Posted on 12/01/2004 8:25:22 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Sounds like there would be many difficult parts to this idea. I don't mean to sound negative. If the bugs are worked out, I would go for this. It sounds like it would complicate things in the short term, and simplify them in the long term.
You are assuming the price of the car would stay the same. Every component bought by the manufacturer while making the car has taxes added to it. This is added into the price of the vehicle. Under fair tax these taxes would go away and would only come into play when the car is sold. Thus, the price of the car would drop. (if what I have read is correct.)
Yeah, but how much would the embedded taxes in the production of those shoes go down. The shoes( minus the embedded tax) would go down in price, add the sales tax and wham!!! same price.Of course, the only way the price can fall is if wages go down by the amount of taxes people were paying previously. So you are no better off as far as prices go.
last time I checked we were the United States of America, and not England.
bumpidy dipity doo
Surely you are not naive enough to believe that Congress would dream of doing away with it's pork?
Source your proof?http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#47
You still have to go through the Amendment process, which is lenghty and has not been tried in awhile. You cannot just "do away" with a Constitutional Amendment.
Or the profits that the manufacturer makes on the car just takes a big jump.
You aren't serious are you?
You're being lied to but not by me...
If they can't be honest and up-front about the rate, you might want to find out what else they're lying about or what other facts they're keeping from you.
It's a fairly simple market mechanism. If a car company A and car company B suddenly has their operating costs dramatically reduced and Company A fails to lower the cost of their car then car company B will in fact lower prices to sell more cars. The free market will take care of itself.
Assuming that costs are dramatically reduced, that Company B drops its price, that Company A's cars are a perfect substitute for Company B's cars, and on and on and on.
And assume company A and company B have their operating costs dramatically reduced. Corporate income tax is not an operating cost.If a car company A and car company B suddenly has their operating costs dramatically reduced and Company A fails to lower the cost of their car then car company B will in fact lower prices to sell more cars.Assuming that costs are dramatically reduced, that Company B drops its price, that Company A's cars are a perfect substitute for Company B's cars, and on and on and on.
LOL! You do not understand this chart. Let me just sum it up as the following. All they are saying is that you have more buying power, and the you choose when to be taxed. I guess they are assuming a 6% local sales tax based on the average of all 50 states. 23% is the federal rate, and not 30%. Yes they could have answered it better. Nonetheless, if the Feds change their tax code, then you can rest assure most states will follow suit in order to remain competitive. However, I am sure that states like the Republic of Taxachusetts will not do the same.oYou are showing your ignorance. You really should stop posting until you understand this plan more.
Certainly not.
You're being lied to but not by me...
With an income tax at 23%, for each $100,000 income earned $23,000 is income tax. Earn $100,000 then send $23,000 to the government. With the NRST at 23%, for each $100,000 spent on new retail items $23,000 is the national retail sales tax. Spend $100,000 and $23,000 of that is sent to the federal government.
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.