Posted on 08/26/2004 11:05:33 PM PDT by n-tres-ted
"One glaring flaw.
Even if the "embedded tax" goes away prices will not fall by the same amount.
Many will see this as an opportunity to increase their profit margin, fund capitol improvements, ramp up research that has been put off, etc."
-- Sure, they can increase their profit margin, but will their competitors? If they don't cut prices and their competitors do, they're going to lose market share! It's called the elasticity of demand. trying to find the perfect 5balance between profit margin and market share.
Are you giving up the ghost on the idea that all taxes are in prices?
Not at all for all income/payroll taxes paid by a company must ultimately reflect in prices of its products or it must fold for lack of profitablity.
But neither is my criteria for supporting the NRST and HR25, contingent upon interactions in the market place with respect to individual circumstance, as in the end all taxes are passed onto the individual.
To remove perception of the tax burdens of the individual, is to remove the goad which assures accountability of government to the electorate. Federal tax rates are high and government grows ever larger because a majority of the electorate do not perceive, proportionately, the burden their demand for largesse imposes on the minority of citizens.
The siren call for representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.
Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided or not perceived there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.
"If employees keep the money, how do costs decrease?"
-- Removal of cascaded corporate income taxes and removal of obscene compliance costs.
There is no such thing as "cascaded" corporate income taxes.
This conclusion implies that employees bear most of the payroll tax burden, a result supported by empirical studies. In other words, wages paid to employees are lower by an amount roughly equal to the employers’ part of the payroll tax.
Unfortunately in order for any tax to be paid or a wage paid, revenue must be available to pay those wages. As I said, all taxes are reflected in the price of goods, or the business must of necessity cease operation. If a business cannot price products so they sell, there is no business, there is no wage to pay, there is no payroll tax to remit.
Wages for employees may be lowered by some factor because product sales cannot support the wage plus the employer's excise, that does not invalidate the fact that both the wage and the tax is derived from the price of goods that can be sold to keep the business in existance.
The business employer's excise is paid out of sales revenues right along with the gross wage actually paid to the employee. The customer pays for it all.
Not at all for all income/payroll taxes paid by a company must ultimately reflect in prices of its products or it must fold for lack of profitablity.No, it could just be less profitable (or their labor could make less in wages).
Just exactly what does a duck DO to a June bug?
It is a question. My research shows about 4% and I have detailed my assumptions previously. Perhaps you could do the same with referencing some irrelevant productivity increases or the magic of the business fairy.
You are putting words into my mouth!
I never said "evil", I said "greed" and "large"
Small business really does not have much opportunity to manipulate the system.
Take an open eyed look at how some corporations have established virtual monopolies, particularly in rural area's, and then tell me that there are no justifications for my concerns!
No "class warfare", just a realistic appraisal of the fact that some people and corporations will try to twist ANY system to their personal advantage, no matter if they already dominate their market or not.
As for "job growth", we would have all the jobs we could want NOW, if we would just get rid of the illegal invaders already here.
I never said the idea had NO merit, only that it has not been fully thought out.
I suspect we would end up with the IRS merely having a different mission statement, ensuring that EVERY possible sale gets taxed, including the kids lemonade stand, your used car, and your spring garage sale.
Not at all for all income/payroll taxes paid by a company must ultimately reflect in prices of its products or it must fold for lack of profitablity.
No, it could just be less profitable (or their labor could make less in wages).
Regardless, the lower profit, and the lower wage still comes from that price the customer will pay. No sales revenue, no profit, no wage, no employee, no business.
What does "cascade" mean?
It means that the shills are in fundamental denial of free market economics, and assume that all companies make a known profit so that tax liabilities and all other 'costs" can be merely passed along to the consumer.
Corporate income taxes are NOT a cost.
They are government confiscation of a portion of the profit (if any) that can only be determined AFTER costs are deducted from revenues. They CANNOT be computed in advance to be "passed along" to the consumer at a fixed market price that guarantees profit and tax liability. Yet that's EXACTLY how the shills would have you believe business functions in a competitive market economy. They are full of BS.
Corporate income taxes are NOT a cost.
=======
Income tax liability and payroll tax liability are not considered by business in advance of pricing decisions???
Those rates include the employer's portion of the payroll tax.
So what? The NRST is a replacement for all income and payroll taxe,. business side as well as individual, and those taxes are all reflected in that CBO measure.
You sure you want to stick with them?
Yes.
BTW, looking at the average is not a very good way to gauge what the typical American pays in taxes.
Rate based on all families is sufficient as an unweighted indicie of total federal tax burden for me.
You should try to find the median effective tax rate.
You use your measure, I'll use mine.
Your question was concerning what my tolerance point is not what your's.
No. Price is determined by competitive supply and demand in the market.
Regardless, the lower profit, and the lower wage still comes from that price the customer will pay. No sales revenue, no profit, no wage, no employee, no business.You seem to have a real hard time grasping this concept.
right- but prior to a product entering the market, its price is affected by a retailer's costs (raw materials, utilities, wages, etc.)
retailers' costs are considered when pricing...
why are taxes not considered a cost to be paid but light bills are?
It means that ALL costs incured by a business are, of necessity, passed on to the customers of that company in the price of it's products. There is simply NO other way for it to work as there is no magic money tree for which they can get funds necessary to pay these costs. They have exactly ONE source of revenue and that is their sales reciepts from which EVERY thing they pay must, of necessity, come. When several business "touch" a product at some stage of its manufacture ALL those costs "cascade" to the final consumer of the product.
thank you i know what you mean now by "cascade"...
yes the only source of revenue is sales, but could it not be the case that rather than increasing price to pay costs, wages could be lowered in stead - at least in part?
surely there is a point where people quit to go to a similar job for better wages - but there must be a little give...
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.