OT: The secret to doing your taxes is

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

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.

Nonsense. You're completely ignoring the enormous benefits of removing the burden of big government.

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?

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?

Doug Miller wrote: ...

...snip more ranting about how I'm inept and all... :)

That "cost" 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: ...

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: ...

...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.

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...

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.

together by

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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

IIRC, it was ARCO in California that was always the cheapest, but it was cash only.

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...

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.

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.

... snip

... 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