Posted on 10/19/2011 12:27:42 PM PDT by Brookhaven
It will make apples easier to buy for those who do eat apples. By doing so, more people will be able to eat one a day and keep the doctor away. By keeping the doctor away, demand for the physician's services decreases. In response to lower demand, the physician will be forced to lower his prices to attract business. You can now save money on your visits to the doctor. And, that is how this plan helps you.
Also your state taxes go down.
If you were paying 6% State tax on that 100 $1 apples you pay $6 in state taxes.
If you pay 6% state tax on the 100 .88 cent apples you on pay 5.28 cent in state taxes.
Today the state is taxing you on the sale prices which include Fed tax built in, state is taxing the the Fed tax you pay
Here’s what I like about Herman Cain. He’s not a phony, wooden, flip-flopper. I believe that he can and will be the first real deal presidential candidate we’ve had in a long time.
That debate last night was embarrassing for the so-called front runners. Did either of those guys even finish the night as remotely likable?
I think it’s high time conservatives stop bashing the only plan the American public can name or understand.
and those are the people that hold most of our debt... now you know why the ‘insiders’ don’t like his plan.
Follow the money.
anyone here pay state and fed gas tax, or a state, fed gas tax and state sales tax???
Except you left out (on purpose?) the deductions people now receive when they itemize, in which case your average middle income homeowner and/or self-employed small business owner is likely going to be paying more in taxes. Maybe a lot more.
What no one discusses on the payroll side is that the social security tax remains. Many of us (not me) only pay social security and medicare tax. So they get hit with an extra near 9%. Plus the student loan deduction goes away.
This will hit the younger population.
All the proposals for drastic change to the tax structure (999, flat tax, fair tax, etc.) suffer from obvious logical flaws.
They claim that simultaneously:
1. Everybody’s (or almost everybody’s) taxes will go down;
2. The proposal will be revenue neutral.
This will not fly. For a tax system to be revenue neutral, if taxpayer A’s taxes go down by $1000, taxpayer B’s must go up by the same amount.
IOW, there will be specific winners and losers with any change in the system. As a general rule, those who see their taxes going up with any general proposal will oppose it with much greater fervor than those whose taxes might theoretically go down will support it.
That is why major changes are so difficult to bring about. Concentrated opposition, diffused support.
Try posting like a rational sane adult instead of hysteric ignorant child and we will not think you so boneheaded
Let’s assume you had Econ 100 & 200 in college. The key consideration is price elasticity. Assuming you know what that is, let’s presume the stabilized market price is indeed $1 per apple, of which the apple producer is happily making 5¢ per apple.
Now when the apple producer does not have 10¢ of tax burden carried forward in the price of their apple (because the end buyer ALWAYS pays the tax burden on products added anytime over the supply cycle), they’ll have 2 options:
1) Keep selling the apple at the $1 price and realize the additional margin as profit... or
2) reduce the price of the product and realize the same margin and profitability.
Obviously, if you choose option 1) above, you might encounter competition willing to reduce their competitive product to the price that reflects the margin that was occurring back before the tax burden was lifted.
This is all FREE MARKET dynamics at work. If you are an advocate of the free market, then none of this should be a surprise to you and you will agree that a reduced tax burden to the producer/supplier equates to a lower price to the end buyer in EVERY instance where it is permitted to work.
Not necessarily. The benefits/costs of tax cuts/tax hikes are not likely to be borne by only the supplier or only the buyer. Decreasing taxes decreases the marginal cost of producing more goods. It shifts the supply curve to the right. This means more goods supplied, and it also means the market-clearing price will drop, ceterus paribus (assuming a downward sloping demand curve, which is true for everything except stocks).
So you have no competition?
Say you're in the dry cleaning business, and you have three local competitors. You and two other cleaners decide to "welcome the wider margin and use it to pay down some debt." One of your competitors decides to use it to lower prices on cleaning men's suits (the driving product of dry cleaning sales, btw) to increase his sales volume.
How long do you think it will be before you and the two others that didn't lower prices will lose enough customers that you'll be forced to lower your prices to meet your competitor's?
Businesses don't operate n a vacuum. Competition works every time to lower prices.
Lower prices would be the last thing I would do.
Going out of business would be the last thing you would do. You may not want to lower prices, but if your competition is eating away at your customer base, because they have lowered their prices, you will be forced to lower prices or go under.
>> 22% of the retail price of items is due to federal taxes.
Bullshiite.
This premise is unsupportable, and upon it hinges the rest of the analysis.
And when your competition lowered prices, not lowering prices would be the last thing your business would do.
Competition works. If you could have that large a margin in your revenue stream, you would have already raised your prices that high.
Cain is for the Fair tax and should say so... something like...
I’m for the Fair Tax. but it will take time to get rid of the 16th Amendment. We need help Immediately, and 9-9-9 is my first phase which will have almost immediate results.
that’s how I’D say it.
“Wrong! As a retail business owner I would welcome the wider margin and use it to pay down some debt or maybe even afford some other necessities. Lower prices would be the last thing I would do.”
OK. Keep your prices the same. I’ll buy from your competitor
Who will go out of business first? You or your competitor?
**...the people who MOST hate replacing corporate tax
with a sales tax
...are the CHINESE !!!**
and LIBERALS (which is getting Harder to tell apart)
As this thread will amply demonstrate, people are motivated by a very shallow sense of self-interest and are either too intellectually lazy to evaluate a new idea or are simply intellectually incapable of evaluating a new idea.
There is no way to explain it. It’s the wrong idea at the wrong time. Supposedly the Cain team is talking about ditching the sales tax. Duh.
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.