Posted on 08/12/2004 3:03:02 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
CARSON, Calif. - John Kerry (news - web sites) said Thursday that President Bush (news - web sites)'s musing about a national sales tax is an insult to financially struggling voters and would amount to "one of the largest tax increases on the middle class in American history."
The Democratic presidential nominee, during a speech at California State University, Dominguez Hills, tried to reverse partisan stereotypes by portraying the Republican president as the tax raiser and himself as a tax cutter.
Kerry said if Bush wants to create a national sales tax without increasing the deficit, people will end up paying at least 26 percent more for purchases on top of state and local sales taxes.
"We know exactly who that's going to hurt," Kerry said . "That's going to hurt small business. It's going to hurt jobs. It's going to hit the pocketbooks of those who need and deserve tax relief most in America."
Bush has suggested that overhauling the tax code would be a second-term priority if he is re-elected. While campaigning in Florida Tuesday, he said replacing the income tax with a federal sales tax is "an interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously."
Kerry seized on Bush's comments even as White House officials downplayed the idea and denied that any such plan is under consideration.
Kerry said Bush has failed to offer a plan for improving the economy in his second term. He said the president's tax cuts have resulted in a tax increase on the middle class because their state and local taxes have been increased to compensate for loss of revenue from the federal government. He said a national sales tax would only further burden the middle class.
"I call it one of the largest tax increases on the middle class in American history," Kerry said. "And this is coming from an administration that has offered almost no new ideas for our economy, and the few ideas that they have offered have only hurt middle class families. This new idea is no different."
Kerry repeatedly invoked the memory of better economic times under another Democratic president, Bill Clinton (news - web sites). He said Clinton's advisers were helping craft his economic plan and that he will be "a champion for the middle class" by cutting their taxes while lowering the deficit.
Kerry said he would offer tax breaks to help pay for health care premiums, child care and college tuition, paid for by repealing Bush's tax cuts for people earning more than $200,000 a year.
"They will go back to paying the same taxes they paid when Bill Clinton was president," Kerry said. "That was a time when every American rich got richer."
Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Kerry cannot pay for his tax plan.
"John Kerry's numbers don't add up," Schmidt said. "He has spent his tax hike more times than anyone can keep track of."
He was also fighting Bush campaign's charge that Kerry has a long history of voting for higher taxes during his 19-year career in the Senate.
Nonsense. The cost reduction and compliance savings is the key to all the arguments for the NRST and it is total nonsense based on one study by one economist. Do you want to bet the entire US economy one man's guess?
Also, you need to consider that, in general, supply chains are shorter now than they have ever been and, for NRST purposes, they terminate at the border. SO, some magical cascade of cost savings is simply not going to occur if the NRST passes.
Now lets to 25% Sales Tax no income tax. That thing I buy for $1.00 costs me $1.25 but since there are no income taxes I have the $1.25. So it is a wash, except that I get all my money and I get to spend all my money. I kinda like that.
Bull if EVERYONE a rebate or give no one a rebate.
I wait for her to be on the late night talk shows. She's best enjoyed after depression of the mute button.
Nonsense. The cost reduction and compliance savings is the key to all the arguments for the NRST and it is total nonsense based on one study by one economist.
Baloney, take another look at the the source of the information validating the estimate. Hardly the guess of a single man.
Do you want to bet the entire US economy one man's guess?
Sure why not, when a simple calculation based on public data isolating the amount of business taxes affecting price readily confirms it. refer again to Reply #60
, supply chains are shorter now than they have ever been and, for NRST purposes, they terminate at the border.
Complete nonsense the business tax calculation in Reply #60 confirms otherwise. In fact just the opposite of the conditions that would exist with a sales tax based system in place creating an environment where manufacturing expansion would occur in the US on top of what does indeed exist here.
Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee,
Rep. Bill Archer (R-TX)
August 12, 1996
- "A recent survey was done, in Europe and Japan, of the major corporations and I was astounded at the results. They were asked, 'If the US abolished its income tax and went to a sales tax, would that have any impact on your decisions?' Eighty percent of the corporations said they would build their factories in the United States of America. Twenty percent said they would move their international headquarters to the United States of America."
. SO, some magical cascade of cost savings is simply not going to occur if the NRST passes.
Nothing magical about it, merely application of competition for market share and understanding what supply/demand factors go into pricing a product that can be sold maintaining constant profit to domestic business. Imports must follow domestic offerings in prices downward or lose sales.
the sheeple don't know that.
many of us predicted this when Bush talked about it - pitching a national sales tax this close to the election, is insane. people will think its in addition to the income tax - no matter how many times you explain it to them.
its unreal that Rove would send the president out to talk about this.
I'd rather ask any of the overwhelming majority of economists who agree that a national sales tax is one of the worst ideas they've ever heard.
My undersatnding is that Rove didn't -- this was the President's answer to a direct question from the audience. I'll also note that the President hasn't actualy proposed anything -- he called it an interesting idea that should be considered.
IOW, I don't think the President is campaigning on this issue, and given the soundbite nature of political campaigns, this is probably not a bad idea. It does seem that he is quite open to the idea, and may possibly lend his weight to help support it during his second term.
Ok... you know you're going to be called on this, so please cite any references to back that statement up.
I'd rather ask any of the overwhelming majority of economists who agree that a national sales tax is one of the worst ideas they've ever heard.
You want to cite some peer reviewed studies(not liberal or flat tax hit pieces) on that?
The only ones I have found, demonstrate a strong showing for retail sales taxes over over other forms of tax reform, especially the current income/payroll tax system.
Quick. Simple. Easy.
As for the receipt printed off, it looks like this:
Sticker price: $100
23% FED: $23
3% STATE: $3
1.5% CITY: $1.50
Quick. Simple. Easy. and WRONG!
You charged the customer $23 in federal sales taxes for a $72.50 item when you should have charged them $21.65 (unless you are trying to tell us the feds are going to tax state and local sales taxes). As I was trying to explain, you can't add individual tax inclusive sales tax rates. Every tax rate you add or change affects the "gross payment" thereby changing the amount of tax the different rates collect.
Example. A $100 dollar item bought in Austin, Texas:
Austin, Texas Item Cost $100.00 Federal 23.00% 29.87% $29.87 21.63% State 5.88% 6.25% $6.25 4.53% City 1.96% 2.00% $2.00 1.45% Total 30.84% 38.12% $138.12 27.60%
Drive 1 mile south to Pflugerville, Texas (yes, that's a real city):
Pflugerville, Texas Item Cost $100.00 Federal 23.00% 29.87% $29.87 21.70% State 5.88% 6.25% $6.25 4.54% City 1.48% 1.50% $1.50 1.09% Total 30.36% 37.62% $137.62 27.34%
Notice how the real inclusive rates have to change when you modify the city rate? When you change that rate you change the "gross payment" and your 23% inclusive federal rate is now collecting 23% of a different amount than the other city. Also notice how easy it is to add the tax exclusive sales tax rates. It's the natural way to express the additive sales tax.
Again, using the tax inclusive rate for sales taxes is not a matter of preference, it's flat out wrong. Just as it would be wrong to use exclusive rates with an income tax (similar things would happen).
Y'all can be reasonable, realize the error, and make a change; or continue to hang on and go down with the "tax inclusive" ship. I really don't know why y'all are so insistent on the tax inclusive rate anyway.
Under the NRST, everyone would get the "Poverty Level" rebate.
EVERYONE!
I know. I'm the one who pointed that out to you once upon a time, if you'll recall. Of course, that's only true when the taxes do not tax each other. Likewise, tax-exclusive rates can be added, unless the taxes tax each other.
I really don't know why y'all are so insistent on the tax inclusive rate anyway.
Of course you know, you just rpetend not to. They're proposed as tax-inclusive so that they can be reasonably compared to the taxes they're principally replacing (income and payroll taxes), which are expressed as tax-inclusive.
You've made it quite clear that you don't agree with that, but nevertheless, it's yet another lie/distortion from you to claim that you don't understand why it is used.
You want to cite some peer reviewed studies(not liberal or flat tax hit pieces) on that?You're kidding, right? You are asking for a peer reviewed study!?! That's just grand. The master of quoting any Tom, Dale, or Harry that will support his cause now wants confirmation from a "peer reviewed" study. Too much.
If nothing else, the NRST will strongly benefit business owners that want to invest in the US but must invest overseas instead because of the current total tax burden.
I know. I'm the one who pointed that out to you once upon a time, if you'll recall.Actually, I don't recall. I may not have been following this issue at the time. Kudos, though.
Of course, that's only true when the taxes do not tax each other.Like the proposed NRST.
Of course you know, you just pretend not to. They're proposed as tax-inclusive so that they can be reasonably compared to the taxes they're principally replacing (income and payroll taxes), which are expressed as tax-inclusive.If the inclusive rate is only necessary for comparison to the income tax rates (which it isn't necessary) and your bill eliminates the income taxes, why do you find it necessary to continue into perpetuity this incorrect way of expressing the sales tax? Wouldn't it be better to present the correct rates and then explain how they can be simply converted for comparison reasons?
Of course, that's only true when the taxes do not tax each other.BTW, you can add tax inclusive rates if they tax the other taxes being applied, but any change in any of the rates would still change the amount of tax being collected by all the individual rates.
Likewise, tax-exclusive rates can be added, unless the taxes tax each other.But then they wouldn't be tax exclusive, would they?
Really? How?
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.