The ultimate thread! (possible NSFW) (#30)

[dieseldog]

Originally Posted by grrlscout89FJ62

I'm taking my refund and stimulating Mexico's economy

Grrl always knows the right buttons to push . . .

[dieseldog]

Time to SSS for wrOk.

[InsanityIsBorn]

Originally Posted by monniepoo

Finally back from the groomers

WOOWOO!

[Jman]

Originally Posted by dieseldog

No, you still don't see my point. Issuance of scads of food stamps would require immediate disgorgement from bureaucratic fists sums of money that was not earmarked for this purpose. It would rob Peter to pay Pedro. Whereas, not taking certain tax funds into the public coffers in the first place would be entirely different, as it would affect things in futuro. I'm not the accountant in my family but I can see the difference. My wife would say something about the time value of money or something like that.

You are right. I don't see your point. Issuing scheduled vouchers to be redeemed in the future by merchants would have a rolling cost, not an immediate one. Foregoing gas taxes would have a rolling cost, as well. Net effect would be pretty much the same.

[InsanityIsBorn]

Originally Posted by dieseldog

Psst--he's in Australia and those fuckers got different stuffs . . .

And, for the record, in the US, it was 85.5 model year that got IFS.

Mick is in Australia?????!?!?!?!?!?!?


oh... well I was close... I knew that there was still SA in 85..

[InsanityIsBorn]

Originally Posted by GeoRoss

Who likes data entry?



Anyone?



Yeah you in the back. What are your thoughts?

I DO!!!

[InsanityIsBorn]

Originally Posted by dieseldog

have a cookie. or better yet--a cupcake!

cupcakes?








or cupcakes??


























and yes I know its a but Im not trying to show anything new....

[semlin]

Originally Posted by Jman

You are right. I don't see your point. Issuing scheduled vouchers to be redeemed in the future by merchants would have a rolling cost, not an immediate one. Foregoing gas taxes would have a rolling cost, as well. Net effect would be pretty much the same.

what about the difference in relative cost between not collecting a tax for 3 months, and managing the distribution of a subsidy? one involves millions of people filling out a lot of forms to confirm eligibility, someone reviewing those forms, then printing and distributing millions of forgery proof food stamps, arranging to reimburse grocery stores, and a whole lot of data entry. the other involves telling a few thousand gas stations not to collect a tax for three months. the savings just in postage costs would be tens of millions of dollars.

[InsanityIsBorn]

gotta go

shower

work

[grrlscout89FJ62]

Originally Posted by dieseldog

Grrl always knows the right buttons to push . . .

Ai Mami!

[Cube Dweller]

Originally Posted by semlin

if u r srs, the answer is that a tax cut is better than a subsidy and you treat the disease not the symptoms. a tax cut is cheaper to administer. the price of gas is indirectly contributing to the price of fud. not only is it driving transport costs up, but also indirectly goosing electricity prices for storing and processing fud. not to mention ethanol

so it is best to address the increasing cost input for fud at the source. and also to remove the subsidies that are encouraging ethanol production.

i am rarely in favour of tax grabs, but i also have to admit that the rising price of oil is creating a situation that may also require some heretic discussion of temporary further state intervention by way of a windfall tax on oilcos. dependency on oil is so great that it can be akin to a monopoly/combine situation where the unregulated free market simply cannot produce an alternative to offset the advantage of producers. exxon may only be skimming a percent or two of profit for their efforts, but that might still be enough to be harming the economy.

Originally Posted by Jman

No, I was not serious.

Your post killed TUT.












But, I don't disagree with you.

Except that many of the beneficiaries of the windfall profits are institutional investors like Calpers, union pension funds and individual investors buying S&P 500 index funds. Why do you both hate little old pensioners, especially when the overall US stock market has been flat since 2000.

Windfall big oil co. profits from oil will be short lived due to nationalization of resources. Look at the reserve replacement rates for the majors.

[srplus]

BarnBarnBarn

been W3rkingW3rkingW3rking

[Cube Dweller]

Originally Posted by dieseldog

for those sorts of missions, I prefer Amway L.O.C. to any other product ever made. Buy it by the gallon jug and you're good to go.

Oh noes!

[Jman]

Originally Posted by semlin

what about the difference in relative cost between not collecting a tax for 3 months, and managing the distribution of a subsidy? one involves millions of people filling out a lot of forms to confirm eligibility, someone reviewing those forms, then printing and distributing millions of forgery proof food stamps, arranging to reimburse grocery stores, and a whole lot of data entry. the other involves telling a few thousand gas stations not to collect a tax for three months. the savings just in postage costs would be tens of millions of dollars.

Wow, we're really going pretty far on teakettling a flight of fancy

But who says there has to be an eligibility process? Just give every household a stimulus food stamp. But yes, if such a plan were introduced, there would be administrative costs. There would be administrative costs with a tax holiday (since when does the government just tell people something when they can mail a form ), too, just not as great. You could deduct the cost of voucher administration from the total slice of pie involved.

The only serious point I can make here is that a tax break is in fact no different than an expenditure.

[Jman]

Originally Posted by Cube Dweller

Except that many of the beneficiaries of the windfall profits are institutional investors like Calpers, union pension funds and individual investors buying S&P 500 index funds. Why do you both hate little old pensioners, especially when the overall US stock market has been flat since 2000.

Windfall big oil co. profits from oil will be short lived due to nationalization of resources. Look at the reserve replacement rates for the majors.

Old people, we have too many of them.

[Mars]

FKNA.

[Mars]

Originally Posted by Jman

Wow, we're really going pretty far on teakettling a flight of fancy

But who says there has to be an eligibility process? Just give every household a stimulus food stamp. But yes, if such a plan were introduced, there would be administrative costs. There would be administrative costs with a tax holiday (since when does the government just tell people something when they can mail a form ), too, just not as great. You could deduct the cost of voucher administration from the total slice of pie involved.

The only serious point I can make here is that a tax break is in fact no different than an expenditure.

Originally Posted by Jman

Old people, we have too many of them.

What if the gubment donated funds to build pergolas?

Just curious.

[Cube Dweller]

Originally Posted by semlin

this is like sci-fi or something

washingtonpost.com

The Club of Rome will be pleased.

[Jman]

Originally Posted by Mars

What if the gubment donated funds to build pergolas?

Just curious.

They would require an inspection before disbursement of funds. You know, to see if they followed code.

[Cube Dweller]

Originally Posted by Jman

Wow, we're really going pretty far on teakettling a flight of fancy

But who says there has to be an eligibility process? Just give every household a stimulus food stamp. But yes, if such a plan were introduced, there would be administrative costs. There would be administrative costs with a tax holiday (since when does the government just tell people something when they can mail a form ), too, just not as great. You could deduct the cost of voucher administration from the total slice of pie involved.

The only serious point I can make here is that a tax break is in fact no different than an expenditure.

The tax break on gas is fucking stupid because it will remove a disincentive for people to consume gasoline, a limited natural resource we import most of, contributing overwhelmingly to our balance of payments problem, and reducing funding earmarked to infrastructure.