Searching \ for '[OT] Ordering from Microchip' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=microchip
Search entire site for: 'Ordering from Microchip'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Ordering from Microchip'
2006\09\06@092353 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > As Bob said, if you provide the proper paperwork showing you are a
> > business and resaling the items in a product, you can get
> an exemption.
>
> That's the beauty of VAT: one system, (almost) everything
> works the same, almost no paper work. No artificial
> difference between reselling and producing, between product
> and service.
>
> Gerhard


On behalf of taxpayers everywhere, I object (strenuously even!) to the
phrase "the beauty of VAT".  

Beauty should be paired with sunsets, paintings, Ducati motorcycles (but not
the wiring), women and those old PCBs with the groovy curved traces, not the
output of bean-counters, budget trolls and other treasury riff-raff.

(Our local version is called the GST (Goods & Services Tax), but the
principle still holds.)

Tony

2006\09\06@095632 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>On behalf of taxpayers everywhere, I object (strenuously
>even!) to the phrase "the beauty of VAT".

While I would agree with the objection to the adjective "beauty" being used
in this context, I would have to admit that the VAT/GST system is a better
method of taxation than the old sales tax methods.

When GST was first introduced into NZ, I also thought it was an unwise
imposition, but as time went by I did grudgingly agree that the way NZ did
it, with an equal rate applied to everything, was the best way, and am
rather appalled at the umpteen different rates used in the UK/Europe, with
some items being classified 0 rated, others through political pressure
having lower rates than the full rate, and then the differing rates between
countries in the common market area, makes a mockery of what is otherwise
(arguably) a fairer system.

2006\09\06@101337 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
The bad thing with the VAT system is that not all your normal tax goes into
the right place. For example when you pay road tax that money supposed to
put into road developments, transportation safety devices etc. But the
government pays VAT as well as other taxes just like you. So that if the VAT
is 17.5% that amount of road tax instantly goes into the 'other packet' of
the government. Other taxes are the similar so that the income tax that all
road workers has to pay goes back into the another packet and so on. All
together that's a huge amount of money and that's why the governent do not
always do what they should have to.

Tamas


On 06/09/06, Alan B. Pearce <spam_OUTA.B.PearceTakeThisOuTspamrl.ac.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\06@103216 by Tony Smith

picon face
> >On behalf of taxpayers everywhere, I object (strenuously
> >even!) to the phrase "the beauty of VAT".
>
> While I would agree with the objection to the adjective
> "beauty" being used in this context, I would have to admit
> that the VAT/GST system is a better method of taxation than
> the old sales tax methods.
>
> When GST was first introduced into NZ, I also thought it was
> an unwise imposition, but as time went by I did grudgingly
> agree that the way NZ did it, with an equal rate applied to
> everything, was the best way, and am rather appalled at the
> umpteen different rates used in the UK/Europe, with some
> items being classified 0 rated, others through political
> pressure having lower rates than the full rate, and then the
> differing rates between countries in the common market area,
> makes a mockery of what is otherwise
> (arguably) a fairer system.


Without triggering a tax debate...

For Australia, the 'one rate' was used as a selling point, to replace the
various sales taxes & tariffs.  It eventually ended up being 2 rates, 0% for
food, and 10% for everything else.  

Arguments raged over what exactly food was (!), eg a cooked chicken is a raw
chicken that has been, well, serviced, (cooked in this case), so the 10%
should apply.  

Much grumbing over books getting taxed.  More grumbing over the 20% software
tax being removed, replaced by the 10% GST, but prices staying the same...

The downside is under the 'flat rate' tax is everything gets treated
equally, and sometimes you don't really want to do that.  You may want to
penalise some items (eg luxury items or tobacco), and encourage others
(soldering irons).  This then creates more regulations to impose fees on
some items, or subsidies (eg farmers can claim a rebate on vehicles, so
everyone claims to be a farmer).

And you wind up where you started from.

Less paperwork though, if you happen to be in the right spot.

Tony

2006\09\06@111001 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Alan,

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 14:56:26 +0100, Alan B. Pearce wrote:

{Quote hidden}

When VAT was introduced in Britain, it was said that the rates could be changed month-by-month as the Government saw fit, and we had invoicing
systems that allowed for historical VAT rates to be stored so that refunds had the correct tax, and up to 10 different rates to be shown on an Invoice
(a row of boxes across the bottom showing rate and amount).  It turned out that it has changed extremely rarely, and we currently only have three
rates: 0% (food, books, childrens' clothes), 5% (gas and electricity) and 17.5% (everything else).  This is effectively only one rate, since energy and
anything else are rarely invoiced together.  

But there was a time when there were two "real" rates, 10% for ordinary items, and 25% for "luxury" items.  The latter included radios and
televisions, so the problem arose:  when you're buying electronic components, what are they going to make?  Digital ICs were clearly not luxury
(really!) but amplifiers were, but that leaves non-specific components like resistors, transistors, etc.  Customs & Excise didn't know how to deal with
this, so the industry proposed that anything that was specific to non-luxury items, basically digital ICs, was non-luxury, and everything else was
luxury!  C&E were happy to approve that idea, as you can imagine... so even if you bought, say, a kit to build an oscilloscope, some components had
luxury rate VAT even though they were part of a kit to build something non-luxury.

Luckily the situation only lasted a year or so (if I remember rightly) until the rates were merged back into a 12.5% combined rate.  Wasn't long before
that was upped to 15%, then a while later to 17.5%, where we've been for some time.  And I don't think we get very good value for our money!  (But
that's a whole 'nother thread :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\06@111441 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Tamas,

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 15:13:33 +0100, Tamas Rudnai wrote:

> The bad thing with the VAT system is that not all your normal tax goes into
> the right place. For example when you pay road tax that money supposed to
> put into road developments, transportation safety devices etc. But the
> government pays VAT as well as other taxes just like you. So that if the VAT
> is 17.5% that amount of road tax instantly goes into the 'other packet' of
> the government. Other taxes are the similar so that the income tax that all
> road workers has to pay goes back into the another packet and so on. All
> together that's a huge amount of money and that's why the governent do not
> always do what they should have to.

Ah, but in Britain taxes are not collected for specific purposes (there's a name for this but I can't remember it - how do you gargoyle [tm] for
something when you don't know its name?) and in particular the money collected from the "Tax Disc" and from fuel duty has never been allocated to
transport - if it was we'd be in a vastly better situation than we are now!  Basically *all* the money from taxes goes into the treasury, where they
sit on it until someone persuades them so spend some of it on something useful...

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\06@111825 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>For example when you pay road tax that money
>supposed to put into road developments,

Only if the government has ring fenced it for that purpose.

As someone on a local radio talk show here in the UK is forever pointing
out, the UK vehicle tax is exactly that, a tax on having a vehicle that can
travel on the road. There is nothing in the tax that even implies the tax is
to maintain the roading infrastructure.

2006\09\06@112926 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu [piclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.edu]
>Sent: 06 September 2006 16:15
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [OT] Ordering from Microchip
>
>
>Basically *all* the money from taxes goes
>into the treasury, where they
>sit on it until someone persuades them so spend some of it on
>something useful...
>

They don't need much persuading to waste it on their own hairbrained schemes though e.g. millenium dome.  There is even a book available called "The Bumper Book of Government Waste" which I am quite tempted to buy.  The section on the European Union is guaranteed to raise blood pressures..

Regards

Mike


=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\09\06@113139 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
But at least the motorways are free over there :-)


On 06/09/06, Alan B. Pearce <.....A.B.PearceKILLspamspam.....rl.ac.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\06@113703 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu [piclist-bouncesspamspam_OUTmit.edu]
>Sent: 06 September 2006 16:32
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [OT] Ordering from Microchip
>
>
>But at least the motorways are free over there :-)
>

Not always!  The new M6 motorway is a toll road, and more toll roads are being proposed.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\09\06@114857 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>But at least the motorways are free over there :-)

Mostly - at the moment. There is the M6 Toll north of Birmingham though, and
lots of talk by the government of introducing mileage based taxation using
GPS to measure distance travelled and across what roads, and at what time of
day, so that higher tolls are paid during heavy traffic times.

Guess that will put paid to the Bank Holiday Standstill ...

2006\09\06@122605 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Tony Smith wrote:

>> That's the beauty of VAT: one system, (almost) everything
>> works the same, almost no paper work. No artificial
>> difference between reselling and producing, between product
>> and service.
>
> On behalf of taxpayers everywhere, I object (strenuously even!) to the
> phrase "the beauty of VAT".
>
> Beauty should be paired with sunsets, paintings, Ducati motorcycles (but
> not the wiring), women and those old PCBs with the groovy curved traces,
> not the output of bean-counters, budget trolls and other treasury
> riff-raff.

Taxes have nothing to do with "bean-counters, budget trolls and other
treasury riff-raff." This may be your personal view of it, but that has
nothing to do with the tax itself.

Taxes are a fact of life in community. If you ever tried to gather a
community for more than getting drunk together, you know that there are
generally some "community costs" that need to be shared. Anything that
lasts longer than a hangover calls for /some/ rules about how to share them
-- and already you're creating a "tax" (even though it may not be called a
"tax", but it's nothing different in substance). It's only natural, and as
such can have some beauty. Problem is few have. (But that goes for beer
bellies, too...)

Anyway, a sales tax system calls for a distinction between services and
products. Hm... how much of the prototype I'm selling to the customer is
service, how much is product? It also says that I can buy the $2.25 worth
of components I put in the product without paying sales tax, but I can't by
the $25k machine that I need to do that without paying sales tax. This also
creates the necessity to keep track of stock separately: what was bought
using the exemption (and in theory must be resold and may not be used
internally) and what was bought normally -- a huge bureaucracy creator.
(You know that you're not allowed to use a resistor from production stock
for development, right?) If I want to get the sales tax exemption, I have
to send the seller a document, which increases again bureaucracy. These and
other issues don't exist in a VAT system.

I find that a tax that works easily, can be done at home without a
consultant, without even a specialized program, which is easy to understand
and as much as possible follows logic, I find that such a tax qualifies for
"beauty".

Gerhard

2006\09\06@122737 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Mike,

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 16:36:59 +0100, Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Indeed!  While I don't mind (much!) paying a toll on a new road that's designed to bypass a congested area, as the M6 toll road bypasses Birmingham,
if they start charging for existing roads it will really get up my goat - we already pay a huge amount for owning and using cars, and an added charge
to try to reduce usage (which it will achieve only slightly, and is just another money-gouging scheme) is definately a step too far!

I have a lot of ideas how to tackle road congestion in Britain, none of which involve increasing the cost!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\06@123819 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Oh yes, you even have to pay if you enter to the city center in London,
haven't you? Zone 1 and 2 or something like that? I just forgot that one.

Tamas


On 06/09/06, Howard Winter <RemoveMEHDRWTakeThisOuTspamh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 16:36:59 +0100, Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > >{Original Message removed}

2006\09\06@130154 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Tamas,

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:38:17 +0100, Tamas Rudnai wrote:

> Oh yes, you even have to pay if you enter to the city center in London,
> haven't you? Zone 1 and 2 or something like that? I just forgot that one.

Not sure where you get the Zone 1 and 2 from - there is just one "Congestion Charging Zone" - at the moment.  It doesn't affect me because you
have to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic to drive into central London anyway!  It was introduced as a UK£5-a-day charge with the idea that it
would reduce congestion.  Which it did, to the point where they weren't making as much money as they thought they would, so they put it up to £8!  
(say US$15, 11.75 Euros).  The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone: "A face you could never get tired of hitting"!  :-)

Cheers,



Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\06@144337 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> On behalf of taxpayers everywhere, I object (strenuously even!) to the
> phrase "the beauty of VAT".  

Beauty is relative. Compared to all alternatives I know (including
income tax and sales tax) the (pure!) VAT system is realy beatifull. Of
course the politicians had to corrupt is with all kinds of execeptions,
like a lower VAT percentage for certain goods and services.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\09\07@032514 by Tony Smith

picon face
{Quote hidden}

I'm not against taxes, I don't mind the GST etc.  Guess I forgot the :) in
that comment, or we need a [WAAH] (weak attempt at humour) tag.

Yes, VAT/GST means less paperwork for some.  Flat taxes, in whatever form,
suck.  Simple reason is that jewellery & medicine both get taxed alike,
which may not be what you want, so you do some fiddling elsewhere to 'fix'
the problem, meaning more paperwork for someone else, and you're back where
you (not you specifically) started from.

But having had to read far too much government regulation documents in my
life, beauty & tax shouldn't go togther.  (Refer to Act VII, section 1,
subsection 2, paragraph 2.3.1 (revised) for more info.  Make sure to get
this years copy.)

Tony

(Oops, nearly forgot the :) )

2006\09\07@035222 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Yes, VAT/GST means less paperwork for some.  Flat taxes, in
> whatever form, suck.  

no, flat taxes are KISS

> Simple reason is that jewellery &
> medicine both get taxed alike,
> which may not be what you want

if that is not wat you want a gouvernment could simply grant research
contracts in the areas they want more attention than the free market
would give them. IMHO that's what a gourvernment is for: corrrect the
(many / few, depens on your opinions) rough edges of the otherwise (very
good / lousy, again: depends) of the free market system.

> But having had to read far too much government regulation
> documents in my
> life, beauty & tax shouldn't go togther.  (Refer to Act VII,
> section 1,
> subsection 2, paragraph 2.3.1 (revised) for more info.  Make
> sure to get
> this years copy.)

I think you are arguing for Beauty in tax law but so far have found only
Beasts :)

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\09\07@045036 by Tony Smith

picon face
{Quote hidden}

Ok, flat taxes are KISS (which is why populist parties promote them), but in
order to make them "fair", (i.e. when the government fixes up the rough
edges), hassles in other areas go up, so overall it never is KISS.

Yes, I've found many beasts in government paperwork.  If you ever get
offered a job that involves working out how much people should get paid, run
away.  Beasts I encounted were penalty rates for dressing and acting as
Santa Claus in a traditional manner (?), compensation for a security guard's
dead dog, and my all time favorite, the 'reclaiming waste butter' penalty.

That last one produced a "WTF is waste butter, and why would you reclaim
it?" from me.  I did find out what it was.  Butter comes wrapped in paper,
when you unwrap it there's always that little bit that sticks to the paper,
that you may be bother to scrape off with a knife to whack on your toast.
Now scale that up to industrial sizes.

I was told these things often end up in the regulations to stop employers
making employees do dumb things, usually the union gets a high enough
penalty rate awarded to make it not worth doing.  I mean, do you want to
scrape butter off a few square metres of paper?

The downside is that once in the legislation, it never comes back out,
leading to some very odd stuff.  No beauty though!

Tony

2006\09\07@064142 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> Ok, flat taxes are KISS (which is why populist parties promote them), but in
> order to make them "fair", (i.e. when the government fixes up the rough
> edges), hassles in other areas go up, so overall it never is KISS.

Flat taxes are bad for everybody but the extremely rich.

You don't even need much math to figure this out.

I'm in the US. Assume that the government needs as much next year (with
the hypothetical flat tax) as it does this year and everybody will pay
the same percentage.

Bill Gate's taxes go *way* down. How much do the rest of us have to pay
in taxes to make up the deficit?

One simple (as in minded) fix is to have a deductable of $20,000 or
whatever with a flat tax over that. Now, calculate the number such that
the middle class doesn't end up with a *huge* increase.

I used to support flat taxes until I actually did the math. It isn't
difficult. Flat taxes hurt all but the rich. The fact that they sound
"fair" doesn't make it any better. I also support removing all taxes
based on anything but actual income for the same reason. Why should
anybody be taxed on the market value of their home when it really has
no value until it is sold?

Oh well, rant off.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
spamBeGonejayspamBeGonespamsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Building Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! (Now I can get back to building robots.)

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...