Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

STIMULATE, BABY, STIMULATE
Roman Around ^ | 26 December 2008 | Andrew Roman

Posted on 12/26/2008 7:11:47 AM PST by andrew roman

300_216229

Okay, Christmas is over. Now it's time for some real giving.

Reality, anyone?

The “gimmee gimmee” train continues its steady roll along the rails. This time, a group representing America’s retailers is pleading its case for their share of the stimulus pie in the form of sales tax-exempt shopping days.

On the surface, this doesn't sound like a half bad approach. After all, similar ideas from economists, pundits and serious thinkers who believe in the power of the free market have been batted around in abundance - that is, giving working Americans some form of substantial tax breaks to help stimulate spending (as opposed to taking from the big money makers and spreading their wealth around).

However (and here's the kicker), according to the proposal from the National Retail Federation, tax revenues lost to the various states during these tax exempt shopping days would be reimbursed by the federal government.

No, seriously.

In other words, the feds would foot the bill for tax breaks at the state level, which would be paid for by the people through federal taxes, which would be collected and then paid back to the states to make up for those tax breaks.

Or something like that. (Oh yeah, and at least someone would be doing something.)

Slipshod, vulgarly expensive and laden with unnecessary extra steps.

Can anyone say Federal Government?

Ann Zimmerman at the Wall Street Journal writes:

The country's largest retail trade association asked President-elect Barack Obama Tuesday to add a series of sales tax-exempt shopping days to a coming economic stimulus package in an effort to revive consumer confidence and spur spending.

The National Retail Federation called for three periods of sales tax-free shopping that would last 10 days each in March, July and October 2009. The trade group estimates that it would save consumers about $20 billion, or $175 per family.

Under the industry group's proposal, which would exclude alcohol and tobacco sales, the federal government would reimburse states for the lost tax revenue. State sales tax rates range from 2.9% to 7.25%, the group said. The five states without a sales tax -- Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon -- would also receive monies.

In a letter signed by the chief executives of retail chains, including J.C. Penney Co., Saks Inc. and Petsmart Inc., the NRF warned the situation was "critical," with consumer confidence in October falling to the lowest level in the 41 years data has been collected.

"Without swift, additional Congressional measures, the current economic weakness could worsen, creating a more rapid downward spiral -- beyond what economists are predicting for 2009 -- in the years ahead," the NRF said.

The group said it supports Mr. Obama's efforts to create a long-term stimulus plan to generate jobs by rebuilding the country's infrastructure and investing in public schools and alternative energy. However, the NRF said short-term incentives are also needed to encourage consumer spending, which accounts for 70% of the U.S. economy.

States without a sales tax would also receive money?

Is that the same line of thinking that proposed giving tax "cuts" to people who paid no federal income taxes?

-


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Miscellaneous; Politics
KEYWORDS: nrf; stimuluspackage; taxexampt

1 posted on 12/26/2008 7:11:48 AM PST by andrew roman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: andrew roman

Did anyone naively think that there wouldn’t be demands to expand the gravy train? Eventually Obama is going to have to make some tough choices — or bankrupt the government.


2 posted on 12/26/2008 7:14:48 AM PST by ContraryMary (New Jersey -- Superfund cleanup capital of the U.S.A.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Baynative

Yeah “Global Begging”

Instead of Climate Change” it would be a “Climate Of Change”.....because that will be all that is left in our pockets!


4 posted on 12/26/2008 7:36:34 AM PST by mkcc30 (He died for us let's live for him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mkcc30

This all makes perfect sense. The states can’t print the money for tax free shopping, only the feds can. So they print the money and give it to the states. There will be a lot more of this in the future.


5 posted on 12/26/2008 7:59:57 AM PST by Lets Roll NOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ContraryMary

The government is already bankrupt in my opinion.

This is such BS, you can’t have a society based on shopping to continue like this.


6 posted on 12/26/2008 8:40:42 AM PST by cups
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: andrew roman
Can anyone say Federal Government?

Can anyone say Feral Government? Fixed.

7 posted on 12/26/2008 8:45:40 AM PST by Oatka ("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." –Bertrand de Jouvenel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson