OT: The secret to doing your taxes is

Page 3 of 4  

Doug Miller wrote: ...

...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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote: ...

Well, to me it's obvious there's no hope in realizing your (pipe) dream and that the so-called reduction in one form would be replaced by at least an equivalent cost in another...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote: ...

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).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Careful with your attributions, please - I did NOT write this:

I wrote THIS:

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote: ...

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

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 becamean attempat to be a serious discussion... :(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane Bozarth wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

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.

IIRC, it was ARCO in California that was always the cheapest, but it was cash only.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

taxpayer does not have their check docked for fica, fed income taxes, etc.

How about a used house or car?

This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc.

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.

No, competition will drive down prices.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14 Apr 2005 17:57:15 -0700, " snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com"

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Douglass wrote: ...

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com" wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote: ...

Dream on... :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.