Posted on 08/26/2004 11:05:33 PM PDT by n-tres-ted
WHere did you get that?
Things are gonna cost about the same...
Its fun to think about the "what-ifs" of this kind of tax scheme. How would our lives change?
First, the government wants it because it generates a one-time acceleration of tax collection, and a tax increase! A huge fraction of our economy is conducted via debt, in other words, purchases of goods and services with income NOT YET EARNED (the tax pull ahead). Pay the tax on the purchase, and it is collected well before the earning takes place, EVEN IF THE DEBTOR GOES BANKRUPT AND DEFAULTS ON THE LOAN (the tax increase), and never earns the "income". You are now taxed according to what you can borrow! If the government loved having people in debt before, you ain't seen nothin' yet!
Which leads us to:
Second, the banks and credit card issuers have to love it! A 23% increase in every purchase translates into a rapid rise in credit balances, as people think their increased take-home income allows them to consume at the same rate. Higher balances equal higher interest payments, as we pay interest ON THE TAXES WE PAID! This will do much more than offset the small administrative cost of sneding the money to the feds.
And a third: travel outside the country will represent consumption outside the tax jurisdiction. (Today the US taxes your income no matter where in the world it was earned.) So Congress will move to create all manner of charges for foreign travel, calling it "taxing the rich."
Come on now, you all can think of lots of fun things about this tax, can't you?
The ones in retail do.I'm just tellin' ya what the Texas Comptroller said. I think she might have a better idea, though.
Consumption is more stable and predictable than income anyway if you're looking for stability.
It was a question. It was based on the claims of countless posters on these threads over the past few years.
Things are gonna cost about the same...
LOL,,,another prognosticator heard from.
Got next weeks lotto numbers too?
Anyway, nobody will discount anything.
I don't see any reason for prices to change. Why do you think there's any reason for prices to change?
Bad plan. The problem with tariffs is two-fold. 1, counter tarriffs can be enacted killing our exports. 2, foriegners don't pay tariffs, the American consumer does with higher prices.
Would it amount to 1 or 2 billion?
Whatever it costs would be saved by NRST.
LOL,,,another prognosticator heard from.Principled, why don't you tell Protagoras where this mythical 22% drop in prices comes from?
Okay, here's another one:
How does this tax change affect the feds interest in controlling the borders? On one hand, they will absolutely want to stop all smuggling of OTHERWISE LEGAL goods, which represent a loss of tax revenue. On the other, illegal drugs, weapons, and other black market items can't be taxed anyway, because there is no legal sale, so who cares?
As for illegal aliens, hey, they spend money here so bring 'em in!!
I wonder how much the IRS costs? ... Whatever it costs would be saved by NRST.The current plan will pay both the states and businesses 0.25% of what they collect for their efforts (0.5% total). That would have been ~$44 billion last year.
They will be taxed when the spend their money at the store and when they buy their fancy cars.
It is the case now that imports are subsidized via tax rebates of one form or another to remove tax costs from them, making them more competitive here.
It is also the case that US goods are being anti-subsidized (is that a word?) with the penalty of included taxes...meaning importers can increase their price with no loss of market share to the extent that prices of domestic goods are inflated.
Importers have a double-tax advantage now.
Under the nrst, importers will have to pay the nrst, eliminating part of their advantage due to their tax subsidies of the home country.
And to help domestic business, US goods will become cheaper overseas by the amount of previously included taxes.
Import prices are unlikely to change - if they go up, that means that a very profitable market will be shrunk.
JMHO
bears repeating
Sorry, bad math. It would cost ~$9 billion to pay the states and businesses to administer the NRST.
Isn't an across-the-board price decrease in the neighborhood of 20% a major assumption of the Fair Tax initiative?
You missed the point, and actually helped to make mine. The feds interest at the border will be driven by the need to protect tax revenue, not to protect us. Whether the contraband be human or drugs, the rationale that you suggest - "the money gets spent, so it gets taxed" is a danger.
The cost to produce them has gone down, just as you expect, however the liscencing fees and residuals have gone up, therefore the cost remaining constant is normal.
Most of the studies I have read state that, due to exchange rate adjustments, any change in the trade balance would be very short term.
My state of residence is not based entirely on their tax structure, but it is a major contribution to the cost of living considerations when I am offered an opportunity to relocate. In addition, if I lived in California, I would love the opportunity to have escaped the imposed slavery the dems brought the residents.
Thanks for the clarification as to it being an encouragement, not a requirement. Now, is that encouragement the same style as the "encouraged" max speed limits or seat belt laws or BAC%?
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.