Duane Bozarth wrote:
> "[email protected]" wrote:
> >
> > patrick conroy wrote:
> > > ... have four beers before you start.
> > > Then have three more while figuring.
> > > And trust in TurboTax.
> > >
> > >
> > > Dammit - I owe, I owe.
> > > Of all the years, I really could'a used a refund...
> >
> > HR 25 (Fair Tax). Does away with turbo tax, quicken, etc. Best of
> > all, it does away with the IRS.
>
> Never happen...and it'd be "fair" in name only, anyway...
What's unfair about it?
You are ignoring a few things about the fair tax. First, every
taxpayer would keep 100 percent of their income. Second, the tax is
only on new goods. One can avoid tax all together by buying used
goods. Third, every taxpayer gets a check from the govt each month to
cover necessities. Fourth, built in taxes and comliance costs account
for about 23-25 percent of all goods. That is simply replaced by the
fair tax. Competition will drive prices down further. I can go on and
on.
J. Clarke wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > You are ignoring a few things about the fair tax. First, every
> > taxpayer would keep 100 percent of their income.
>
> No, they wouldn't. The portion of the purchase price of goods that
goes to
> the government comes out of their income.
>
No it doesn't. It comes out of the price of the goods sold. The
taxpayer does not have their check docked for fica, fed income taxes,
etc.
> > Second, the tax is only on new goods. One can avoid tax all
together by
> > buying used goods.
>
> I have quite a lot of used food that I'd be happy to sell you.
>
How about a used house or car?
> > Third, every taxpayer gets a check from the govt each month to
> > cover necessities.
>
> Actually, they get a check equal to the tax rate times the poverty
level.
> If that "covers necessities" then the poverty level would seem to be
a bit
> high.
>
This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that
includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc.
> > Fourth, built in taxes and comliance costs account
> > for about 23-25 percent of all goods. That is simply replaced by
the
> > fair tax.
>
> Huh? What "built in taxes and compliance costs" would be replaced?
>
Costs of, for example, complying with any number of federal
regulations. Compliance costs in the US average around 250 billion per
year. Think what companies can do with those savings.
> > Competition will drive prices down further. I can go on and
> > on.
>
> Huh? Competition will reduce the tax?
>
No, competition will drive down prices.
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
So what? Even if that's true there is still a savings. Not only does
the business benefit because they no longer have to deal with that
compliance cost the consumer benefits as the price for the goods drop.
And best of all they pay no federal, fica, medicare tax. That equates
to a pay raise as well as savings and buying power. It also opens the
US up for additional foreign investment.
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> writes:
>The burden may then fall where it should, on the people that want a
>particular service. We all want an army to protect us, good highways to
>drive on, but we don't need a lot of silly mandates, pork barrel projects,
>and employees in postions because of friends in high places. There can be
>billions in cuts and no honest citizen would miss the service.
I'm all for cutting taxes and the cost of government.
The one thing everybody forgets is that for every cut, one or more workers
will need to be laid off. Cutting 10s or 100s of thousands of workers
from the government or government contracotr payrolls is going to cost our
economy a lot until the economy can absorb all these unemployed people.
Brian Elfert
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>The one thing everybody forgets is that for every cut, one or more workers
>>will need to be laid off. Cutting 10s or 100s of thousands of workers
>>from the government or government contracotr payrolls is going to cost our
>>economy a lot until the economy can absorb all these unemployed people.
>Nonsense. That cost will be more than amply offset by removing the burden of
>government from the backs of businesses and individuals everywhere. The
>logical conclusion of your argument is that we'd be better off if we *all*
>worked for the government. I hope you see that's absurd.
Of course, not everyone should work for the government.
A smaller government would mean a lot of unemployed people who aren't
paying taxes on income or by buying things. In the short term, reducing
government spending won't reduce taxes as the number of taxpayers are
reduced.
In the long run, a smaller government is a very good thing.
Brian Elfert
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:33:40 GMT, "patrick conroy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>... have four beers before you start.
>Then have three more while figuring.
>And trust in TurboTax.
Just about how I did it. Had a bit of a headache the next morning.
Actually, I didn't hit the last "Send" button until the whole thing
saw the light of day.
-Dan V.
In article <[email protected]>, "GeeDubb" <grwilliams@<nospam>qwest.net> wrote:
>J. Clarke wrote>
>> It is not possible to develop a fair tax code--anyone who thinks that
>> any given tax code is fair is deluding himself.
>
>Since I don't agree that just because I can make more money than somebody
>else I should be penalized by higher taxation of my income so......
>
>Just a thought, what if tax on purchases were progressive as prices
>increased?
>
>e.g., a $20K car has a 5% tax, a $25K car has 6% and keeps going up a
>percent per $5K. Then the wealthy end up paying more in taxes than the not
>so wealthy. If you don't like the taxes, don't buy it or buy a lesser
>costing item.
>
>Of course, this would get complicated when applied to different things such
>as food (should be exempt from tax) and clothing but could still work as the
>cost of a clothing item increases, so does the tax. The poverty level kids
>don't need a $150 pair of Nikes anyway (and neither do most people).
>
>No more income tax, just a progessive use tax. It taxes the wealthy more
>but only if they want to pay for it.
>
>Gary (just another idea that sure to tick off someone!)
>
Actually, I think it's a grand idea. The tax code is already structured to
implement various forms of social policy deemed to be for the benefit of
everyone (e.g. it encourages the traditional family [married parents, one
wage-earner] and home ownership). Such purposes can be IMO much more finely
tuned with a sales tax or VAT than they can with an income tax, e.g.
- high taxes on Big Macs, but low (or no) taxes on fruits and vegetables
- modest tax on a basic Ford or Chevy, higher on a Caddy, whack the Beemers
- no tax on Levis or Wranglers, sky-high taxes on Calvin Kleins
- no tax on ground beef in the grocery, tax on a hamburger in a restaurant
- no tax on ground beef, modest tax on a sirloin, high tax on a filet mignon
or whatever.
Wrangling over what to tax and what not to tax will provide employment for all
the suddenly unemployed tax accountants and lawyers, too.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
...
> I've been using TaxCut; Intuit has lost my business with their
> activation fiasco a couple of years ago with TurboTax ...
I used the TaxCut freebie for a working copy also...works although
klunky interface (but for free, what can you expect? :) ). I'd really
not like the interface if I were paying for it, however.
Still (halfheartedly) using Quickbooks 99 for the business/farm although
I'm reverting more and more to the old paper books for routine
record-keeping and simply transferring gross information into QB--it's
faster and more flexible.
"[email protected]" wrote:
>
> patrick conroy wrote:
> > ... have four beers before you start.
> > Then have three more while figuring.
> > And trust in TurboTax.
> >
> >
> > Dammit - I owe, I owe.
> > Of all the years, I really could'a used a refund...
>
> HR 25 (Fair Tax). Does away with turbo tax, quicken, etc. Best of
> all, it does away with the IRS.
Never happen...and it'd be "fair" in name only, anyway...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
...>
> I really didn't see much difference in the interface between TaxCut and
> TurboTax on the paid version. It's set up with the same kind of interview
> interface to enter the data. It also has tabbed indices to various
> elements of the program.
Been 5 years or so since I last used T-Tax so don't recall precisely the
interface (of course, it could be totally different now, anyway). What
I didn't like wrt TaxCut was the insistence on building duplicates for
all forms or using the "supporting document" form and not being able to
simply transfer balances into appropriate fields w/o the repetitive
"don't do this!" warnings and all...I don't recall it being that
difficult w/ T-Tax. I only use these for estimates and double-checking
the accountant for sanity, so I'm definitely not their target
audience...there was, as noted, at least one missing form/schedule that
would have prevented a final filing anyway w/o at least the paid
version. Overall, I'd give them credit for a functional program, just
somewhat more clunky to use than I'd prefer...
...
> For quite some time, I used Lotus 1-2-3 worksheets for my finances. I
> pretty much use QuickBooks as an electronic equivalent of paper records, it
> just does all the legwork and makes keeping track of accounts easy. I do
> the real transfers among various accounts the old-fashioned way, I write a
> paper check, same with paying bills.
To a point, I'm in synch w/ you here...but, for the farm after trying
for some time it seems far more complex to set up all the sub-accounts
in QB and to enter the detail there than it is to simply use the paper
ledgers...mostly because they're already preprinted and the accounting
package uses them (and the accountant does remote data entry :) ). For
the consulting side of the business QB works much better although I've
migrated away from it there as well as there's no way to set up progress
invoices in the manner my principal client requires and w/o that there's
little additional benefit...consequently I've gone to an Excel
spreadsheet as it allows me easier interface w/ the project manager
(sugar daddy) there since they've semi-automated the proposal process
using a template they supply.
Just a case of one size doesn't fit all for the most part...
Doug Miller wrote:
...
> He said competition will drive down price.
>
> If the corporate income tax disappears, every corporation's cost of doing
> business will drop dramatically. This in turn enables them to
> significantly lower the prices of their goods or services, and remain
> profitable. The first one in any particular market sector to do this will
> obtain a tremendous competitive advantage, and the others will be forced to
> follow suit.
...
And therein you unwittingly point out the rub...it's a temporary
advantage and the long-term competitive position isn't changed--just
reset at a differing level and the cost passed along in a differing
guise.
Doug Miller wrote:
...
> >and the cost passed along in a differing guise.
>
> What cost are you talking about? Eliminating the corporate income tax
> *eliminates* a cost of doing business. It doesn't just shift that cost
> somewhere else - that cost *disappears*.
...snip more ranting about how I'm inept and all... :)
That "cost" <may> disappear in part, but do you expect all SEC filings
and other government reporting to also disappear? What I'm saying is
that the "cost" you're going to save to generate the revenue is simply
going to shift to some other form to generate the equivalent revenue.
So, while you're hypothesis is nice wish, I don't believe it can be
achieved realistically.
Doug Miller wrote:
...
> >a lot of people. look on any street corner with multiple gas stations. they
> >usually don't have all the exact same price. saw one this morning. 2
> >stations next to each other. one at 2.35, one at 2.55. they both had
> >customers.
> >
> >customers aren't always rational.
>
> Enough of them are that lower price produces a tremendous competitive
> advantage.
...
Here there's not 3 cents differential between all the stations in the
entire town. Even in Wichita w/ the TV stations' "price-watch" call in
I've rarely seen as much as a nickel difference.
There are a few "loss leader" days now and then, and there's an
advantage w/ some alcohol blends in states w/ incentives, but other than
that, I see essentially no difference between
majors/mid-majors/independents. There's as much difference from the
Dillon's charge card as there is between the majors/independents
(normally 2 cents, occasionally 3).
Doug Miller wrote:
...
> Wrangling over what to tax and what not to tax will provide employment for all
> the suddenly unemployed tax accountants and lawyers, too.
...And there, again, is the rub where I agree entirely with your
conjecture/solution :) That's what'll happen and, imo, effectively
preclude any major swing in my lifetime, at least.
One will replace one convoluted set of rules on one particular portion
of the economy with another, equally convoluted set of rules on
another. There's no hope of the government ever having the freedom to
simply impose a "clean" system given the number of oxes to be gored.
Tim Douglass wrote:
...
> The only compliance costs that could possibly be affected under the
> so-called "fair tax" are those pertaining to computing and filing
> taxes. ...
But all the conditions that they're talking about for low-income, etc.,
are going to require all the same (or more) justification to prove
elgibility/inelgibility as the current system...
As I've noted before, the chances of a major renovation are essentially
zero--there are simply too many oxes to be gored in that fight.
Doug Miller wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >....
> >> Right, which is exactly my point. ...
> >
> >Not exactly...my point is that w/ gasoline at least, it's a fixed
> >market--all distributor pricing is essentially the same so there is no
> >competitive edge any one station can gan over another in the long term.
>
> And if everyone's cost of doing business is lowered by 25%, and *one*
> distributor reduces his prices accordingly while his competitors do not, that
> one distributor will have an enormous competitive advantage. The others will
> have no choice but to lower their prices as well if they wish to remain
> competitive.
>
There are a whole lof of <IF>s (those are "big if's" :) ) in that last
paragraph, and none are likely to be (or come) true...
I'll reiterate just one more time...if <everybody's> cost of business is
lowered (or raised), there's <no> competitive advantage
gained/lost...it's simply a change in level--the "all boats and tide"
story.
I've yet to hear of a plan that (a) would have a snowball's chance of
getting implemented, and (b) wouldn't simply change one complex set of
rules for another. You have to face up to the fact there is going to be
a revenue stream collected of roughly the magnitude presently done wrt
the GNP and there are so many special interests controlling the drafting
and passing of legislation that realistically there's just no way you're
going to make the IRS "disappear" w/o being reincarnated in some other,
possibly even more insiduous form.
I'm all for working to simplify the present code and reducing government
spending in many areas, but one has to "get real", so to speak, wrt to
what's even feasible to consider.
Just look at the furor over even broaching a relatively simple concept
to potentially modify SS for some persons 20-30 years in the future as a
<mild> example of the rhetoric that would ensue if/when it ever became
an attempat to be a serious discussion... :(
"[email protected]" wrote:
>
> So what? Even if that's true there is still a savings. Not only does
> the business benefit because they no longer have to deal with that
> compliance cost the consumer benefits as the price for the goods drop.
> And best of all they pay no federal, fica, medicare tax. That equates
> to a pay raise as well as savings and buying power. It also opens the
> US up for additional foreign investment.
If there's no FIT, FICA, Medicare Supplemental, where's the revenue
stream coming from?
As noted previously, there's <going> to be a revenue stream generated
that's roughly the same in relationship to GNP as present and unless
(but unlikely imo) the general populace decides they're going to be
satisfied w/ reduced SS, Medicare/Medicaid, etc., benefits it's going to
have to rise significantly as the population ages. To make this up w/
GST w/ exemptions for income level, etc., simply transfers the cost of
goods from production to consumption and the cost of documentation of
meeting the requirements and the various collection schemes from the
manufactuerers to the retailers/consumer (at best).
In the end, it ain't gonna' happen and the fantasized savings just are
going to be transferred to other forms, quite possibly more insiduous
and fraught w/ the laws of unforeseen consequences.
There are simply too many entrenched oxes to be gored to make a "clean
start" a viable option and by the time it got through Congress it would
be anything but clean...
There'd be the exemptions for home interest and if there isn't a FIT to
take the deduction against there'd have to be a justification for need
the rebate against the GST, and there ya' go...a whole new set of
reg's/forms. And that's just one of the many.
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Still (halfheartedly) using Quickbooks 99 for the business/farm although
> I'm reverting more and more to the old paper books for routine
> record-keeping and simply transferring gross information into QB--it's
> faster and more flexible.
As we know from recent history, it's good to have flexible bookkeeping....
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
. The
> logical conclusion of your argument is that we'd be better off if we *all*
> worked for the government. I hope you see that's absurd.
Don't we already? The percentage narrows each year, in any case.
WillR wrote:
>
> Thanks for the heads up.
>
> We recently switched to Quicken XG 2005 (?? latest anyway). It works
> fine for us -- but it has only been a month since it was installed.
>
> We use Quickbooks (Basic) as well - recently upgraded. It too seems OK.
>
> We never really investigated the issues pointed out as our SW was a few
> years old and we wanted to update. Maybe we should have...
They do the same thing with Quickbooks. After a couple years they stop
supporting it AND, worst of all, won't support the payroll tax updates
leaving you swinging in the breeze if you have a payroll. Then too now
that they've figured out a way to force you to buy the tax updates they
charge either $130 or $160 per year for it. If you don't buy it, you
can't use the payroll function and have to do everything manually which,
naturally, they no longer explain how to do.
I dumped Turbo Tax for the reasons given a couple of years ago and went
to Tax Cut. Happy with that program.
What I'd love to do is take some of the geniuses from Intuit out behind
the shop with a nice oak 2x2 for about ten minutes.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>> >Doug Miller wrote:
>> >....
>> >> Right, which is exactly my point. ...
>> >
>> >Not exactly...my point is that w/ gasoline at least, it's a fixed
>> >market--all distributor pricing is essentially the same so there is no
>> >competitive edge any one station can gan over another in the long term.
>>
>> And if everyone's cost of doing business is lowered by 25%, and *one*
>> distributor reduces his prices accordingly while his competitors do not, that
>> one distributor will have an enormous competitive advantage. The others will
>> have no choice but to lower their prices as well if they wish to remain
>> competitive.
>>
>
>There are a whole lof of <IF>s (those are "big if's" :) ) in that last
>paragraph, and none are likely to be (or come) true...
>
>I'll reiterate just one more time...if <everybody's> cost of business is
>lowered (or raised), there's <no> competitive advantage
>gained/lost...it's simply a change in level--the "all boats and tide"
>story.
You're still missing the point. This started when the assumption that prices
would fall was questioned. I'm attempting to explain why that would happen,
not to argue that one business or another would obtain a competitive
advantage. The point is that *some* business, somewhere, *would* reduce its
prices to obtain a competitive advantage, and its competitors would be forced
to follow suit in order to maintain their current competitive posture. Thus
all prices would fall.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I was going to comment on people buying at higher priced stations, so will
> include it here. I don't know why they do.
I buy where the accept my company credit card. Many business people have a
similar situation so they stick wth that brand. There may be a few that
have loyalty to a local owner, repair shop, etc. Or they carry a particular
gas card for themselves so they stick with that brand.
There may even be three people that think brand X is really better than
brand Y.
> . Prices going up and 1.299 at some stations, 1.219 at others of the same
> brand, within 4-5 miles of each other.
I bought gas Saturday when we took a ride to Providence. In my town it was
2.26. About 20 miles from me the same brand in a high traffic area was
2.12, but two more miles more and it was 2.25. they all go u p and down at
the same rate, but for competitive and other economic reasons (like, they
can) certain zones will be higher than others.
> Some majors are always 6 cents or more higher and Richfield is always the
> lowest; lower than the "minor" sometimes and they often require payment
> before you start pumping.
IIRC, it was ARCO in California that was always the cheapest, but it was
cash only.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/
In article <[email protected]>, Brian Elfert <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>>>The one thing everybody forgets is that for every cut, one or more workers
>>>will need to be laid off. Cutting 10s or 100s of thousands of workers
>>>from the government or government contracotr payrolls is going to cost our
>>>economy a lot until the economy can absorb all these unemployed people.
>
>>Nonsense. That cost will be more than amply offset by removing the burden of
>>government from the backs of businesses and individuals everywhere. The
>>logical conclusion of your argument is that we'd be better off if we *all*
>>worked for the government. I hope you see that's absurd.
>
>Of course, not everyone should work for the government.
>
>A smaller government would mean a lot of unemployed people who aren't
>paying taxes on income or by buying things. In the short term, reducing
>government spending won't reduce taxes as the number of taxpayers are
>reduced.
Nonsense. You're completely ignoring the enormous benefits of removing the
burden of big government.
>
>In the long run, a smaller government is a very good thing.
In the short run too.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
In article <[email protected]>, Brian Elfert <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>The burden may then fall where it should, on the people that want a
>>particular service. We all want an army to protect us, good highways to
>>drive on, but we don't need a lot of silly mandates, pork barrel projects,
>>and employees in postions because of friends in high places. There can be
>>billions in cuts and no honest citizen would miss the service.
>
>I'm all for cutting taxes and the cost of government.
>
>The one thing everybody forgets is that for every cut, one or more workers
>will need to be laid off. Cutting 10s or 100s of thousands of workers
>from the government or government contracotr payrolls is going to cost our
>economy a lot until the economy can absorb all these unemployed people.
Nonsense. That cost will be more than amply offset by removing the burden of
government from the backs of businesses and individuals everywhere. The
logical conclusion of your argument is that we'd be better off if we *all*
worked for the government. I hope you see that's absurd.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:33:40 GMT, "patrick conroy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>... have four beers before you start.
>Then have three more while figuring.
>And trust in TurboTax.
>
>
>Dammit - I owe, I owe.
>Of all the years, I really could'a used a refund...
>
Well, I only hope that the experience did not leave you entirely
bereft of liquid assets.
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
"Charles Spitzer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> what makes you think that prices will go down if business taxes go away?
> did gas prices at the pump go down significantly when oil prices went down
> in the last dip?
>
You may find this hard to believe, but I do have some faith in most (but not
all) companies that they will do the right thing. After raising prices
three times this year, we just notified out customers of a reduction. Yes,
it truly does happen.
I'm not naive enough to think that some companies will grab what they can,
but those companies are already doing it. If Burger King cuts the
cheeseburger 5¢, McD is not going to be far behind. Coke/Pepsi, same deal.
They take turns at being 89¢ each week.
Most companies try to turn a fair and honest profit, support local charities
and are good neighbors in the community. They are the ones not on the 11
o'clock news.
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Brian Elfert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>The one thing everybody forgets is that for every cut, one or more workers
>>will need to be laid off. Cutting 10s or 100s of thousands of workers
>>from the government or government contracotr payrolls is going to cost our
>>economy a lot until the economy can absorb all these unemployed people.
>>
>>Brian Elfert
>
>
> With more money in the economy they will be absorbed into more productive
> jobs. The US needs more plumbers, less lawyers and Federal drones.
Even I know that if there are less drones and lawyers the USA will need
fewer plumbers.
Maybe they can be woodworkers tho...
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>"[email protected]" wrote:
>>
>> So what? Even if that's true there is still a savings. Not only does
>> the business benefit because they no longer have to deal with that
>> compliance cost the consumer benefits as the price for the goods drop.
>> And best of all they pay no federal, fica, medicare tax. That equates
>> to a pay raise as well as savings and buying power. It also opens the
>> US up for additional foreign investment.
>
>If there's no FIT, FICA, Medicare Supplemental, where's the revenue
>stream coming from?
Sales tax and/or VAT.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
In article <[email protected]>, "Charles Spitzer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>> Fourth, built in taxes and comliance costs account
>>>> for about 23-25 percent of all goods. That is simply replaced by the
>>>> fair tax.
>>>
>>>Huh? What "built in taxes and compliance costs" would be replaced?
>>
>> The corporate income tax is a complete fiction. Corporations do not, and
>> never
>> have, paid income tax. Their *customers* pay it. The corporate income tax,
>> and
>> the cost of preparing and it (and, trust me, that's huge), are simply
>> costs of
>> doing business, just like salaries or raw materials, and are incorporated
>> into
>> the prices of the products.
>>>
>>>> Competition will drive prices down further. I can go on and
>>>> on.
>>>
>>>Huh? Competition will reduce the tax?
>>
>> He said competition will drive down price.
>>
>> If the corporate income tax disappears, every corporation's cost of doing
>> business will drop dramatically. This in turn enables them to
>> significantly lower the prices of their goods or services, and remain
>> profitable. The first one in any particular market sector to do this will
>> obtain a tremendous competitive advantage, and the others will be forced
>> to
>> follow suit.
>>
>> For example, how many people are going to eat at McDonalds if a Big Mac
>> costs
>> a dollar, but Burger King is selling Whoppers for 75 cents? If Shell is
>> selling gasoline for $1.75 a gallon, who's going to pay the Marathon
>> across
>> the street $2.25?
>
>a lot of people. look on any street corner with multiple gas stations. they
>usually don't have all the exact same price. saw one this morning. 2
>stations next to each other. one at 2.35, one at 2.55. they both had
>customers.
>
>customers aren't always rational.
Enough of them are that lower price produces a tremendous competitive
advantage.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:58:22 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Bob G. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I've been using TaxCut; Intuit has lost my business with their
>>>>activation fiasco a couple of years ago with TurboTax (lost sales made them
>>>>reconsider that nonsense) and their absolute arrogance in sunsetting
>>>>Quicken functions in order to force people to "upgrade" to a newer version
>>>>that is lobotomized compared to features that were present in the
>>>>equivalent grade of the current version.
>>>>
>>>
>>>======================================\
>>>They lost my business for the exact same reason... although to be
>>>truthful I liked thier old DOS based programs a lot more then I did
>>>the "Winders" versions...but I never could hold them responsible for
>>>that ...
>>
>>What do you guys mean by "activation fiasco" and the "sunsetted" Quicken
>>functions?
>
>
>
> Several years ago, Intuit decided that too many people were "sharing"
> their TurboTax program and instituted an activation scheme to assure that
> only the original purchaser was able to use the program. On the face of
> it,that doesn't sound unreasonable. However, Intuit's approach was
> heavy-handed and ill-conceived. First, they chose an activation engine
> that had been identified by many experts in the community to be more than
> just a license manager, it had also been associated with various spy-ware
> activities. In addition, this license manager ran all the time, not just
> when Turbo-Tax was activated, and IIRC, remained installed on one's system
> even after one had uninstalled TurboTax -- you had to also deliberately
> uninstall the activation manager ( that really wasn't spyware, trust us) by
> itself. Next, Intuit support essentially leveled accusations of thievery
> against anyone who had installation issues and dared disturb technical
> support. There were several problems. Because of the activation scheme
> chosen, a major reconfiguration of one's machine could flag it to the
> activation software as a "different machine" and thus disable one's legal
> copy. Upgrading one's computer during tax season could result in a similar
> problem, with TT being disabled. Finally, many people would do their taxes
> on one machine, then copy the data file to disk and install TT on another
> machine (for example, at work) in order to print the forms because the
> printers were better at the second location, but the first location was
> more convenient for actually filling out the forms. This activation scheme
> precluded the ability to do that, despite the fact that this was a
> reasonable, fair use of the software. Other concerns raised were problems
> if one was audited in the future and you had a new computer (I believe that
> Intuit addressed that concern by de-activating the activation requirement
> and unlocking the software after October something of the tax year, so this
> wasn't as big an issue).
>
>
> As far as the "sunsetting" issue, Intuit has decided that after April of
> this year, all previous versions of Quicken will no longer be supported,
> and only Quicken 2005 will be the supported. They are forcing this upgrade
> by disabling the bill pay and online banking format that was present in
> prior versions and implementing a new interface to banks. For a really
> good description of the changes, check out:
> <http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2005/1/18/03027/1506>.
>
> From that article:
> "OK, the above is not precisely what the letter Quicken 2001 and Quicken
> 2002 customers started receiving last week said. I think it captures the
> spirit, though. What the letter does say is that, under Intuit's
> ever-changing , users of these two products have until April 19th to
> upgrade to Quicken 2005 if they wish to continue on-line banking. Thus
> features that were essential to many customers choosing to buy Quicken in
> the first place -- such as downloading account data from their financial
> institutions, on-line bill pay, and getting stock quotes -- are essentially
> being turned off for users of the 2001 and 2002 versions.
>
> "They're doing it again," wrote one angry reader. "I just received a letter
> from Intuit advising that my Quicken 2002 will no longer work with any
> on-line features, including on-line banking. I've seen Quicken 2005 on some
> client systems. I hate it. It's replete with advertising and sales promos,
> and much of the old control-key functionality has gone away, too. I can't
> help but feel they really have us by the proverbial short hairs, because
> any realistic alternatives are more trouble than they are worth."
>
> Further in the article, it mentions that some of the features present in
> one grade of Quicken are no longer there, but are now only present in the
> next higher grade. (for example, some features that were present in the
> standard version are now only available in the deluxe version -- thus the
> "lobotomized" comment).
>
> A subsequent article pointed out that if you were using Turbotax, you
> either had to upgrade to the newer version or go through additional steps
> to first export your records from the sunsetted version in a different
> format, then import it to turbotax from that new format.
> <http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2005/1/31/9545/59318>
>
>
>
>
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
> Army General Richard Cody
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Thanks for the heads up.
We recently switched to Quicken XG 2005 (?? latest anyway). It works
fine for us -- but it has only been a month since it was installed.
We use Quickbooks (Basic) as well - recently upgraded. It too seems OK.
We never really investigated the issues pointed out as our SW was a few
years old and we wanted to update. Maybe we should have...
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
[email protected] wrote:
> You are ignoring a few things about the fair tax. First, every
> taxpayer would keep 100 percent of their income. Second, the tax is
> only on new goods. One can avoid tax all together by buying used
> goods. Third, every taxpayer gets a check from the govt each month to
> cover necessities. Fourth, built in taxes and comliance costs account
> for about 23-25 percent of all goods. That is simply replaced by the
> fair tax. Competition will drive prices down further. I can go on and
> on.
>
Looks like stuff from this site. A touch distorted I gather...
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/materials/comparison.html
It also looks like the stuff the NDP peddle here in Canada. Just another
"New Democracy" I guess.
You will find similar ideas here. These ideas keep interesting company.
http://www.ndp.ca/
More proof that woodworking is far more interesting than politics.
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
> ...
>
>>>a lot of people. look on any street corner with multiple gas stations. they
>>>usually don't have all the exact same price. saw one this morning. 2
>>>stations next to each other. one at 2.35, one at 2.55. they both had
>>>customers.
>>>
>>>customers aren't always rational.
>>
>>Enough of them are that lower price produces a tremendous competitive
>>advantage.
>
> ...
>
> Here there's not 3 cents differential between all the stations in the
> entire town. Even in Wichita w/ the TV stations' "price-watch" call in
> I've rarely seen as much as a nickel difference.
>
> There are a few "loss leader" days now and then, and there's an
> advantage w/ some alcohol blends in states w/ incentives, but other than
> that, I see essentially no difference between
> majors/mid-majors/independents. There's as much difference from the
> Dillon's charge card as there is between the majors/independents
> (normally 2 cents, occasionally 3).
I was going to comment on people buying at higher
priced stations, so will include it here. I don't
know why they do. I can see why one would not
drive 10 miles across town to save 5 cents, but
why don't they drive across the street. We also
have stations that are separated only by the
street and one consistently sells at 5 or more
cents than the other. OTOH, luckily this corner
is near me and the most competitive in town. The
third corner station competes with the lower
priced station and is usually at the same price.
But when you have 3 choices, why would you pick
the highest. Prices going up and 1.299 at some
stations, 1.219 at others of the same brand,
within 4-5 miles of each other. In driving to the
Oregon coast, we often buy gas at the outskirts of
one town and save 5 cents. At another spot there
are three stations on opposing corners and one has
gas that is usually 6-10cents less than the
highest (that was when gas was around 1.50 a
gallon. Don't know what is now; will soon find
out. Some majors are always 6 cents or more
higher and Richfield is always the lowest; lower
than the "minor" sometimes and they often require
payment before you start pumping.
Unquestionably Confused wrote:
> WillR wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks for the heads up.
>>
>> We recently switched to Quicken XG 2005 (?? latest anyway). It works
>> fine for us -- but it has only been a month since it was installed.
>>
>> We use Quickbooks (Basic) as well - recently upgraded. It too seems OK.
>>
>> We never really investigated the issues pointed out as our SW was a
>> few years old and we wanted to update. Maybe we should have...
>
>
> They do the same thing with Quickbooks. After a couple years they stop
> supporting it AND, worst of all, won't support the payroll tax updates
> leaving you swinging in the breeze if you have a payroll. Then too now
> that they've figured out a way to force you to buy the tax updates they
> charge either $130 or $160 per year for it. If you don't buy it, you
> can't use the payroll function and have to do everything manually which,
> naturally, they no longer explain how to do.
We don't use payroll. _No more employees._
But -- we switched machines and tried to get a new registration -- they
are doing a Microsoft -- with much worse support.
>
> I dumped Turbo Tax for the reasons given a couple of years ago and went
> to Tax Cut. Happy with that program.
>
We are in Canada -- where Inutit has a monopoly I think. They bought our
only other Tax Software providers.
> What I'd love to do is take some of the geniuses from Intuit out behind
> the shop with a nice oak 2x2 for about ten minutes.
Now now!!! Try the AMT that Robatoy espouses -- it works for me. Deep
breath... count to 10! Ommmmmmmm
_Then_ go whack em. -- Feels twice as good. :-)
>
>
>
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
"GeeDubb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just a thought, what if tax on purchases were progressive as prices
> increased?
Hmm. Top quality tools are already difficult enough to find...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
In article <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Duane Bozarth wrote:
>> "[email protected]" wrote:
>> >
>> > patrick conroy wrote:
>> > > ... have four beers before you start.
>> > > Then have three more while figuring.
>> > > And trust in TurboTax.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Dammit - I owe, I owe.
>> > > Of all the years, I really could'a used a refund...
>> >
>> > HR 25 (Fair Tax). Does away with turbo tax, quicken, etc. Best of
>> > all, it does away with the IRS.
>>
>> Never happen...and it'd be "fair" in name only, anyway...
>
>What's unfair about it?
Unless there are some exemptions built in, the burden of any tax falls
disproportionately upon the very poor, some of whom need every dollar they can
earn to pay for the basic necessities of life. This is not a problem with the
current Federal income tax, but the payroll tax places a heavy burden on those
who are least able to afford it. For those whose incomes are not sufficient to
permit them to save or invest a portion, but instead must spend it all on
simply providing food, shelter, clothing, and transportation, replacing their
current situation (7.65% payroll tax, partially offset by a Federal income tax
*credit*) with a value-added tax at a *much* higher rate is intolerable.
Some of that burden, certainly, would be eased by the elimination of the
corporate income tax, which should produce a substantial reduction in retail
prices. [I'd support eliminating the corporate income tax simply on the
grounds that it's a complete fiction anyhow. Corporations don't pay income
tax. Their customers pay it. It's just another cost of doing business, like
salaries or raw materials, and is incorporated into the price of the product.]
I wonder, though, if that's sufficient to ease the burden on the very poor.
What's presented here
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html
seems like they've got that figured out (and a few other things as well).
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Some of that burden, certainly, would be eased by the elimination of the
> corporate income tax, which should produce a substantial reduction in
> retail
> prices. [I'd support eliminating the corporate income tax simply on the
> grounds that it's a complete fiction anyhow. Corporations don't pay income
> tax. Their customers pay it. It's just another cost of doing business,
> like
> salaries or raw materials, and is incorporated into the price of the
> product.]
Oh, one of my favorite hot buttons. Idiots think they are being spared
because business is being taxed. Your representatives (federal, state,
local, does not matter) want money for a favorite project. If they say
they want to increase taxes, people revolt. If they say they are going to
tax businesses, they are all in favor of it.
Second hot button. The town wants a new school. Town can't afford it. We
can't pay the property taxes. Oh, wait, the state is going to fund 82% of
it. Yay, we get a school that only cost us 18% of the real cost. The rest
is FREE from the state. Not once do these morons stop to think where the
state is getting the money.
We need major tax reform. We need to eliminate the present income tax in
favor of a flat tax (exempting the poor) or some sort of Federal sales tax.
We also have to cut government spending at every level. Congress does not
have the balls to try it.
Ed
"Brian Elfert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> The one thing everybody forgets is that for every cut, one or more workers
> will need to be laid off. Cutting 10s or 100s of thousands of workers
> from the government or government contracotr payrolls is going to cost our
> economy a lot until the economy can absorb all these unemployed people.
>
> Brian Elfert
With more money in the economy they will be absorbed into more productive
jobs. The US needs more plumbers, less lawyers and Federal drones.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/.
J. Clarke wrote:
> Same as any other tax--it hurts one group worse than it hurts another. HR25
> would hurts the people who are barely getting buy--under the current system
> they don't pay much if any income tax, but they'd pay a higher percentage
> of their income in sales tax than would someone who is well off, and it
> might make the difference between "making it" and going broke.
Your premise is wrong, therefore your conclusions are flawed:
Your implict assumption is that there is nothing that can be done about
"the poor" - that poverty is a societal constant both in fact and
numbers. This is flatly refuted by the last 200+ years of Western
society wherein the per capita poverty rates have been steadily falling
as a direct result of Capital Markets, Industrialization, and Personal
Liberty.
There are two kinds of poor people: the Intentional Poor - people whose
poverty is a direct consquence of their ongoing bad choices and
behavior, and the Unintentional Poor - people whose poverty is a matter
of circumstance, not their actions. The Intentional Poor remain so
generation after generation, and I couldn't care less about them - they
get what they deserve. The Unintentional Poor move up and out of poverty,
given any reasonable opportunity to do so.
If the tax structure quit punishing the most productive and wealthy
members of society - say with a flat sales tax coupled with mandatory
balanced bugets and a significant reduction in goverment spending -
there would be a non-inflationary economic boom the likes of which have
not been seen since the Industrial Revolution. Productive/wealthy people
either create new businesses, invest the money, spend the money, or save
it. In all these cases, there is a net increase in private sector growth
which leads to new jobs and wealth creation ... all of which benefits
the Unintentional Poor (nothing will help the Intentional Poor, nor do
we have any moral obligation to even bother trying - they are getting
precisely what they've earned).
The money being peed away by the various Government Swine (and their
pigglet constituents that feed at the trough) is gutting economic
growth. The rate of government expenditure is growing a significantly
greater rate than the rate of overall economic growth
(http://www.freetheworld.com/papers/Gwartney_Holcombe_Lawson.pdf) - i.e.,
The percentage of the GDP absorbed by Government is growing. (At
the current rate, the day will come when the Government consumes
the entire GDP - we'll all be working for the Political Hacks.)
This means that money that would be productively used to create new
businesses, wealth, and *jobs* is, instead, consumed by a Leviathan
Government, which produces almost nothing useful other than getting
incompetent nitwits and alcoholics off the unemployment lines and
sending them to Congress instead. These missing jobs are the jobs that
the Unintentional Poor can't get. There is surely no greater punishment
for the poor than a growing and intrusive government.
In my experience, people who bleat about the plight of the poor, a) Have
never themselves experienced poverty, and b) Almost never actually care
all that much about people in poverty - they're just such a charming
cause to take up in the name of what is "progressive and right" while
soiling the liberty of everyone else...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
Careful with your attributions, please - I did NOT write this:
>....
>> >a lot of people. look on any street corner with multiple gas stations. they
>> >usually don't have all the exact same price. saw one this morning. 2
>> >stations next to each other. one at 2.35, one at 2.55. they both had
>> >customers.
>> >
>> >customers aren't always rational.
>>
I wrote THIS:
>> Enough of them are that lower price produces a tremendous competitive
>> advantage.
>....
>
>Here there's not 3 cents differential between all the stations in the
>entire town. Even in Wichita w/ the TV stations' "price-watch" call in
>I've rarely seen as much as a nickel difference.
>
>There are a few "loss leader" days now and then, and there's an
>advantage w/ some alcohol blends in states w/ incentives, but other than
>that, I see essentially no difference between
>majors/mid-majors/independents. There's as much difference from the
>Dillon's charge card as there is between the majors/independents
>(normally 2 cents, occasionally 3).
Right, which is exactly my point. The first business to lower its prices in
response to lower costs of doing business gains an advantage. Its competitors
are forced to reduce their prices as well, or risk being driven out of
business.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>> "[email protected]" wrote:
>> >
>> > patrick conroy wrote:
>> > > ... have four beers before you start.
>> > > Then have three more while figuring.
>> > > And trust in TurboTax.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Dammit - I owe, I owe.
>> > > Of all the years, I really could'a used a refund...
>> >
>> > HR 25 (Fair Tax). Does away with turbo tax, quicken, etc. Best of
>> > all, it does away with the IRS.
>>
>> Never happen...and it'd be "fair" in name only, anyway...
>
>
> What's unfair about it?
Same as any other tax--it hurts one group worse than it hurts another. HR25
would hurts the people who are barely getting buy--under the current system
they don't pay much if any income tax, but they'd pay a higher percentage
of their income in sales tax than would someone who is well off, and it
might make the difference between "making it" and going broke.
In this case they try to correct that by giving each person a monthly rebate
in the amount of the tax rate times the poverty level. How well that will
work I have no idea, but it looks like almost as big a boondoggle as the
IRS itself.
It is not possible to develop a fair tax code--anyone who thinks that any
given tax code is fair is deluding himself.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:_Ye7e.7761$ff4.522@trndny08...
>
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Some of that burden, certainly, would be eased by the elimination of the
>> corporate income tax, which should produce a substantial reduction in
>> retail
>> prices. [I'd support eliminating the corporate income tax simply on the
>> grounds that it's a complete fiction anyhow. Corporations don't pay
>> income
>> tax. Their customers pay it. It's just another cost of doing business,
>> like
>> salaries or raw materials, and is incorporated into the price of the
>> product.]
>
> Oh, one of my favorite hot buttons. Idiots think they are being spared
> because business is being taxed. Your representatives (federal, state,
> local, does not matter) want money for a favorite project. If they say
> they want to increase taxes, people revolt. If they say they are going to
> tax businesses, they are all in favor of it.
what makes you think that prices will go down if business taxes go away? did
gas prices at the pump go down significantly when oil prices went down in
the last dip?
> Second hot button. The town wants a new school. Town can't afford it.
> We can't pay the property taxes. Oh, wait, the state is going to fund 82%
> of it. Yay, we get a school that only cost us 18% of the real cost. The
> rest is FREE from the state. Not once do these morons stop to think where
> the state is getting the money.
>
> We need major tax reform. We need to eliminate the present income tax in
> favor of a flat tax (exempting the poor) or some sort of Federal sales
> tax.
>
>
> We also have to cut government spending at every level. Congress does not
> have the balls to try it.
> Ed
>
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Same as any other tax--it hurts one group worse than it hurts another.
>> HR25 would hurts the people who are barely getting buy--under the current
>> system they don't pay much if any income tax, but they'd pay a higher
>> percentage of their income in sales tax than would someone who is well
>> off, and it might make the difference between "making it" and going
>> broke.
<diatribe about how poverty is curable without actually bothering to present
the cure snipped>
Which all gets down to your seeing the current system as unfair but not
being willing to admit that your proposed alternative is unfair to somebody
else.
Look, twit, I'm against all forms of taxation. I don't see HR25 as being
any real improvement over what we've got--soak the rich, soak the poor,
soak the middle class, soak the French, no matter how you structure it
somebody gets soaked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
[email protected] wrote:
> You are ignoring a few things about the fair tax. First, every
> taxpayer would keep 100 percent of their income.
No, they wouldn't. The portion of the purchase price of goods that goes to
the government comes out of their income.
> Second, the tax is only on new goods. One can avoid tax all together by
> buying used goods.
I have quite a lot of used food that I'd be happy to sell you.
> Third, every taxpayer gets a check from the govt each month to
> cover necessities.
Actually, they get a check equal to the tax rate times the poverty level.
If that "covers necessities" then the poverty level would seem to be a bit
high.
> Fourth, built in taxes and comliance costs account
> for about 23-25 percent of all goods. That is simply replaced by the
> fair tax.
Huh? What "built in taxes and compliance costs" would be replaced?
> Competition will drive prices down further. I can go on and
> on.
Huh? Competition will reduce the tax?
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>> Fourth, built in taxes and comliance costs account
>>> for about 23-25 percent of all goods. That is simply replaced by the
>>> fair tax.
>>
>>Huh? What "built in taxes and compliance costs" would be replaced?
>
> The corporate income tax is a complete fiction. Corporations do not, and
> never
> have, paid income tax. Their *customers* pay it. The corporate income tax,
> and
> the cost of preparing and it (and, trust me, that's huge), are simply
> costs of
> doing business, just like salaries or raw materials, and are incorporated
> into
> the prices of the products.
>>
>>> Competition will drive prices down further. I can go on and
>>> on.
>>
>>Huh? Competition will reduce the tax?
>
> He said competition will drive down price.
>
> If the corporate income tax disappears, every corporation's cost of doing
> business will drop dramatically. This in turn enables them to
> significantly lower the prices of their goods or services, and remain
> profitable. The first one in any particular market sector to do this will
> obtain a tremendous competitive advantage, and the others will be forced
> to
> follow suit.
>
> For example, how many people are going to eat at McDonalds if a Big Mac
> costs
> a dollar, but Burger King is selling Whoppers for 75 cents? If Shell is
> selling gasoline for $1.75 a gallon, who's going to pay the Marathon
> across
> the street $2.25?
a lot of people. look on any street corner with multiple gas stations. they
usually don't have all the exact same price. saw one this morning. 2
stations next to each other. one at 2.35, one at 2.55. they both had
customers.
customers aren't always rational.
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
> And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:06:18 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Some of that burden, certainly, would be eased by the elimination of the
>> corporate income tax, which should produce a substantial reduction in
>> retail
>> prices. [I'd support eliminating the corporate income tax simply on the
>> grounds that it's a complete fiction anyhow. Corporations don't pay income
>> tax. Their customers pay it. It's just another cost of doing business,
>> like
>> salaries or raw materials, and is incorporated into the price of the
>> product.]
>
>Oh, one of my favorite hot buttons. Idiots think they are being spared
>because business is being taxed. Your representatives (federal, state,
>local, does not matter) want money for a favorite project. If they say
>they want to increase taxes, people revolt. If they say they are going to
>tax businesses, they are all in favor of it.
>
>Second hot button. The town wants a new school. Town can't afford it. We
>can't pay the property taxes. Oh, wait, the state is going to fund 82% of
>it. Yay, we get a school that only cost us 18% of the real cost. The rest
>is FREE from the state. Not once do these morons stop to think where the
>state is getting the money.
>
>We need major tax reform. We need to eliminate the present income tax in
>favor of a flat tax (exempting the poor) or some sort of Federal sales tax.
Actually, a graduated income tax is probably the least harmful at
every economic level. That doesn't make it "fair" since the rich pay
more as a percentage, but in many ways it is the most fair of any
proposal, certainly much more so than a flat tax or a sales tax (which
works like an inverse graduated income tax).
>We also have to cut government spending at every level. Congress does not
>have the balls to try it.
This, of course, is the real issue. What should they be cutting,
though? No one wants the services that they use to be jeopardized, so
the elected representative don't act in order to preserve their voter
base. I really don't know where we can cut government services without
creating a bigger economic burden somewhere else. The old cry of "trim
the fat" just won't yield any useful reductions.
If there was a good answer someone would have done it. All the answers
are bad in one way or another, so decide what you want to deal with
and lean that way.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
George wrote:
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Still (halfheartedly) using Quickbooks 99 for the business/farm although
>>I'm reverting more and more to the old paper books for routine
>>record-keeping and simply transferring gross information into QB--it's
>>faster and more flexible.
>
>
> As we know from recent history, it's good to have flexible bookkeeping....
>
>
Would that be Enron style or a more worldly communications approach to
divulging your finances?
Or, for those in Canada, perhaps a more Liberal approach would be in
order -- assuming that you find the Conservative approach too "Scary".
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
J. Clarke wrote>
> It is not possible to develop a fair tax code--anyone who thinks that
> any given tax code is fair is deluding himself.
Since I don't agree that just because I can make more money than somebody
else I should be penalized by higher taxation of my income so......
Just a thought, what if tax on purchases were progressive as prices
increased?
e.g., a $20K car has a 5% tax, a $25K car has 6% and keeps going up a
percent per $5K. Then the wealthy end up paying more in taxes than the not
so wealthy. If you don't like the taxes, don't buy it or buy a lesser
costing item.
Of course, this would get complicated when applied to different things such
as food (should be exempt from tax) and clothing but could still work as the
cost of a clothing item increases, so does the tax. The poverty level kids
don't need a $150 pair of Nikes anyway (and neither do most people).
No more income tax, just a progessive use tax. It taxes the wealthy more
but only if they want to pay for it.
Gary (just another idea that sure to tick off someone!)
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:33:40 GMT, "patrick conroy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>... have four beers before you start.
>Then have three more while figuring.
>And trust in TurboTax.
>
I've been using TaxCut; Intuit has lost my business with their
activation fiasco a couple of years ago with TurboTax (lost sales made them
reconsider that nonsense) and their absolute arrogance in sunsetting
Quicken functions in order to force people to "upgrade" to a newer version
that is lobotomized compared to features that were present in the
equivalent grade of the current version.
Now I'm looking for a good replacement for Quicken so I have it available
when I need it. Anybody have any experience with MoneyDance?
http://www.moneydance.com/
>
>Dammit - I owe, I owe.
>Of all the years, I really could'a used a refund...
>
Shoulda stopped at the second beer. :-)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On 15 Apr 2005 06:25:18 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>So what? Even if that's true there is still a savings. Not only does
>the business benefit because they no longer have to deal with that
>compliance cost the consumer benefits as the price for the goods drop.
>And best of all they pay no federal, fica, medicare tax. That equates
>to a pay raise as well as savings and buying power. It also opens the
>US up for additional foreign investment.
I assume you are replying to this:
>>The only compliance costs that could possibly be affected under the
>>so-called "fair tax" are those pertaining to computing and filing
>>taxes. It is only those costs that can be considered a savings to the
>>consumer, as the sales tax or whatever will be raised to cover the
>>basic revenue expense. For the person at the paying end there is
>>essentially no difference between any of the schemes proposed and the
>>current system other than perhaps simplicity in calculating.
My point is that the savings are so small that the ultimate gain to
the taxpayer is probably on the order of a fraction of one percent -
call it maybe $20 a year that you might save in lower costs. Realize
also that adding a sales tax will create *more* compliance costs since
there are more retail outlets than there are manufacturers. In the end
the guy paying the taxes will be neither better nor worse, we will
just be dealing with a different system.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Actually, a graduated income tax is probably the least harmful at
> every economic level. That doesn't make it "fair" since the rich pay
> more as a percentage, but in many ways it is the most fair of any
> proposal, certainly much more so than a flat tax or a sales tax (which
> works like an inverse graduated income tax).
Graduated tax in our system is not very well graduated though. Too many
ways around the tax. Eliminate the various deductions and then it may
become fair. You could have then a combination where income dictates the
percentage, not a lot of hocus-pocus from Squirrley Accounting Partners LLC
.
Two problems with a simple flat tax. We don't need accountant to prepare
the forms. We don't need lawyers do defend the accountants deductions.
>
> This, of course, is the real issue. What should they be cutting,
> though? No one wants the services that they use to be jeopardized, so
> the elected representative don't act in order to preserve their voter
> base. I really don't know where we can cut government services without
> creating a bigger economic burden somewhere else.
The burden may then fall where it should, on the people that want a
particular service. We all want an army to protect us, good highways to
drive on, but we don't need a lot of silly mandates, pork barrel projects,
and employees in postions because of friends in high places. There can be
billions in cuts and no honest citizen would miss the service.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>...>
>> I really didn't see much difference in the interface between TaxCut and
>> TurboTax on the paid version. It's set up with the same kind of interview
>> interface to enter the data. It also has tabbed indices to various
>> elements of the program.
>
... snip
>
>...
>> For quite some time, I used Lotus 1-2-3 worksheets for my finances. I
>> pretty much use QuickBooks as an electronic equivalent of paper records, it
>> just does all the legwork and makes keeping track of accounts easy. I do
>> the real transfers among various accounts the old-fashioned way, I write a
>> paper check, same with paying bills.
>
... man, what was I thinking last night? I use Quicken, not Quickbooks,
I'm not a business, so QB doesn't make sense for me. [I knew yesterday
(well, this last couple weeks) was a long day, but I must have really been
asleep at the switch]
... snip
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>....
>> Right, which is exactly my point. ...
>
>Not exactly...my point is that w/ gasoline at least, it's a fixed
>market--all distributor pricing is essentially the same so there is no
>competitive edge any one station can gan over another in the long term.
And if everyone's cost of doing business is lowered by 25%, and *one*
distributor reduces his prices accordingly while his competitors do not, that
one distributor will have an enormous competitive advantage. The others will
have no choice but to lower their prices as well if they wish to remain
competitive.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:02:34 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I've been using TaxCut; Intuit has lost my business with their
>activation fiasco a couple of years ago with TurboTax (lost sales made them
>reconsider that nonsense) and their absolute arrogance in sunsetting
>Quicken functions in order to force people to "upgrade" to a newer version
>that is lobotomized compared to features that were present in the
>equivalent grade of the current version.
>
> Now I'm looking for a good replacement for Quicken so I have it available
>when I need it. Anybody have any experience with MoneyDance?
>http://www.moneydance.com/
>
======================================\
They lost my business for the exact same reason... although to be
truthful I liked thier old DOS based programs a lot more then I did
the "Winders" versions...but I never could hold them responsible for
that ...
On the HOME Financial software ....Call be an antique if you will but
I have been using MYM ( Managing your Money) since the 80's ...just
simple to use ...and works for me...
I lost my original program disks a few years ago & could not install
in on my new computer...
and went into a near panic and had to use Quicken for
a month or two... Gosh what a royal pain to use...
Found a set of original MYM disks on E-bay I called the seller and
gave him 50 bucks for them when the auction price was only 50
cents.... He ended the auction and sent me the disks... Personally
it was worth the 50 bucks ....I honestly would have paid more...
I was smart this time...I made duplicates of the originals and store
them in a safe deposit box...
That said... I filed my taxes Saturday and they were accepted and I
just finished printing out the PAYMENT vouchers to send along with my
check... I will not write the checks until Friday.....
Bob Griffiths
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:33:40 GMT, "patrick conroy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>... have four beers before you start.
>Then have three more while figuring.
>And trust in TurboTax.
>
>
>Dammit - I owe, I owe.
>Of all the years, I really could'a used a refund...
Back when he was working as a building contractor my dad used to
explain his simple system for avoiding income tax - go into business
for yourself, you won't have any income, so no income tax! QED
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
In article <[email protected]>,
Bob G. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I've been using TaxCut; Intuit has lost my business with their
> >activation fiasco a couple of years ago with TurboTax (lost sales made them
> >reconsider that nonsense) and their absolute arrogance in sunsetting
> >Quicken functions in order to force people to "upgrade" to a newer version
> >that is lobotomized compared to features that were present in the
> >equivalent grade of the current version.
> >
> ======================================\
> They lost my business for the exact same reason... although to be
> truthful I liked thier old DOS based programs a lot more then I did
> the "Winders" versions...but I never could hold them responsible for
> that ...
What do you guys mean by "activation fiasco" and the "sunsetted" Quicken
functions?
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05
In article <[email protected]>,
"GeeDubb" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just a thought, what if tax on purchases were progressive as prices
> increased?
>
> e.g., a $20K car has a 5% tax, a $25K car has 6% and keeps going up a
> percent per $5K. Then the wealthy end up paying more in taxes than the not
> so wealthy. If you don't like the taxes, don't buy it or buy a lesser
> costing item.
>
> Of course, this would get complicated when applied to different things such
> as food (should be exempt from tax) and clothing but could still work as the
> cost of a clothing item increases, so does the tax. The poverty level kids
> don't need a $150 pair of Nikes anyway (and neither do most people).
That's easy - we all have National Tax Debit Cards. Every purchase is
run through the NTDC along with however we wish to pay for the item. You
could elect to pay the tax at the point of sale or pay it at a later
date. If you didn't pay at the time of sale, the program could be set up
with choices for pulling the tax from various sources - you could have
the amount pulled from every paycheck; or you could have the Feds EFT it
from a bank account on a regular basis; or you could send in quarterly
payments on your account balance (OAC).
Doesn't that get yer panties in a bunch?
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Several years ago, Intuit decided
Thanks Mark for taking the time to respond so fully - I had no idea. (I
used Quicken 98(?) on an old mac and just recently got a new mac with
Q'05 preinstalled. Since I don't do online banking will these Intuit
tactics haunt me as well?
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:02:34 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:33:40 GMT, "patrick conroy"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>... have four beers before you start.
>>Then have three more while figuring.
>>And trust in TurboTax.
>>
>
> I've been using TaxCut; Intuit has lost my business with their
>activation fiasco a couple of years ago with TurboTax (lost sales made them
>reconsider that nonsense) and their absolute arrogance in sunsetting
>Quicken functions in order to force people to "upgrade" to a newer version
>that is lobotomized compared to features that were present in the
>equivalent grade of the current version.
I'm still using Quicken 99 Basic version. Still works the same and is
entirely adequate for dealing with my meager finances. I gave up
Turbotax a couple of years ago when IRS put fillable pdf forms online.
I download them and use Acrobat Writer to fill them in. No way am I
going to do this stuff online with the breaches reported lately.
A coupla Excel sheets handle the calcs.
Of course it helps to have no job, no business, no mortgage, no cattle
feeding tax shelters and no income:-)
>
> Now I'm looking for a good replacement for Quicken so I have it available
>when I need it. Anybody have any experience with MoneyDance?
>http://www.moneydance.com/
Not me.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:58:22 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Bob G. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > I've been using TaxCut; Intuit has lost my business with their
>> >activation fiasco a couple of years ago with TurboTax (lost sales made them
>> >reconsider that nonsense) and their absolute arrogance in sunsetting
>> >Quicken functions in order to force people to "upgrade" to a newer version
>> >that is lobotomized compared to features that were present in the
>> >equivalent grade of the current version.
>> >
>> ======================================\
>> They lost my business for the exact same reason... although to be
>> truthful I liked thier old DOS based programs a lot more then I did
>> the "Winders" versions...but I never could hold them responsible for
>> that ...
>
>What do you guys mean by "activation fiasco" and the "sunsetted" Quicken
>functions?
Several years ago, Intuit decided that too many people were "sharing"
their TurboTax program and instituted an activation scheme to assure that
only the original purchaser was able to use the program. On the face of
it,that doesn't sound unreasonable. However, Intuit's approach was
heavy-handed and ill-conceived. First, they chose an activation engine
that had been identified by many experts in the community to be more than
just a license manager, it had also been associated with various spy-ware
activities. In addition, this license manager ran all the time, not just
when Turbo-Tax was activated, and IIRC, remained installed on one's system
even after one had uninstalled TurboTax -- you had to also deliberately
uninstall the activation manager ( that really wasn't spyware, trust us) by
itself. Next, Intuit support essentially leveled accusations of thievery
against anyone who had installation issues and dared disturb technical
support. There were several problems. Because of the activation scheme
chosen, a major reconfiguration of one's machine could flag it to the
activation software as a "different machine" and thus disable one's legal
copy. Upgrading one's computer during tax season could result in a similar
problem, with TT being disabled. Finally, many people would do their taxes
on one machine, then copy the data file to disk and install TT on another
machine (for example, at work) in order to print the forms because the
printers were better at the second location, but the first location was
more convenient for actually filling out the forms. This activation scheme
precluded the ability to do that, despite the fact that this was a
reasonable, fair use of the software. Other concerns raised were problems
if one was audited in the future and you had a new computer (I believe that
Intuit addressed that concern by de-activating the activation requirement
and unlocking the software after October something of the tax year, so this
wasn't as big an issue).
As far as the "sunsetting" issue, Intuit has decided that after April of
this year, all previous versions of Quicken will no longer be supported,
and only Quicken 2005 will be the supported. They are forcing this upgrade
by disabling the bill pay and online banking format that was present in
prior versions and implementing a new interface to banks. For a really
good description of the changes, check out:
<http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2005/1/18/03027/1506>.
From that article:
"OK, the above is not precisely what the letter Quicken 2001 and Quicken
2002 customers started receiving last week said. I think it captures the
spirit, though. What the letter does say is that, under Intuit's
ever-changing , users of these two products have until April 19th to
upgrade to Quicken 2005 if they wish to continue on-line banking. Thus
features that were essential to many customers choosing to buy Quicken in
the first place -- such as downloading account data from their financial
institutions, on-line bill pay, and getting stock quotes -- are essentially
being turned off for users of the 2001 and 2002 versions.
"They're doing it again," wrote one angry reader. "I just received a letter
from Intuit advising that my Quicken 2002 will no longer work with any
on-line features, including on-line banking. I've seen Quicken 2005 on some
client systems. I hate it. It's replete with advertising and sales promos,
and much of the old control-key functionality has gone away, too. I can't
help but feel they really have us by the proverbial short hairs, because
any realistic alternatives are more trouble than they are worth."
Further in the article, it mentions that some of the features present in
one grade of Quicken are no longer there, but are now only present in the
next higher grade. (for example, some features that were present in the
standard version are now only available in the deluxe version -- thus the
"lobotomized" comment).
A subsequent article pointed out that if you were using Turbotax, you
either had to upgrade to the newer version or go through additional steps
to first export your records from the sunsetted version in a different
format, then import it to turbotax from that new format.
<http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2005/1/31/9545/59318>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:19:57 -0700, Wes Stewart <n7ws_@*yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:02:34 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
... snip
>
>I'm still using Quicken 99 Basic version. Still works the same and is
>entirely adequate for dealing with my meager finances. I gave up
>Turbotax a couple of years ago when IRS put fillable pdf forms online.
>I download them and use Acrobat Writer to fill them in. No way am I
>going to do this stuff online with the breaches reported lately.
>
I agree with the online stuff. I don't have any desire to use e-file --
I'll continue to use hardcopy as long as possible. The tax programs just
make sure I have all the appropriate information in the right places.
>A coupla Excel sheets handle the calcs.
>
>Of course it helps to have no job, no business, no mortgage, no cattle
>feeding tax shelters and no income:-)
>>
>> Now I'm looking for a good replacement for Quicken so I have it available
>>when I need it. Anybody have any experience with MoneyDance?
>>http://www.moneydance.com/
>
>Not me.
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:14:51 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>...
>> I've been using TaxCut; Intuit has lost my business with their
>> activation fiasco a couple of years ago with TurboTax ...
>
>I used the TaxCut freebie for a working copy also...works although
>klunky interface (but for free, what can you expect? :) ). I'd really
>not like the interface if I were paying for it, however.
>
I really didn't see much difference in the interface between TaxCut and
TurboTax on the paid version. It's set up with the same kind of interview
interface to enter the data. It also has tabbed indices to various
elements of the program.
>Still (halfheartedly) using Quickbooks 99 for the business/farm although
>I'm reverting more and more to the old paper books for routine
>record-keeping and simply transferring gross information into QB--it's
>faster and more flexible.
For quite some time, I used Lotus 1-2-3 worksheets for my finances. I
pretty much use QuickBooks as an electronic equivalent of paper records, it
just does all the legwork and makes keeping track of accounts easy. I do
the real transfers among various accounts the old-fashioned way, I write a
paper check, same with paying bills.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:06:56 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Several years ago, Intuit decided
>
>Thanks Mark for taking the time to respond so fully - I had no idea. (I
>used Quicken 98(?) on an old mac and just recently got a new mac with
>Q'05 preinstalled. Since I don't do online banking will these Intuit
>tactics haunt me as well?
I don't really know, if Q05 is doing what you want, you are probably OK
until they decide to sunset it for Q07 or 08. Even then, if you don't use
the online features, you're OK. I'm sticking with Q2002 as long as I can
-- I don't use online features anyway.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On 14 Apr 2005 17:57:15 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>J. Clarke wrote:
>> Huh? What "built in taxes and compliance costs" would be replaced?
>>
>
>Costs of, for example, complying with any number of federal
>regulations. Compliance costs in the US average around 250 billion per
>year. Think what companies can do with those savings.
The only compliance costs that could possibly be affected under the
so-called "fair tax" are those pertaining to computing and filing
taxes. It is only those costs that can be considered a savings to the
consumer, as the sales tax or whatever will be raised to cover the
basic revenue expense. For the person at the paying end there is
essentially no difference between any of the schemes proposed and the
current system other than perhaps simplicity in calculating.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>....
>> He said competition will drive down price.
>>
>> If the corporate income tax disappears, every corporation's cost of doing
>> business will drop dramatically. This in turn enables them to
>> significantly lower the prices of their goods or services, and remain
>> profitable. The first one in any particular market sector to do this will
>> obtain a tremendous competitive advantage, and the others will be forced to
>> follow suit.
>....
>
>And therein you unwittingly point out the rub...it's a temporary
>advantage and the long-term competitive position isn't changed--just
>reset at a differing level
So what? The point is not to alter the competitive position, the point is to
lower the cost of doing business for corporations, and thereby lower the cost
of their products.
>and the cost passed along in a differing guise.
What cost are you talking about? Eliminating the corporate income tax
*eliminates* a cost of doing business. It doesn't just shift that cost
somewhere else - that cost *disappears*.
If you think that corporations actually pay income taxes, either you haven't
thought it all the way through, or you're very naive. It's just another cost
of doing business, and is passed along to customers just like every other cost
of doing business. Corporations do not pay corporate income taxes, never have,
and never will. Those taxes are paid by their customers in the form of higher
prices. The only role of the corporation is to collect that tax from the
customers, and forward it to the government.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>....
>> >and the cost passed along in a differing guise.
>>
>> What cost are you talking about? Eliminating the corporate income tax
>> *eliminates* a cost of doing business. It doesn't just shift that cost
>> somewhere else - that cost *disappears*.
>
>....snip more ranting about how I'm inept and all... :)
>
>That "cost" <may> disappear in part, but do you expect all SEC filings
>and other government reporting to also disappear? What I'm saying is
>that the "cost" you're going to save to generate the revenue is simply
>going to shift to some other form to generate the equivalent revenue.
No, it's not. The direct cost of paying corporate income tax, and the
indirect cost of preparing and filing the returns, will *disappear*. The cost
of SEC filings and other government reporting will not change. Thus there will
be a net *decrease*, and a large one at that, in the burden placed on business
by government.
>So, while you're hypothesis is nice wish, I don't believe it can be
>achieved realistically.
The only thing unrealistic here is your refusal to accept the obvious.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Fourth, built in taxes and comliance costs account
>> for about 23-25 percent of all goods. That is simply replaced by the
>> fair tax.
>
>Huh? What "built in taxes and compliance costs" would be replaced?
The corporate income tax is a complete fiction. Corporations do not, and never
have, paid income tax. Their *customers* pay it. The corporate income tax, and
the cost of preparing and it (and, trust me, that's huge), are simply costs of
doing business, just like salaries or raw materials, and are incorporated into
the prices of the products.
>
>> Competition will drive prices down further. I can go on and
>> on.
>
>Huh? Competition will reduce the tax?
He said competition will drive down price.
If the corporate income tax disappears, every corporation's cost of doing
business will drop dramatically. This in turn enables them to
significantly lower the prices of their goods or services, and remain
profitable. The first one in any particular market sector to do this will
obtain a tremendous competitive advantage, and the others will be forced to
follow suit.
For example, how many people are going to eat at McDonalds if a Big Mac costs
a dollar, but Burger King is selling Whoppers for 75 cents? If Shell is
selling gasoline for $1.75 a gallon, who's going to pay the Marathon across
the street $2.25?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?