Posted on 05/14/2006 1:59:13 PM PDT by RobFromGa
It is simultaneous.
That's right. This is why some say purchasing power will remain constant. Folks still pay tax, just pay the nrst instead of income, payroll, and embedded taxes.
Is it? You said otherwise two posts up.
We really don't know if taxes will rise under a FairTax system.Then you also don't know or rather do know it's wishful thinking that businesses will arbitrarily pass on all savings to consumers.----
What I'm talking about isn't wishful thinking but rather patterns of human behavior and economic rules that have driven life for thousands of years.
TITLE I--REPEAL OF THE INCOME TAX, PAYROLL TAXES, AND ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES
SEC. 101. INCOME TAXES REPEALED.
SEC. 102. PAYROLL TAXES REPEALED.
SEC. 103. ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES REPEALED.
THe first things legislated by the bill are above. If this is what you were referring to, you were wrong. If there is some other reason you believe the tax will be added onto existing prices with repealing the old taxes first, please share.
Not wishful, dumb. It's not "arbitrary" at all. Savings must be passed on in the form of lower prices, higher wages, or improved ROI (all benefit the individual). Competition dictates the breakdown and it most certainly will vary by industry and business.
You appear to be confused.
I responded by saying existing taxes would be repealed first and that not all retail purchases are taxed under the nrst. What did I confuse?
It's the ultimate "catch-22" Prices go up 30%, my sales go down 50%, I'm stuck with the embedded tax cost of my pre-existing inventory, I go bankrupt.
Go ahead and declare bankruptcy while your competitors laugh. Read the bill.
There we go with the "You're just too stupid again..."
Now answer the question, or reply intelligently to the statement.
See section 902. THen when you've read it, you can come back and make something up about why it isn't really there.
I was responding to a poster saying we don't don't know if taxes will rise and I told her where the starting point is, which is 30%. You came along and read more into that than is there.
And bills are meant to be read that things are all happening simultaneously, unless vebiage shows timing. Like with the Constitution, we have all three branches of Govt, all established simultaneously, even though they are listed in order in the Articles.
You're not too stupid, you're emotionally involved to the extent that reality doesn't matter on an anon board. Read 902. DId you even know it was there?
Right. But how, if tax is first (or simultaneously) eliminated, will the price increase be the full amount of the replacement tax?
I didn't say that, I said the tax would start at 30%. I made it clear in the post that started this thread where I think prices will start relative to today. I think you are just trying to sow confusion since you have no facts or analysis of your own to offer.
A rising tide may raise all boats, but a tsunami sinks everything.
Well, you're wrong there. I thought you were saying that prices would increase by the amount of the tax. Perhaps I've confused you with Lewislynn who says this regularly. If that has happened, I sincerely apologize.
Oh so now you've read it. Now you're here to tell us it doesn't matter. Predictable!
You didn't even know 902 (crediting inventory) was there, did you? Ever think it would help to read hr 25?
ANd just when would the seller get the money to pay his bills if there were no switch to an nrst?..... sagebrush rolling... crickets chirping...
When he sells the product, of course. When will he get is money under the nrst (with the credit for embedded costs)? When he sells the product, of course.
I think you'd be wise to let us all think you a fool rather than opening your mouth and proving it. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.