Wow, the stupidity is high in you, isn't it? Perhaps you should go easy on the ganja.
Buying healthcare insurance doesn't have the same impact as a tax. If you pay a tax, you just gave your government some money, there is no direct return on that money.
If you buy healthcare insurance, guess what, you are now insured.
Can you now see the difference between buying something and paying a tax?
Those "rules" are bogus. Things are never so black and white in real life.
1. If you can trade a high interest rate for a low one, do it. 2. People borrow money for cars all the time and it can be a reasonable decision. Borrowing money over 8 years to buy a car is crazy, but a 4-year loan? Also, imagine that you have the choice to pay off a student loan or a car loan, which do you choose? It may also make sense to borrow money to keep your cash hedge intact. 3. I agree.
Fundamentally, though, the bottom line is: don't spend more than you can afford over the long term.
That cap is on the order of an expensive house or car repair.
Maybe for your insurance it is. For mine, the annual out of pocket maximum is $10k (for the family, or $5k/person). $10k would be a big blow to someone on minimum wage.
And I've told you ad nauseum that I'm discussing this taxation system from the viewpoint of the people who pay those taxes not the resellers.
Let's look at how this started. Your original statement:
The only real difference between VAT and sales tax is that it is quoted as part of the purchase price while sales tax is a surprise at the register.
But as I have pointed out, that statement is not true, because there are significant differences between a sales tax and a VAT that are not readily visible at a retail checkout. You are now claiming that you made a statement only about retail customers, but, as can be seen from the quote above, you did not.
Your statement says that the "only real" difference is that which retail customers see, which is patently false. Furthermore that difference is only seen by retail customers and often not seen by business customers.
Just to add a personal anecdote to this to show how mistaken you are, just yesterday, I rented a Virtual Private Server and the price quoted was 5 pounds. At checkout, I was surprised to see VAT was added, bringing my cost to 6 pounds.
Tell me why I, as a customer, give a shit whether you remit it all or remit none or any percentage in between
As a customer, you don't. However, when you are spouting falsehoods like this: "The only real difference between VAT and sales tax is that it is quoted as part of the purchase price while sales tax is a surprise at the register" in a discussion about taxation, then you (or perhaps other readers) should care.
Even your statement that I quoted is not true. There is nothing inherent in VAT that means it must be included in the price. In fact, in the UK, for many goods, intended for sale to other businesses, it often isn't included in the price.
I really don't think that you understand the difference.
Lets say I make a product. In the process of making that product, I have to buy things like office chairs, desks, etc.. I pay VAT or sales taxes on those purchases.
In the VAT scenario, I charge the customer the full percentage of VAT, but I only remit to the tax office the difference between the VAT I charged and the VAT that I paid on things like those chairs.
In the US sales tax scenario, I charge the full sales tax, but I remit all of it to the tax office. Because I did not get an offset for the tax that I paid on the chairs and desks (as I did in the VAT scenario), I have to sell my product at a higher price.
When I wrote "collect", I should have written "remit".
That's cheap. The healthcare I get through my employer (who pays most of the premiums) is about $1,700/month. This covers my wife and me and is unrelated to any medical history: just age. That's for the cheapest insurance offered by my employer: We have a $5000 deductible (we pay the first $5k of any medical bills in each year).
If you take off the gloves, you could take on the entire world and win.
I am not convinced of that. The US certainly has the most expensive military, but is it the most effective?
The US has more aircraft carriers than all other countries put together, but are they really safe against advanced missiles? And the cost of the F35 should be a joke, but really, it's not funny. Is the F35 orders of magnitude more effective than the competition? In any battle, the US' F35s are likely to be outnumbered, so it needs to be a lot more effective to survive.
Do they include health care premiums as a tax? That's what the courts ruled they were after all.
Idiot. No, the Supreme Court did not rule that healthcare premiums were a tax. It ruled that the penalty for not having healthcare insurance was a tax. There is a huge difference.
The only real difference between VAT and sales tax is that it is quoted as part of the purchase price while sales tax is a surprise at the register.
I don't think that you understand the "Value Added" part of VAT. With a VAT, tax is collected incrementally. If I buy something for $1 and sell it for $2, I only collect taxes on the $1 difference between my buy/sell price.
With a sales tax, the whole amount is collected at every stage, with exceptions for resellers. With a sales tax, there is a possibility that the total tax collected in the manufacture and sale of a product may be greater than the nominal rate the end-purchaser pays. With a VAT, this doesn't happen.
The only way you fix the monopoly problem is more regulation.
So, what do you want? Regulation to fix the monopoly issue, or regulation to fox net neutrality?
It's the ISP's network, they should be able to run it however they like.
Taxpayers and residents did not contribute anything to the cost of the last mile? Like granting free access to the ISPs to wire up the houses, or the subsidies granted for rural connections?
In any case, monopolies are typically regulated for the benefit of society.
If this claim is true, the claim that Uber merely facilitates the agreement between the driver and passenger and takes a commission is clearly bogus.
Also, if Uber specifies the route and demands that the driver takes that specific route, that may be exerting too much control of the drivers for them to be contractors.
So what you are proposing is to replace regulation with more regulation?
You propose deregulating the ISPs while adding regulation to the last mile service. And, let's be clear, without regulation, there will be no competition, because the last mile is a natural monopoly.
Plus the fact that Microsoft did not give a shit about users' privacy and initially rolled Windows 10 out configured to collect all sorts of unnecessary data.
Certainly not. If what you grow in your own garden for your own consumption is Interstate Commerce, then..... Oh wait, I think that I have got this wrong.
"Interstate Commerce" is a phrase that is defined by Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to meanâ"neither more nor less."
Fyi these laws were passed mostly by Democrats, in the 1940s through 1960s.
So before the Southern Realignment, then?
The Republicans who control Utah had the opportunity to change this law, but those same people who espouse "free markets" want to impose a particular market structure on the sale of automobiles.
They are hypocrites and the voters in Utah need to recognize this.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, the stupidity is high in you, isn't it? Perhaps you should go easy on the ganja.
Buying healthcare insurance doesn't have the same impact as a tax. If you pay a tax, you just gave your government some money, there is no direct return on that money.
If you buy healthcare insurance, guess what, you are now insured.
Can you now see the difference between buying something and paying a tax?
Those "rules" are bogus. Things are never so black and white in real life.
1. If you can trade a high interest rate for a low one, do it.
2. People borrow money for cars all the time and it can be a reasonable decision. Borrowing money over 8 years to buy a car is crazy, but a 4-year loan? Also, imagine that you have the choice to pay off a student loan or a car loan, which do you choose? It may also make sense to borrow money to keep your cash hedge intact.
3. I agree.
Fundamentally, though, the bottom line is: don't spend more than you can afford over the long term.
Maybe for your insurance it is. For mine, the annual out of pocket maximum is $10k (for the family, or $5k/person). $10k would be a big blow to someone on minimum wage.
Let's look at how this started. Your original statement:
But as I have pointed out, that statement is not true, because there are significant differences between a sales tax and a VAT that are not readily visible at a retail checkout. You are now claiming that you made a statement only about retail customers, but, as can be seen from the quote above, you did not.
Your statement says that the "only real" difference is that which retail customers see, which is patently false. Furthermore that difference is only seen by retail customers and often not seen by business customers.
Just to add a personal anecdote to this to show how mistaken you are, just yesterday, I rented a Virtual Private Server and the price quoted was 5 pounds. At checkout, I was surprised to see VAT was added, bringing my cost to 6 pounds.
As a customer, you don't. However, when you are spouting falsehoods like this: "The only real difference between VAT and sales tax is that it is quoted as part of the purchase price while sales tax is a surprise at the register" in a discussion about taxation, then you (or perhaps other readers) should care.
Even your statement that I quoted is not true. There is nothing inherent in VAT that means it must be included in the price. In fact, in the UK, for many goods, intended for sale to other businesses, it often isn't included in the price.
What makes you think that the people who write for Netflix and the other non-networks won't also go on strike?
No, idiot. I explained this above. Can you not read?
Healthcare premiums are not a tax. The Supreme court did not declare them to be a tax.
The penalty for not having healthcare insurance is a tax. This is money that is paid directly to the government, not to an insurance company.
The penalty does not buy you healthcare insurance.
In summary: what you pay for healthcare insurance is not a tax. Got that?
I really don't think that you understand the difference.
Lets say I make a product. In the process of making that product, I have to buy things like office chairs, desks, etc.. I pay VAT or sales taxes on those purchases.
In the VAT scenario, I charge the customer the full percentage of VAT, but I only remit to the tax office the difference between the VAT I charged and the VAT that I paid on things like those chairs.
In the US sales tax scenario, I charge the full sales tax, but I remit all of it to the tax office. Because I did not get an offset for the tax that I paid on the chairs and desks (as I did in the VAT scenario), I have to sell my product at a higher price.
When I wrote "collect", I should have written "remit".
That's cheap. The healthcare I get through my employer (who pays most of the premiums) is about $1,700/month. This covers my wife and me and is unrelated to any medical history: just age. That's for the cheapest insurance offered by my employer: We have a $5000 deductible (we pay the first $5k of any medical bills in each year).
I am not convinced of that. The US certainly has the most expensive military, but is it the most effective?
The US has more aircraft carriers than all other countries put together, but are they really safe against advanced missiles? And the cost of the F35 should be a joke, but really, it's not funny. Is the F35 orders of magnitude more effective than the competition? In any battle, the US' F35s are likely to be outnumbered, so it needs to be a lot more effective to survive.
Idiot. No, the Supreme Court did not rule that healthcare premiums were a tax. It ruled that the penalty for not having healthcare insurance was a tax. There is a huge difference.
I don't think that you understand the "Value Added" part of VAT. With a VAT, tax is collected incrementally. If I buy something for $1 and sell it for $2, I only collect taxes on the $1 difference between my buy/sell price.
With a sales tax, the whole amount is collected at every stage, with exceptions for resellers. With a sales tax, there is a possibility that the total tax collected in the manufacture and sale of a product may be greater than the nominal rate the end-purchaser pays. With a VAT, this doesn't happen.
There is nothing to stop an airline paying more compensation. Take this case:
http://heelsfirsttravel.boardi...
In other news, monopolies will always be inefficient, provide lousy service and charge more.
Gun manufacturers are not guilty of the same crime as this person: the crime of not being wealthy.
The only way you fix the monopoly problem is more regulation.
So, what do you want? Regulation to fix the monopoly issue, or regulation to fox net neutrality?
Taxpayers and residents did not contribute anything to the cost of the last mile? Like granting free access to the ISPs to wire up the houses, or the subsidies granted for rural connections?
In any case, monopolies are typically regulated for the benefit of society.
Does the US have "MP"s? Other than Military Police?
Did you fail to notice that this is the UK?
For consumer contracts, UK law requires that they be 'plain and intelligible language'. But these are not consumer contracts.
What do you think the "War on Terror" and the "War on Drugs" are for?
If this claim is true, the claim that Uber merely facilitates the agreement between the driver and passenger and takes a commission is clearly bogus.
Also, if Uber specifies the route and demands that the driver takes that specific route, that may be exerting too much control of the drivers for them to be contractors.
So what you are proposing is to replace regulation with more regulation?
You propose deregulating the ISPs while adding regulation to the last mile service. And, let's be clear, without regulation, there will be no competition, because the last mile is a natural monopoly.
Plus the fact that Microsoft did not give a shit about users' privacy and initially rolled Windows 10 out configured to collect all sorts of unnecessary data.
Certainly not. If what you grow in your own garden for your own consumption is Interstate Commerce, then..... Oh wait, I think that I have got this wrong.
"Interstate Commerce" is a phrase that is defined by Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to meanâ"neither more nor less."
So before the Southern Realignment, then?
The Republicans who control Utah had the opportunity to change this law, but those same people who espouse "free markets" want to impose a particular market structure on the sale of automobiles.
They are hypocrites and the voters in Utah need to recognize this.
You really think Pence will be any better?
FTFY