"Joe" wrote in message ups.com...
How's about a flat sales tax of 10% for American made goods and 15% for
imports.


Are you getting up there in age, Joe? Do you have any money saved for retirement? If you do have money saved,
it is money you paid income taxes on, most likely. What if you have 100 thousand dollars saved. It's worth 100 thousand
dollars. If they all of a sudden get rid of income taxes and put on a sales or "consumption" tax of 20% (that's the
minimum it will take BTW) your 100 thousand suddenly is worth only 80 thousand to you. You have just been taxed TWICE
on the same money. Can you live with that. Can your parents if you are young and don't have any retirement savings?

Can you just imagine the huge Canadian or Mexican black market that would result if people could keep from paying that
20% consumption tax?


Paladin
(Have gun - will travel)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:29:56 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:15:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

That's a tougher question. I was part of union, and I was required to
join
for a summer job. There were dues, but the benefits and the pay were
pretty
good, considering I was in high school and had minimal experience. I had
an
accident at work while driving a forklift... damaged a lot of expensive
equipment through no fault of my own except inexperience. If I had not
been
a member of the union, I would have been fired for sure. I was slightly
injured and had to take off a couple of weeks. The salaried supervisor
asked
me one time what happened. The union steward was present, and he stopped
him
when he started to get mean (I'm sure his job was on the line). I was
given
an opportunity to make a statement, and briefly mentioned my lack of
experience. When I returned to work, the supervisor found someone to
train
me, so that it wouldn't happen again.

In another situation, I was a staff employee in a union shop (defense
contractor). The union was pretty strict about members not doing
anything
beyond their job description, but tended to look the other way if you
had
a
good relationship with the employee/staff member. We had a situation of
another supervisor telling his subordinates (me included) that we
shouldn't
fraternize with union people... exchange pleasantries and the like... I
think he was on a power trip. When this became obvious to a union
member,
he
basically walked off the job along with the other members in the shop
until
the "rule" was rescinded.

Very difficult to believe, Jon. Considered a wildcat strike, an
unfair labor practice, and no Union that I know of would allow that
to happen. Could be held liable for any damages to the company over
the issue. If there is nothing written in the contract about the
right to fraternize then you cannot "strike" over any aspect of the
issue. If there is something in the contract about it, you would have
to go through the grievance procedure.

Frank


It lasted about 1/2 hour. Everyone was satisfied with the result. Can't
help
it if you have difficulty believing it.


Management was satisfied to accept the cost of a half hour disruption
and shutdown of their operation with an illegal wildcat strike? No I
don't believe that.

Management should have filed an unfair labor practice complaint with
the NLRB, and if they did not, it is very difficult to believe. The
Union cannot endorse a "strike" over any issue, grievable or not,
that is why there is a contract.

Frank


Why do I care what you believe again? You don't know much about
management/employee relations do you.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Paladin wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message ups.com...
How's about a flat sales tax of 10% for American made goods and 15% for
imports.


Are you getting up there in age, Joe?

Not even mid 40's yet

Do you have any money saved for retirement?

No..I have money saved to go cruising. Do not plan to retire, I like my
work too much.

If you do have money saved,
it is money you paid income taxes on, most likely.

401-K


What if you have 100 thousand dollars saved. It's worth 100 thousand
dollars. If they all of a sudden get rid of income taxes and put on a sales or "consumption" tax of 20% (that's the
minimum it will take BTW) your 100 thousand suddenly is worth only 80 thousand to you. You have just been taxed TWICE
on the same money. Can you live with that. Can your parents if you are young and don't have any retirement savings?

I failed to mention making existing retirement funds exempt.


Can you just imagine the huge Canadian or Mexican black market that would result if people could keep from paying that
20% consumption tax?


By then the fences should be up and ready.

Joe


Paladin
(Have gun - will travel)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:16:05 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:29:56 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:15:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

That's a tougher question. I was part of union, and I was required to
join
for a summer job. There were dues, but the benefits and the pay were
pretty
good, considering I was in high school and had minimal experience. I had
an
accident at work while driving a forklift... damaged a lot of expensive
equipment through no fault of my own except inexperience. If I had not
been
a member of the union, I would have been fired for sure. I was slightly
injured and had to take off a couple of weeks. The salaried supervisor
asked
me one time what happened. The union steward was present, and he stopped
him
when he started to get mean (I'm sure his job was on the line). I was
given
an opportunity to make a statement, and briefly mentioned my lack of
experience. When I returned to work, the supervisor found someone to
train
me, so that it wouldn't happen again.

In another situation, I was a staff employee in a union shop (defense
contractor). The union was pretty strict about members not doing
anything
beyond their job description, but tended to look the other way if you
had
a
good relationship with the employee/staff member. We had a situation of
another supervisor telling his subordinates (me included) that we
shouldn't
fraternize with union people... exchange pleasantries and the like... I
think he was on a power trip. When this became obvious to a union
member,
he
basically walked off the job along with the other members in the shop
until
the "rule" was rescinded.

Very difficult to believe, Jon. Considered a wildcat strike, an
unfair labor practice, and no Union that I know of would allow that
to happen. Could be held liable for any damages to the company over
the issue. If there is nothing written in the contract about the
right to fraternize then you cannot "strike" over any aspect of the
issue. If there is something in the contract about it, you would have
to go through the grievance procedure.

Frank


It lasted about 1/2 hour. Everyone was satisfied with the result. Can't
help
it if you have difficulty believing it.


Management was satisfied to accept the cost of a half hour disruption
and shutdown of their operation with an illegal wildcat strike? No I
don't believe that.

Management should have filed an unfair labor practice complaint with
the NLRB, and if they did not, it is very difficult to believe. The
Union cannot endorse a "strike" over any issue, grievable or not,
that is why there is a contract.

Frank


Why do I care what you believe again?

I have no idea.

You don't know much about
management/employee relations do you.

Quite a bit.

Frank

"Joe" wrote in message oups.com...
What if you have 100 thousand dollars saved. It's worth 100 thousand
dollars. If they all of a sudden get rid of income taxes and put on a sales or "consumption" tax of 20% (that's the
minimum it will take BTW) your 100 thousand suddenly is worth only 80 thousand to you. You have just been taxed TWICE
on the same money. Can you live with that. Can your parents if you are young and don't have any retirement savings?

I failed to mention making existing retirement funds exempt.


It is not possible to do that. Do you know what a national sales or consumption tax is? Everything you buy has
a tax on it. Your income isn't taxed but your outgo is. It is possible to exempt some items like groceries, for
example. And it is possible to tax some items like luxury automobiles at a higher rate. However it is not possible
to exempt retirement funds.

A consumption tax is placed on money being spent. That's why you saved that retirement money -
so you can spend it when you are too old to earn any more. You've already paid income taxes on it. Now they
would tax it again - not just the small percentage of interest and capital gain but the entire sum total at
a 20% rate when you spend it. Double taxation plain and simple. Are you still for it? More importantly,
do you think the millions of baby boomers will be for it? It doesn't have a chance in hell of ever being
implemented.

I am asking this because I really think people don't realize what a consumption or national sales tax means
to them on an individual basis. The only way to do it would be to phase it in on new workers. They would be
the only ones required to pay it. And they would be exempt from income taxes. Over a period of about a
hundred years you could change the system over fairly. You just can't do it overnight or over a year or two.
The big problem with this, however, is it is not workable. Those workers would just give their purchase money
to a friend who was exempt to buy things for them.



Paladin
(Have gun - will travel)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Dave" wrote in message ...

Joe, I think you just identified the central problem with the guy's
argument. Rather than talk about why he thinks income tax or some other tax
is better than VAT, he quibbles about the details of getting from one system
to the other. It's a bit like saying "I don't care how great heaven is. It's
not worth considering because I don't see an easy way to get from here to
there."


Do you realize how naive you sound? You would willy-nilly implement a new tax system without
studying every single ramification? You are a liberal without a doubt. If it feels good do it. Is
that right?

As for not being worth considering, I am considering aspects of a consumption tax nobody else
is even aware of at this point. That's more than you are doing though you decry the lack, thereof.
Your logic is as faulty as your intellect, sir.

Paladin
(Have gun - will travel)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:16:05 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:29:56 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:15:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

That's a tougher question. I was part of union, and I was required to
join
for a summer job. There were dues, but the benefits and the pay were
pretty
good, considering I was in high school and had minimal experience. I
had
an
accident at work while driving a forklift... damaged a lot of
expensive
equipment through no fault of my own except inexperience. If I had not
been
a member of the union, I would have been fired for sure. I was
slightly
injured and had to take off a couple of weeks. The salaried supervisor
asked
me one time what happened. The union steward was present, and he
stopped
him
when he started to get mean (I'm sure his job was on the line). I was
given
an opportunity to make a statement, and briefly mentioned my lack of
experience. When I returned to work, the supervisor found someone to
train
me, so that it wouldn't happen again.

In another situation, I was a staff employee in a union shop (defense
contractor). The union was pretty strict about members not doing
anything
beyond their job description, but tended to look the other way if you
had
a
good relationship with the employee/staff member. We had a situation
of
another supervisor telling his subordinates (me included) that we
shouldn't
fraternize with union people... exchange pleasantries and the like...
I
think he was on a power trip. When this became obvious to a union
member,
he
basically walked off the job along with the other members in the shop
until
the "rule" was rescinded.

Very difficult to believe, Jon. Considered a wildcat strike, an
unfair labor practice, and no Union that I know of would allow that
to happen. Could be held liable for any damages to the company over
the issue. If there is nothing written in the contract about the
right to fraternize then you cannot "strike" over any aspect of the
issue. If there is something in the contract about it, you would have
to go through the grievance procedure.

Frank


It lasted about 1/2 hour. Everyone was satisfied with the result. Can't
help
it if you have difficulty believing it.


Management was satisfied to accept the cost of a half hour disruption
and shutdown of their operation with an illegal wildcat strike? No I
don't believe that.

Management should have filed an unfair labor practice complaint with
the NLRB, and if they did not, it is very difficult to believe. The
Union cannot endorse a "strike" over any issue, grievable or not,
that is why there is a contract.

Frank


Why do I care what you believe again?

I have no idea.

I think you do. :-)


You don't know much about
management/employee relations do you.

Quite a bit.

Frank

You haven't demonstrated that...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:16:05 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:29:56 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:15:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

That's a tougher question. I was part of union, and I was required to
join
for a summer job. There were dues, but the benefits and the pay were
pretty
good, considering I was in high school and had minimal experience. I
had
an
accident at work while driving a forklift... damaged a lot of
expensive
equipment through no fault of my own except inexperience. If I had
not
been
a member of the union, I would have been fired for sure. I was
slightly
injured and had to take off a couple of weeks. The salaried
supervisor
asked
me one time what happened. The union steward was present, and he
stopped
him
when he started to get mean (I'm sure his job was on the line). I was
given
an opportunity to make a statement, and briefly mentioned my lack of
experience. When I returned to work, the supervisor found someone to
train
me, so that it wouldn't happen again.

In another situation, I was a staff employee in a union shop (defense
contractor). The union was pretty strict about members not doing
anything
beyond their job description, but tended to look the other way if you
had
a
good relationship with the employee/staff member. We had a situation
of
another supervisor telling his subordinates (me included) that we
shouldn't
fraternize with union people... exchange pleasantries and the like...
I
think he was on a power trip. When this became obvious to a union
member,
he
basically walked off the job along with the other members in the shop
until
the "rule" was rescinded.

Very difficult to believe, Jon. Considered a wildcat strike, an
unfair labor practice, and no Union that I know of would allow that
to happen. Could be held liable for any damages to the company over
the issue. If there is nothing written in the contract about the
right to fraternize then you cannot "strike" over any aspect of the
issue. If there is something in the contract about it, you would
have
to go through the grievance procedure.

Frank


It lasted about 1/2 hour. Everyone was satisfied with the result. Can't
help
it if you have difficulty believing it.


Management was satisfied to accept the cost of a half hour disruption
and shutdown of their operation with an illegal wildcat strike? No I
don't believe that.

Management should have filed an unfair labor practice complaint with
the NLRB, and if they did not, it is very difficult to believe. The
Union cannot endorse a "strike" over any issue, grievable or not,
that is why there is a contract.

Frank


Why do I care what you believe again?

I have no idea.

I think you do. :-)


You don't know much about
management/employee relations do you.

Quite a bit.

Frank

You haven't demonstrated that...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com




I've finally figured it out Jon. You're the best troll here. All this time I
thought you were off your rocker, but your simply trolling the daylights out
of everyone.

You're an order of magnitude better than RB. My hat's off to you!
Spectacular job!

Paladin wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message oups.com...
What if you have 100 thousand dollars saved. It's worth 100 thousand
dollars. If they all of a sudden get rid of income taxes and put on a sales or "consumption" tax of 20% (that's the
minimum it will take BTW) your 100 thousand suddenly is worth only 80 thousand to you. You have just been taxed TWICE
on the same money. Can you live with that. Can your parents if you are young and don't have any retirement savings?

I failed to mention making existing retirement funds exempt.


It is not possible to do that. Do you know what a national sales or consumption tax is? Everything you buy has
a tax on it. Your income isn't taxed but your outgo is. It is possible to exempt some items like groceries, for
example. And it is possible to tax some items like luxury automobiles at a higher rate. However it is not possible
to exempt retirement funds.

Bull feathers, If you have 100K in your retirement plan then 100K of
spending would be tax exempt, you get a rebate.

Joe



A consumption tax is placed on money being spent. That's why you saved that retirement money -
so you can spend it when you are too old to earn any more. You've already paid income taxes on it. Now they
would tax it again - not just the small percentage of interest and capital gain but the entire sum total at
a 20% rate when you spend it. Double taxation plain and simple. Are you still for it? More importantly,
do you think the millions of baby boomers will be for it? It doesn't have a chance in hell of ever being
implemented.

I am asking this because I really think people don't realize what a consumption or national sales tax means
to them on an individual basis. The only way to do it would be to phase it in on new workers. They would be
the only ones required to pay it. And they would be exempt from income taxes. Over a period of about a
hundred years you could change the system over fairly. You just can't do it overnight or over a year or two.
The big problem with this, however, is it is not workable. Those workers would just give their purchase money
to a friend who was exempt to buy things for them.



Paladin
(Have gun - will travel)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Joe" wrote in message oups.com...


Bull feathers, If you have 100K in your retirement plan then 100K of
spending would be tax exempt, you get a rebate.


What are you going to do? Save each and every receipt for everything you bought and every service you availed
yourself of and then file a tax form and send along a truckload of receipts? Then prove the money you spent
really came out of a retirement account and that you did not just stash that money under a mattress? Come now!
Sounds more intrusive than the present unwieldy system to me.

How is it possible to get a rebate otherwise. You go to the store and tell them you are spending your retirement
dollars and ask them to not charge you the consumption tax? You know that is not going to fly. Just how do you
make spending tax exempt? You cannot. Tax is either collected on what you spend or it is not. There is no way
you can exempt one individual and not the other. Taxes are built in from manufacturer to retailer all the way
down the line. Consumption tax is on goods and services. Not just individuals pay them. Exemption will not work.
Rebates are unworkable. Perhaps you have another brilliant idea that fits in the realistic category? Before you
advocate for something it would be better if you at least had an inkling of how something works.

Americans are truly an arrogantly uninformed and sorry lot of ******s. Texans are even worse. Bush is proof
of that. If ever one of you spoiled brats had to do some serious understanding on your own your head would
surely explode.

Paladin
(Have gun - will travel)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com