?
Damn right too. But if they criticise Johnny then they get locked up for
"sedition" nowadays.

Chris

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:37:35 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:11:35 GMT, Joerg
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:


Joerg wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

Joerg wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:


Pasteur comes to mind because of the Pasteur Institute, you might get a
clue. They rival any US medical research institution in productivity and
contributions to the state of the knowledge. France possesses some of
the most brilliant people in the world, and these are French ethnics and
not imports. There is no "used to be" to it.

So, then, why is the cancer mortality rate higher there?


Why is overall US mortality higher than say, Iran ?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2066rank.html


And the UK's even higher yet?


According to that particular table. The point is that narrowly and selectively choosing
numbers can say whatever you want.


Got any better links, here?



Probably because Iranians live on
healthier food. So far I haven't met an Iranian immigrant who was
overweight at a young age. Those who came with their parents or were
born here, very different story. Same for other countries. Turkey isn't
on the list but folks from there told me of relatives that are around
100 and totally healthy, doing hardcore farming work (!), often despite
a bad habit of smoking. However, they never ate a single Snicker's bar
in their whole life because you couldn't buy them out in the country.


That's probably a very large part of it.



Long story short we've got to give up our cheeseburgers and you guys
have to give up the bangers ;-)


I'd suggest go easy on processed foods generally. You can actually make very healthy
burgers and sausages but not a healthy chicken (Mc)nugget for example.


Yep, we never buy cooked burgers. Not even pre-pressed patties. All made
from scratch and then barbequed by yours truly.



You might also ask what comparative incidence of cancer is. I doubt they're the
same.


Doesn't make much of a difference. You get a certain kind of cancer, you
treat it, then look at the long term survivals. Breast cancer is breast
cancer, no matter which country. Given a large enough number (not always
the case in some medical "studies") you'll have quite a reliable
indicator of how good the system works in a given country.

For example, one of the things I noticed when coming to the US: When
someone got cancer in Europe they had to fight hard to get the doc to
prescribe and the health insurers to pay for a PET scan. Here in the US
they usually send you to the next PET scan site instantly.


And the widespread use of 'scans' (are they all really needed) is one reason your health
care costs so much it seems. Is a PET scan even the most appropriate thing ?


I'd say the posted recovery rates speak volumes. Yes, a PET scan is a
very powerful tool. Currently I wouldn't know any better tools for
localized cancer. Sure, it is expensive. But I'd rather pay somewhat
higher premiums knowing it's there should I ever need it.

A place around the corner from here does MRI scans on pets..

There is a market for high-resolution, small-bore MRI systems for lab
animals, so you can feed experimental drugs and such to rats and
rabbits and see how they are doung without having to lop their little
heads off.

John

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
There is a market for high-resolution, small-bore MRI systems for lab
animals, so you can feed experimental drugs and such to rats and
rabbits and see how they are doung without having to lop their little
heads off.

Some animals such as chickens really don't seem to mind having their heads
lopped off.

Granted, it is still a little messy and all.

Hmm... I thinking those MRI systems might need some high-precision pulse
generators... I wonder who might make something like that...

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:18:24 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:41:26 GMT, Ross Herbert
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:29:34 GMT, Joerg
wrote:

Also, they are definitely not on par WRT
services such as health care. If you get really sick over there
your
chances of dying are quite a bit higher than in the US. Most
certainly so in the UK.


I suppose you haven't seen Michael Moore's Sicko....?

Quite frankly, it seemed pretty truthful to me and I would hate for
the Australian health care system to go the way of the US system. In
fact GW and little Johnny Howard are such good mates that the US -
Australia FTA which was negotiated recently has a hidden agenda
item.
If the US allows access for Australian farm produce we have to relax
our very generous Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Over here we pay
very little for a long list of drugs which are assessed for
inclusion
on the PBS and the big drug manufacturers don't like it. They are
doing their damndest to put a spike in the wheel by way of the FTA,
so
that we have to pay as much for the same drugs as you do in the US.
And GW is pushing the agenda through his little lap-dog Johnny
Howard.

Ummm? Who elected this lap dog? Why don't you put the blame back
where it belongs?

That will all be taken care of this November when Kevin Rudd is
elected prime Minister. Unlike your current leader, who was initially
elected on a very dubious vote count, we at least elect our leaders by
way of 95% of the voting public. Of course, I am not saying that
compulsory voting means all votes are cast by "thinking voters", but
even an invalid vote (I don't support this action, btw) is valid since
it can represent lack of confidence in all candidates.

GW's main supporter in Iraq, Tony Blair has gone and now it won't be
long before Johnny is gone and Australian troops in Iraq will be
pulled out. Don't worry, they will most likely be moved to Afghanistan
where we are still supporting the US.

You didn't indicate that you support the health system in the US so it
can be inferred that you agree Sicko represented the comparitively
true situation in the US.


The way everyone blames GW for everything, you'd think he walks on
water ;-)


Nah Jim, it's just that GW is a world leader whose decisions have such
a dramatic impact on the economic and social aspects of other
countries - in many cases to their detriment - that it is hard for
people such as myself to stomach the fact that he was in fact elected
by approximately 30% of the voting population of the US.

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 19:42:57 -0700, "Joel Kolstad"
wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote in message
.. .
There is a market for high-resolution, small-bore MRI systems for lab
animals, so you can feed experimental drugs and such to rats and
rabbits and see how they are doung without having to lop their little
heads off.

Some animals such as chickens really don't seem to mind having their heads
lopped off.

Granted, it is still a little messy and all.

Hmm... I thinking those MRI systems might need some high-precision pulse
generators... I wonder who might make something like that...


The biggest gradient driver I make is 100 amps, 170 volts peak. That's
enough for the smaller imagers, and my boxes have very high precision,
so some are used for imaging. They buy them 3 at a time, which is
good! The larger bore imagers, up to full-body human ones, use
switchers for the gradient drivers, hundreds of amps peak, and I don't
do those so far.

I'd rather not build anything that can break your foot if you drop it.
Our "pick and place" for the power transformer on the 100 amp driver
is an overhead electric hoist.

John

Eeyore posted to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:



JosephKK wrote:

Don Bowey posted to sci.electronics.design:

But the Arab world still was the cradle of civilization. What
was can't be taken away.

I will dispute that. Both China and India have written records
predating anything from the middle east (Tigris / Euphrates) or
Europe. For some reference try googling Bharati.

That doesn't seem to be very useful.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=bharati

Graham


Gee, and i thought a "bright" guy like you could do some of the very
basic concepts of googling without having to be told. Simple things
like adding other relevant search terms like civilization or ancient
to push more relevant results toward the top of the list. Also you
could try synonyms for bharati like vedic.

On 9/6/07 11:30 PM, in article ,
"JosephKK" wrote:

Eeyore posted to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:



JosephKK wrote:

Don Bowey posted to sci.electronics.design:

But the Arab world still was the cradle of civilization. What
was can't be taken away.

I will dispute that. Both China and India have written records
predating anything from the middle east (Tigris / Euphrates) or
Europe. For some reference try googling Bharati.

That doesn't seem to be very useful.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=bharati

Graham


Gee, and i thought a "bright" guy like you could do some of the very
basic concepts of googling without having to be told. Simple things
like adding other relevant search terms like civilization or ancient
to push more relevant results toward the top of the list. Also you
could try synonyms for bharati like vedic.


Nothing there changes my original comments re the historical use of 'cradle
of civilization.'

"Jim Thompson" skrev i en
meddelelse ...
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 18:26:42 +0200, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
wrote:


"Jim Thompson" skrev i en
meddelelse ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6976084.stm

...Jim Thompson

... And this happy state of affairs actually benefit said workers or
management & political cronies?

Sez he who is currently ****ed off because the communist ******* retard
government cannot abolish the top rate tax EVEN WHILE IN MAJORITY.
Consequently, I will take 3-4 weeks holiday more on top of the six I
already
enjoy - screw them; they can go leech off someone else!!



Eh? Looking back in time I only observe higher tax rates than now.

In Denmark taxes on work rise monotonically, mainly in inverse proportion to
the public "service" taxes allegedly pay for!

"Joerg" skrev i en meddelelse
t...
Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:

"Jim Thompson" skrev i
en meddelelse ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6976084.stm

...Jim Thompson


... And this happy state of affairs actually benefit said workers or
management & political cronies?

Sez he who is currently ****ed off because the communist ******* retard
government cannot abolish the top rate tax EVEN WHILE IN MAJORITY.
Consequently, I will take 3-4 weeks holiday more on top of the six I
already enjoy - screw them; they can go leech off someone else!!


Hmm, I met quite a few Scandinavians who did that. But I must confess I
also did it in Germany once. Looked at the biz numbers, tax rate quite up
there, some major remodel was needed in the house. Looked at contractor
costs versus my after-tax income, almost choked. Decided to take three
weeks off and did it myself.

Same he Heartsurgeons working as inept DIY'ers because brickies cost too
much after Tax!


--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 17:23:36 +0200, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
wrote:


"Joerg" skrev i en meddelelse
et...
Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:

"Jim Thompson" skrev i
en meddelelse ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6976084.stm

...Jim Thompson


... And this happy state of affairs actually benefit said workers or
management & political cronies?

Sez he who is currently ****ed off because the communist ******* retard
government cannot abolish the top rate tax EVEN WHILE IN MAJORITY.
Consequently, I will take 3-4 weeks holiday more on top of the six I
already enjoy - screw them; they can go leech off someone else!!


Hmm, I met quite a few Scandinavians who did that. But I must confess I
also did it in Germany once. Looked at the biz numbers, tax rate quite up
there, some major remodel was needed in the house. Looked at contractor
costs versus my after-tax income, almost choked. Decided to take three
weeks off and did it myself.

Same he Heartsurgeons working as inept DIY'ers because brickies cost too
much after Tax!


Income tax makes no sense. There should be only one tax, on
consumption, and it should be fully visible, as sales taxes are in the
US, not hidden like VAT.

John

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 17:23:36 +0200, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
wrote:


"Joerg" skrev i en meddelelse
. net...

Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:


"Jim Thompson" skrev i
en meddelelse ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6976084.stm

...Jim Thompson


... And this happy state of affairs actually benefit said workers or
management & political cronies?

Sez he who is currently ****ed off because the communist ******* retard
government cannot abolish the top rate tax EVEN WHILE IN MAJORITY.
Consequently, I will take 3-4 weeks holiday more on top of the six I
already enjoy - screw them; they can go leech off someone else!!


Hmm, I met quite a few Scandinavians who did that. But I must confess I
also did it in Germany once. Looked at the biz numbers, tax rate quite up
there, some major remodel was needed in the house. Looked at contractor
costs versus my after-tax income, almost choked. Decided to take three
weeks off and did it myself.

Same he Heartsurgeons working as inept DIY'ers because brickies cost too
much after Tax!



Income tax makes no sense. There should be only one tax, on
consumption, and it should be fully visible, as sales taxes are in the
US, not hidden like VAT.


Especially a staggered one. What I never understood is that once you
exceed a (pretty low) income tax bracket even by one Dollar your long
term cap gain tax instantly triples.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

John Larkin wrote:



Income tax makes no sense. There should be only one tax, on
consumption, and it should be fully visible, as sales taxes are in the
US, not hidden like VAT.

John

Agreed, but the last thing the government would want is for you to be
constantly reminded of how far they have their hand into your pocket.

Imagine that instead of the 5 to 7% that most of us pay in state sales/use
tax that it was, say, 29% I think that might be a bit of a shocker.

Also, taxes on consumption are by nature highly regressive. The poor
by pay a greater proportion of their income to buy consumables (like food,
clothes, transportation and shelter) than do the rich.... I'm not saying
that is necessarily a bad thing... but I think it would cause a revolution.

-Chuck

Chuck Harris wrote:

John Larkin wrote:



Income tax makes no sense. There should be only one tax, on
consumption, and it should be fully visible, as sales taxes are in the
US, not hidden like VAT.

John


Agreed, but the last thing the government would want is for you to be
constantly reminded of how far they have their hand into your pocket.

Imagine that instead of the 5 to 7% that most of us pay in state sales/use
tax that it was, say, 29% I think that might be a bit of a shocker.

Also, taxes on consumption are by nature highly regressive. The poor
by pay a greater proportion of their income to buy consumables (like food,
clothes, transportation and shelter) than do the rich.... I'm not saying
that is necessarily a bad thing... but I think it would cause a revolution.


The rich would pay the same percentage on their boats, limos, airplanes,
Lexuses, Benzes etc. If they don't consume the income then their heirs
most likely will.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:07:11 -0400, Chuck Harris wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Income tax makes no sense. There should be only one tax, on
consumption, and it should be fully visible, as sales taxes are in the
US, not hidden like VAT.

Agreed, but the last thing the government would want is for you to be
constantly reminded of how far they have their hand into your pocket.

Imagine that instead of the 5 to 7% that most of us pay in state sales/use
tax that it was, say, 29% I think that might be a bit of a shocker.

Yeah, but not having 30-40% of your paycheck stolen right off the top
should soften that blow a little bit. ;-)

And, as you seem to note at least people would have a better idea of how
much the governemnt is taking and wasting.

Also, taxes on consumption are by nature highly regressive. The poor
by pay a greater proportion of their income to buy consumables (like food,
clothes, transportation and shelter) than do the rich.... I'm not saying
that is necessarily a bad thing... but I think it would cause a revolution.

Well, you don't tax grocery store food or medical supplies, for one thing.
Restaurant food, take-out pizza, convenience store food, all that's
taxable because they're luxuries.

And if you go to Kmart and buy a $5.00 pair of jeans, you pay $0.50 tax;
you go to Saks and buy a $250.00 pair of jeans, you pay $25.00 tax.

What does "regressive" mean anyway? If there's a 10% sales tax, then
the guy who buys a $2.00 toilet brush pays .20 tax, and the guy who
buys a $2,000,000.00 yacht pays $200,000.00 tax. The more you play,
the more you pay. That's about as close to "fair" as any system based
on institutionalized theft could possibly be.

The real problem is that there's just too damn much government. And
there's a very good likelihood that the ratification of the income tax
amendment signed the death warrant for America as the Founding Fathers
intended Her to be.

Sigh.
Rich

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:25:17 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 17:23:36 +0200, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
k wrote:


"Joerg" skrev i en meddelelse
. net...
Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:

"Jim Thompson" skrev i
en meddelelse ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6976084.stm

...Jim Thompson


... And this happy state of affairs actually benefit said workers or
management & political cronies?

Sez he who is currently ****ed off because the communist ******* retard
government cannot abolish the top rate tax EVEN WHILE IN MAJORITY.
Consequently, I will take 3-4 weeks holiday more on top of the six I
already enjoy - screw them; they can go leech off someone else!!


Hmm, I met quite a few Scandinavians who did that. But I must confess I
also did it in Germany once. Looked at the biz numbers, tax rate quite up
there, some major remodel was needed in the house. Looked at contractor
costs versus my after-tax income, almost choked. Decided to take three
weeks off and did it myself.

Same he Heartsurgeons working as inept DIY'ers because brickies cost too
much after Tax!


Income tax makes no sense. There should be only one tax, on
consumption, and it should be fully visible, as sales taxes are in the
US, not hidden like VAT.

John

Would that kind of tax tend to reduce the incidence of tuberculosis?

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:28:14 +0000, Joerg wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Income tax makes no sense. There should be only one tax, on
consumption, and it should be fully visible, as sales taxes are in the
US, not hidden like VAT.

Agreed, but the last thing the government would want is for you to be
constantly reminded of how far they have their hand into your pocket.

Imagine that instead of the 5 to 7% that most of us pay in state sales/use
tax that it was, say, 29% I think that might be a bit of a shocker.

Also, taxes on consumption are by nature highly regressive. The poor
by pay a greater proportion of their income to buy consumables (like food,
clothes, transportation and shelter) than do the rich.... I'm not saying
that is necessarily a bad thing... but I think it would cause a revolution.

The rich would pay the same percentage on their boats, limos, airplanes,
Lexuses, Benzes etc. If they don't consume the income then their heirs
most likely will.

Yes, and that will clearly never happen, precisely because "the rich"
would have to pay their "fair share" - there would be no tax evasion,
like is so rampant now, because they'd pay at the point of sale.

But, unfortunately, it will never happen, because of the golden rule:
The guy that's got the gold makes the rules.

Humph!
Rich

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:


Well, you don't tax grocery store food or medical supplies, for one thing.
Restaurant food, take-out pizza, convenience store food, all that's
taxable because they're luxuries.

Once you start making exceptions, you are on your way to a mess of
a tax system like we have now.


And if you go to Kmart and buy a $5.00 pair of jeans, you pay $0.50 tax;
you go to Saks and buy a $250.00 pair of jeans, you pay $25.00 tax.

What does "regressive" mean anyway?

Basic costs of living are a larger percentage of a poor person's income
than they are of a rich person's income. If you tax those basic costs with
a "sales tax", it is a regressive tax. This is because the tax is a larger
percentage of the poor person's income than it is of the rich person.


If there's a 10% sales tax, then
the guy who buys a $2.00 toilet brush pays .20 tax,

The poor guy who pays that tax will have to work about 1 minute to pay
the tax. The rich guy will have to work a small fraction of a second
to pay the tax. That's regressive.

-Chuck

"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
The poor guy who pays that tax will have to work about 1 minute to pay
the tax. The rich guy will have to work a small fraction of a second
to pay the tax. That's regressive.

Yes, but isn't the idea that -- even with a flat consumption tax -- if you
made less than, e.g., $20k/year you'd be eligible for food stamps, etc. and
therefore wouldn't have to spend as much on necessities such as food in the
first place? That's a tax break, right?

Chuck Harris wrote:

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:


Well, you don't tax grocery store food or medical supplies, for one
thing.
Restaurant food, take-out pizza, convenience store food, all that's
taxable because they're luxuries.


Once you start making exceptions, you are on your way to a mess of
a tax system like we have now.


And if you go to Kmart and buy a $5.00 pair of jeans, you pay $0.50 tax;
you go to Saks and buy a $250.00 pair of jeans, you pay $25.00 tax.

What does "regressive" mean anyway?


Basic costs of living are a larger percentage of a poor person's income
than they are of a rich person's income. If you tax those basic costs with
a "sales tax", it is a regressive tax. This is because the tax is a larger
percentage of the poor person's income than it is of the rich person.


If there's a 10% sales tax, then

the guy who buys a $2.00 toilet brush pays .20 tax,


The poor guy who pays that tax will have to work about 1 minute to pay
the tax. The rich guy will have to work a small fraction of a second
to pay the tax. That's regressive.


What's the difference to today's system? A burger flipper will have to
work 30-40 minutes to buy that brush while an engineer will have to work
maybe five minutes. Of course, at young age the engineer had his nose to
the grind stone to get his degree while the burger flipper partied.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Joel Kolstad wrote:

"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...

The poor guy who pays that tax will have to work about 1 minute to pay
the tax. The rich guy will have to work a small fraction of a second
to pay the tax. That's regressive.


Yes, but isn't the idea that -- even with a flat consumption tax -- if you
made less than, e.g., $20k/year you'd be eligible for food stamps, etc. and
therefore wouldn't have to spend as much on necessities such as food in the
first place? That's a tax break, right?


Sure. Also, you can exempt essentials such as bread, milk, cheese,
fruits, vegetables. But not booze. In the end it's surprisingly simple.
You could also easily steer environmental goals. For example, a reduced
tax on hybrids, CFL bulbs and such. The huge problem would be what to do
with all the bureaucrats that are no longer needed.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:07:11 -0400, Chuck Harris
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:



Income tax makes no sense. There should be only one tax, on
consumption, and it should be fully visible, as sales taxes are in the
US, not hidden like VAT.

John

Agreed, but the last thing the government would want is for you to be
constantly reminded of how far they have their hand into your pocket.

Imagine that instead of the 5 to 7% that most of us pay in state sales/use
tax that it was, say, 29% I think that might be a bit of a shocker.

Also, taxes on consumption are by nature highly regressive. The poor
by pay a greater proportion of their income to buy consumables (like food,
clothes, transportation and shelter) than do the rich.... I'm not saying
that is necessarily a bad thing... but I think it would cause a revolution.

-Chuck

It's easy to exempt basics, like food and reasonable housing and
low-price clothing, and/or have payments to poor people, like the
earned income credit.

One real advantage of a sales tax is that it will hit Chinese imports
equally with US products. Currently, US manufacturers pay scads of
taxes that importers don't, taxes that export manufacturing jobs.

John

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:28:14 GMT, Joerg
wrote:

Chuck Harris wrote:

John Larkin wrote:



Income tax makes no sense. There should be only one tax, on
consumption, and it should be fully visible, as sales taxes are in the
US, not hidden like VAT.

John


Agreed, but the last thing the government would want is for you to be
constantly reminded of how far they have their hand into your pocket.

Imagine that instead of the 5 to 7% that most of us pay in state sales/use
tax that it was, say, 29% I think that might be a bit of a shocker.

Also, taxes on consumption are by nature highly regressive. The poor
by pay a greater proportion of their income to buy consumables (like food,
clothes, transportation and shelter) than do the rich.... I'm not saying
that is necessarily a bad thing... but I think it would cause a revolution.


The rich would pay the same percentage on their boats, limos, airplanes,
Lexuses, Benzes etc. If they don't consume the income then their heirs
most likely will.

And what they don't consume, they invest.

John

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:38:31 -0400, Chuck Harris
wrote:

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:


Well, you don't tax grocery store food or medical supplies, for one thing.
Restaurant food, take-out pizza, convenience store food, all that's
taxable because they're luxuries.

Once you start making exceptions, you are on your way to a mess of
a tax system like we have now.


And if you go to Kmart and buy a $5.00 pair of jeans, you pay $0.50 tax;
you go to Saks and buy a $250.00 pair of jeans, you pay $25.00 tax.

What does "regressive" mean anyway?

Basic costs of living are a larger percentage of a poor person's income
than they are of a rich person's income. If you tax those basic costs with
a "sales tax", it is a regressive tax. This is because the tax is a larger
percentage of the poor person's income than it is of the rich person.


It's not regressive, it's flat. Regressive taxation is taxation that
has lower rates for bigger incomes or purchases.

This is because the tax is a larger
percentage of the poor person's income than it is of the rich person.

But we're not talking about an income tax, we're talking about a sales
tax.

Taxes can be good for the populace, or they can be emotionally "fair",
but they can't be both.


John

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:28:14 GMT, Joerg
wrote:


Chuck Harris wrote:


John Larkin wrote:


Income tax makes no sense. There should be only one tax, on
consumption, and it should be fully visible, as sales taxes are in the
US, not hidden like VAT.

John


Agreed, but the last thing the government would want is for you to be
constantly reminded of how far they have their hand into your pocket.

Imagine that instead of the 5 to 7% that most of us pay in state sales/use
tax that it was, say, 29% I think that might be a bit of a shocker.

Also, taxes on consumption are by nature highly regressive. The poor
by pay a greater proportion of their income to buy consumables (like food,
clothes, transportation and shelter) than do the rich.... I'm not saying
that is necessarily a bad thing... but I think it would cause a revolution.


The rich would pay the same percentage on their boats, limos, airplanes,
Lexuses, Benzes etc. If they don't consume the income then their heirs
most likely will.


And what they don't consume, they invest.


The other good news would be that you could then give to charity much
easier. Pull out wallet, put in big chunk, don't worry about the hassle
getting a statement from them. Plus no 50%-of-income limit.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:27:34 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:07:11 -0400, Chuck Harris
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:



Income tax makes no sense. There should be only one tax, on
consumption, and it should be fully visible, as sales taxes are in the
US, not hidden like VAT.

John

Agreed, but the last thing the government would want is for you to be
constantly reminded of how far they have their hand into your pocket.

Imagine that instead of the 5 to 7% that most of us pay in state sales/use
tax that it was, say, 29% I think that might be a bit of a shocker.

Also, taxes on consumption are by nature highly regressive. The poor
by pay a greater proportion of their income to buy consumables (like food,
clothes, transportation and shelter) than do the rich.... I'm not saying
that is necessarily a bad thing... but I think it would cause a revolution.

-Chuck

It's easy to exempt basics, like food and reasonable housing and
low-price clothing, and/or have payments to poor people, like the
earned income credit.

It's better to have payments, and have NOTHING exempt. Othewise you
run into problems with inputs used for exempt products and everything
gets an order of magnitude more complex. The tax rate is also lower if
nothing is exempt.

One real advantage of a sales tax is that it will hit Chinese imports
equally with US products. Currently, US manufacturers pay scads of
taxes that importers don't, taxes that export manufacturing jobs.

John

Yes, and not just Chinese, also (probably more importantly) European
imports where there is no VAT charged and input tax credits are
applied.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:06:44 +0100, Chris Jones
wrote:

Chuck Harris wrote:

John Larkin wrote:



Income tax makes no sense. There should be only one tax, on
consumption, and it should be fully visible, as sales taxes are in the
US, not hidden like VAT.

John

Agreed, but the last thing the government would want is for you to be
constantly reminded of how far they have their hand into your pocket.

Imagine that instead of the 5 to 7% that most of us pay in state sales/use
tax that it was, say, 29% I think that might be a bit of a shocker.

Also, taxes on consumption are by nature highly regressive. The poor
by pay a greater proportion of their income to buy consumables (like food,
clothes, transportation and shelter) than do the rich.... I'm not saying
that is necessarily a bad thing... but I think it would cause a
revolution.

-Chuck

What about tax sales at a somewhat higher rate than you were thinking of,
then give every citizen an equal sized lump sum every month, that is going
to be proportionately more for lower earners so will un-regresive it, or
instead, maybe not a lump sum but free health care or something...

That's better. Otherwise you have to prove you're low income, which
raises privacy issues. It would be really nice if one's income was
none of the government's business, as Libertarians would prefer,
although I don't expect to live to see that-- there are too many
vested interests in the present system.

I don't like taxes on services, it encourages the "throw-away society" where
the tax means it isn't worth fixing anything so there are no repair shops
with technicians who know how to fix things, just shops selling new crap
with knowledgeless sales droids, and it isn't worth knowing how to fix
anything so nobody bothers learning.

There's nothing wrong with a relatively small tax on services, however
it's the easiest one to cheat on if you're dealing with end consumers
who don't get exemptions. Things like home renovations.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Chuck Harris wrote:

John Larkin wrote:



Income tax makes no sense. There should be only one tax, on
consumption, and it should be fully visible, as sales taxes are in the
US, not hidden like VAT.

John

Agreed, but the last thing the government would want is for you to be
constantly reminded of how far they have their hand into your pocket.

Imagine that instead of the 5 to 7% that most of us pay in state sales/use
tax that it was, say, 29% I think that might be a bit of a shocker.

Also, taxes on consumption are by nature highly regressive. The poor
by pay a greater proportion of their income to buy consumables (like food,
clothes, transportation and shelter) than do the rich.... I'm not saying
that is necessarily a bad thing... but I think it would cause a
revolution.

-Chuck

What about tax sales at a somewhat higher rate than you were thinking of,
then give every citizen an equal sized lump sum every month, that is going
to be proportionately more for lower earners so will un-regresive it, or
instead, maybe not a lump sum but free health care or something...

I don't like taxes on services, it encourages the "throw-away society" where
the tax means it isn't worth fixing anything so there are no repair shops
with technicians who know how to fix things, just shops selling new crap
with knowledgeless sales droids, and it isn't worth knowing how to fix
anything so nobody bothers learning.

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:38:31 -0400, Chuck Harris wrote:
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

Well, you don't tax grocery store food or medical supplies, for one
thing. Restaurant food, take-out pizza, convenience store food, all
that's taxable because they're luxuries.

Once you start making exceptions, you are on your way to a mess of a tax
system like we have now.

Oh, bullhockey! See below.

And if you go to Kmart and buy a $5.00 pair of jeans, you pay $0.50
tax; you go to Saks and buy a $250.00 pair of jeans, you pay $25.00
tax.

What does "regressive" mean anyway?

Basic costs of living are a larger percentage of a poor person's income
than they are of a rich person's income. If you tax those basic costs
with a "sales tax", it is a regressive tax. This is because the tax is
a larger percentage of the poor person's income than it is of the rich
person.

So, make a list of "basic costs of living" and exempt them from the
sales tax. Since it's collected at the point of sale, there should
be no controversy - if it's a necessity (food, clothing, medicine)
then it's not taxed. Rent is not taxed because it's a service, not
a product. But the guy who buys the building to rent out pays sales
tax on the purchase.

But the major problem is, there should have never been any need for
any federal taxes _at all_. Maybe the "war tax", but that was supposed
to disappear after the war.

Yah, right.

Well, when things get bad enough and the system goes broke, then
people might notice how they're being raped.

The poor guy who pays that tax will have to work about 1 minute to pay
the tax. The rich guy will have to work a small fraction of a second to
pay the tax. That's regressive.


Well, he only has to work a fraction of the time I do to buy the yacht.
In fact, I've been working on and off for about 35-40 years now, and
STILL can't afford a yacht.

The guy that makes more can buy more, so tax him more.

You seem fixated on this "regressive" stuff. If person A pays the same
percentage as person B, then it's totally "fair" (or as close to fair
as a system of institutionalized theft could possibly hope to be.)

Thanks,
Rich

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:26:57 -0700, Joerg wrote:
Joel Kolstad wrote:
"Chuck Harris" wrote in message

The poor guy who pays that tax will have to work about 1 minute to pay
the tax. The rich guy will have to work a small fraction of a second
to pay the tax. That's regressive.

Yes, but isn't the idea that -- even with a flat consumption tax -- if you
made less than, e.g., $20k/year you'd be eligible for food stamps, etc. and
therefore wouldn't have to spend as much on necessities such as food in the
first place? That's a tax break, right?

Sure. Also, you can exempt essentials such as bread, milk, cheese,
fruits, vegetables. But not booze. In the end it's surprisingly simple.
You could also easily steer environmental goals. For example, a reduced
tax on hybrids, CFL bulbs and such. The huge problem would be what to do
with all the bureaucrats that are no longer needed.

Fire them, let them try to collect unemployment, then let them go out and
beg in the streets for their money like the rest of us have to do. Well,
maybe not literally, but pounding the pavement looking for a job is
pretty much equivalent to begging in the streets.

Maybe they could take up lawnmowing, so we wouldn't need the wetbacks. ;-D

Thanks,
Rich

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:06:44 +0100, Chris Jones
wrote:

Chuck Harris wrote:

John Larkin wrote:



Income tax makes no sense. There should be only one tax, on
consumption, and it should be fully visible, as sales taxes are in the
US, not hidden like VAT.

John

Agreed, but the last thing the government would want is for you to be
constantly reminded of how far they have their hand into your pocket.

Imagine that instead of the 5 to 7% that most of us pay in state
sales/use
tax that it was, say, 29% I think that might be a bit of a shocker.

Also, taxes on consumption are by nature highly regressive. The poor
by pay a greater proportion of their income to buy consumables (like
food, clothes, transportation and shelter) than do the rich.... I'm not
saying that is necessarily a bad thing... but I think it would cause a
revolution.

-Chuck

What about tax sales at a somewhat higher rate than you were thinking of,
then give every citizen an equal sized lump sum every month, that is going
to be proportionately more for lower earners so will un-regresive it, or
instead, maybe not a lump sum but free health care or something...

That's better. Otherwise you have to prove you're low income, which
raises privacy issues. It would be really nice if one's income was
none of the government's business, as Libertarians would prefer,
although I don't expect to live to see that-- there are too many
vested interests in the present system.
I didn't intend for the money to be given only to people with low incomes,
since that is something that people will try to cheat. I suggested giving
the payment to everyone, then raise the percentage tax on purchases as
necessary.

I don't like taxes on services, it encourages the "throw-away society"
where the tax means it isn't worth fixing anything so there are no repair
shops with technicians who know how to fix things, just shops selling new
crap with knowledgeless sales droids, and it isn't worth knowing how to
fix anything so nobody bothers learning.

There's nothing wrong with a relatively small tax on services, however
it's the easiest one to cheat on if you're dealing with end consumers
who don't get exemptions. Things like home renovations.

Mostly services are better things to encourage than purchases, IMO. For
example many places the government has to pay for waste disposal out of
taxes, and encouraging repair as an alternative to replacement will tend to
reduce the expenditure on waste disposal as well as cutting down on imports
and resource consumption etc. Also when a service is provided, that
necessarily generates some employment in the same country, whereas
purchasing imported stuff may not. Those are some reasons why I don't like
taxing services.

Chris

flipper wrote:

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:06:44 +0100, Chris Jones
wrote:

Chuck Harris wrote:

John Larkin wrote:



Income tax makes no sense. There should be only one tax, on
consumption, and it should be fully visible, as sales taxes are in the
US, not hidden like VAT.

John

Agreed, but the last thing the government would want is for you to be
constantly reminded of how far they have their hand into your pocket.

Imagine that instead of the 5 to 7% that most of us pay in state
sales/use
tax that it was, say, 29% I think that might be a bit of a shocker.

Also, taxes on consumption are by nature highly regressive. The poor
by pay a greater proportion of their income to buy consumables (like
food, clothes, transportation and shelter) than do the rich.... I'm not
saying that is necessarily a bad thing... but I think it would cause a
revolution.

-Chuck

What about tax sales at a somewhat higher rate than you were thinking of,
then give every citizen an equal sized lump sum every month, that is going
to be proportionately more for lower earners so will un-regresive it, or
instead, maybe not a lump sum but free health care or something...

I don't like taxes on services, it encourages the "throw-away society"
where the tax means it isn't worth fixing anything so there are no repair
shops with technicians who know how to fix things, just shops selling new
crap with knowledgeless sales droids, and it isn't worth knowing how to
fix anything so nobody bothers learning.

You must be thinking of electronics because, for example, there are
still plenty of auto mechanics. But the propensity to replace rather
than repair electronics has nothing to do with taxes. It's that
technology makes them so cheap to make that it's uneconomical to
repair.

Part (but admittedly not all) of the reason why it is uneconomical to repair
is that when you've paid for the parts and the labour then you have to pay
the tax and the repair tech has to pay his income tax, and probably some
kind of tax on the building where the repair was done, etc. etc.

Chris

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:23:00 -0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

There's nothing wrong with a relatively small tax on services, however
it's the easiest one to cheat on if you're dealing with end consumers
who don't get exemptions. Things like home renovations.

But part of the whole point is that there would be NO tax on labor,
only tangible goods, and then (for the poor people) not on basic
necessities.

The contractor gets paid, and you buy the materials and pay the
sales tax. Then the contractor pays taxes when he goes and buys
a new truck. ;-)

Or, just get rid of taxes entirely, and base everyting on user
fees. :-

Cheers!
Rich

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:23:20 -0500, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:54:07 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:23:00 -0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

There's nothing wrong with a relatively small tax on services, however
it's the easiest one to cheat on if you're dealing with end consumers
who don't get exemptions. Things like home renovations.

But part of the whole point is that there would be NO tax on labor,
only tangible goods, and then (for the poor people) not on basic
necessities.

The contractor gets paid, and you buy the materials and pay the
sales tax. Then the contractor pays taxes when he goes and buys
a new truck. ;-)

I don't understand your underlying principle. I mean, why is it that
the contractor, who's 'making' (building) a tool shed, doesn't get
taxed on his labor but the person who is 'making' 2x4s does? Or nails,
or his nail gun, or the truck he hauls the stuff to site with?

Because then it's just another income tax, which the rich will evade
just as they always have, so it accomplishes nothing.

When the contractor _spends_ his earnings, he pays his "fair" share.
Same with the guy who makes the nails, cuts the lumber, etc. Remember,
the lumberyard guy buys the trees from the forester, and pays sales
tax on the tangible goods - the wood. Then, the sawmill guy, having
paid the tax on the tree, turns it into something more valuable, i.e.,
2x4's. He sells these at a profit, which profit covers the cost of
his purchases, and the guy who buys the lumber pays the tax.

It's fair all the way around. Why do people have such a mental block
against seeing that?

Other than the fact, of course, that there should be no taxation at
all, because taxes are nothing but theft perpetrated by the ruling
class.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

flipper wrote:

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:50:08 +0100, Chris Jones
wrote:

flipper wrote:

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:06:44 +0100, Chris Jones
wrote:

Chuck Harris wrote:

John Larkin wrote:



Income tax makes no sense. There should be only one tax, on
consumption, and it should be fully visible, as sales taxes are in
the US, not hidden like VAT.

John

Agreed, but the last thing the government would want is for you to be
constantly reminded of how far they have their hand into your pocket.

Imagine that instead of the 5 to 7% that most of us pay in state
sales/use
tax that it was, say, 29% I think that might be a bit of a shocker.

Also, taxes on consumption are by nature highly regressive. The poor
by pay a greater proportion of their income to buy consumables (like
food, clothes, transportation and shelter) than do the rich.... I'm
not saying that is necessarily a bad thing... but I think it would
cause a revolution.

-Chuck

What about tax sales at a somewhat higher rate than you were thinking
of, then give every citizen an equal sized lump sum every month, that is
going to be proportionately more for lower earners so will un-regresive
it, or instead, maybe not a lump sum but free health care or
something...

I don't like taxes on services, it encourages the "throw-away society"
where the tax means it isn't worth fixing anything so there are no
repair shops with technicians who know how to fix things, just shops
selling new crap with knowledgeless sales droids, and it isn't worth
knowing how to fix anything so nobody bothers learning.

You must be thinking of electronics because, for example, there are
still plenty of auto mechanics. But the propensity to replace rather
than repair electronics has nothing to do with taxes. It's that
technology makes them so cheap to make that it's uneconomical to
repair.

Part (but admittedly not all) of the reason why it is uneconomical to
repair is that when you've paid for the parts and the labour then you have
to pay the tax and the repair tech has to pay his income tax, and probably
some kind of tax on the building where the repair was done, etc. etc.

Chris

Judging from other posts it sounds to me like you're trying to
accomplish one goal by 'inventing' a new 'principle' and you're mixing
apples and oranges as all the taxes you list would apply anyway,
except for the one 'service': the labor. I.E. a part is a part and not
a 'service'. But if you're also proposing to change all of the others
as well then why does the brick and mortar 'service' building get away
without property taxes when the sales outlet pays them, other than
your unrelated desire to reduce dumpster fill? And why would a repair
technician get the privileged status of 'tax free wages' when other
workers don't?
No, someone else suggested that they would abolish income tax. I do not
seriously expect that to happen but was discussing what would that might be
like.

You pay all those taxes when something is 'made' as well and there's
no 'special burden' on 'repair' other than the fact it sometimes costs
more to repair than to make the things to begin with, but it isn't
because of 'taxes'. It's because the dramatic reduction in
manufacturing costs comes from labor savings. Or, put another way,
productivity.
Well, I think there is a difference these days because most consumer
products seem to be made in China whereas we don't ship stuff there to
repair, as far as I know. Therefore, repair services incur the tax system
and wages of one country whereas manufacturing incurs the wages and income
tax system of a different country.


The only way to achieve your goal is to artificially increase the cost
of things to where it's more economical to repair than buy. Or, in
other words, increase poverty.
In Australia, there used to be a sales tax, on sales. Then they changed it
to a "goods and services tax" which also applied to services. The tax on
sales went down from 22% to 10% I believe, whereas the tax on repair
services went from 0% to 10% as far as I know. In both cases I am not
mentioning the income tax and indirect taxes that also apply. The
government did have some freedom to change the relative tax cost of
manufacturing and repair, and they changed it, in the direction that
discouraged repair.

Chris

Eeyore wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6976084.stm

...Jim Thompson

" the US figure is boosted by Americans working more hours per year than
workers in most developed countries."


"Using a different measure of value added per hour worked, Norway comes
out on top, followed by the US and then France."

So yes, it makes a difference - but the Americans still come out second
best when you compensate for that.

Eeyore wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6976084.stm

...Jim Thompson
" the US figure is boosted by Americans working more hours per year than
workers in most developed countries."

That's why they are MORE productive, dumb ass.

Productivity is measured as output per hour.

No it's not, it is GDP per unit of workforce pure calendar year. Go back
to your bingo.

I see 'per unit of time' here.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/productivity

Nothing about years whatever. Hours makes more sense given that wages are
commonly paid according to an hourly rate.

Graham



Look, it's quite simple - the particular definition of productivity used
for the report is the one given in the article:

"The ILO productivity figure is found by dividing a country's total
output in a year by the number of people employed."

Did you actually read the article, or did you just skim it until you
could find something that made the USA look slightly less good?

If you want to do some America-bashing based on this article or report,
then you are going to have to go off at a bit of a tangent - try to find
out how much of that productivity translates to dollars in the median
workers' pocket, or their disposable income, for example. Or maybe you
can get somewhere by looking at different industry sectors - perhaps the
US figures are skewed by very high productivity in the financial
services sector. But as the report stands, the title says it all.