Posted on 12/01/2004 8:25:22 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
...President Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (search) have both said the idea of a national sales tax deserves a serious look. For many, the idea of a world without the Internal Revenue Service is very seductive.
"We spend about $400 billion a year complying with the tax code. We spend $200 billion a year just filling out IRS paperwork," said Rep. John Linder (search) , R-Ga., who has proposed a bill that would create a national sales tax.
Proponents have spent millions on research and have concluded that a national sales tax can replace the income tax, payroll tax, estate tax and corporate tax. Advocates say the new tax would lower the cost of manufacturing and job creation and attract foreign investments, among other things.
"If we were to get rid of the sales or the income tax and the payroll tax and all compliance costs, we would be so ferociously competitive in a world economy that corporate America would not be competed with unless foreign corporations started building their plants in America," Linder said.
Proponents seek a 23-cent national sales tax on all retail goods, everything from groceries to clothes, cars to electronics. Everyone would pay the same rate, which critics argue is part of the problem.
"If you consume $40,000 a year and you make $50,000 a year, would you feel it is fair if a guy who made a half a million dollars a year but spent $40,000 a year paid the same tax you do? I think you wouldn't feel it's fair," said Buck Chapoton, former assistant treasury secretary.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Most companies look for a fixed percentage margin (profit) on their sales, so using your little model, I would be adjusting my consumer price to gain that "true" $20.00 profit. So 'splain to me again about how reducing the corporate tax won't reduce prices... I am enthralled....
Semper Anxious
Ok you need a $1.29 or 1.30 to make the $1.00 purchase. But what is assumed is that A) the product price will remain the same B) local sales taxes will remain the same. All studies on this site also show that increase competition will lead to lower prices across the board which gives a consumer more buying power.
Stated differently...
You want to buy a $100,00 dollar car. Under the income tax you need to earn $130,000 income. That's $30,000 paid in income tax subtracted from the $130,000 income leaves you with $100,000 to pay for the car.
Under the NRST embedded taxes have been striped out of the supply chain in the amount of roughly 23%. The price of the same car under the NRST would be $77,000. In order to pay for the car and NRST you'd have to earn $100,000 -- $23,000 of that is the NRST. On your $130,000 income you own a new car plus, $30,000 in you "pocket".
You are basically an idiot. It is apparent that you support the status quo. You must work for the IRS, H&R Block or some other industry that benefits off the proponderous taxation industry.Wrong.
It is really quite simple. The issue is TAX NEUTRALITY. Right now, in broad brush terms, the Government gets about 23% of salary in tax. That is, I made $100 dollars, Gave the government $23.00 and kept $77.00. So, the Government got $23.00. Ok, still with me, I will use small words so that you can understand.Wrong again. Consumption is a larger base than taxable income so the inclusive NRST rate is actually smaller than the average effective income/payroll/estate tax rate.
Under NRST, it is not a scam to get everyone more income, it is a simplification plan that will reduce the overhead. If we can agree that Neutrality = the goverment needs that 23%, then we can go on....
Now, under NRST, you make $100.00 You keep $100.00 You go to the store, spend $77.00, the NRST is 30%. (OBTW there nimrod, it is clearly spelt out in the documentation that the rate is 30%. There is no conspiracy for covering up any crap, you just want there to be) So with the 30% tax the purchase is (gasp) $100.00. See, it is a wash to the current system. No hocus pocus, no smoke and mirrors.Why are you telling me this? I was just trying to get Sprite518 to understand this.
Your (and others little tirades about the IRS are hollow, (Gawd I wish Freepers would do some homework before they get vocal) The current NRST is directly tied to a bill for the repal of the 16th amendment and to abolish the IRS.Wrong yet again. It is not tied to any legislation. The FairTax could be passed without repealing the 16th Amendment.
Regarding SS and the others, THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE NRST. Just read the damn thing will ya.Did I say they weren't?
Ah, Bobbie, do have ANY inkling how much the IRS COSTS each year to operate???? (clue: more than the military)WRONG! (you are on a roll)
Not to mention that the damn tax is REVENUE NEUTRAL!!!!Oh my gosh, you are ri...NOPE! Wrong again.
A company makes a product for 80$ and tries to sell it for 100$. Consumers don't buy the product due to superior and cheaper products being in the market place. The company decides to lower prices to break into the market. Consumers start buying the product, the company makes a smaller profit then anticipated but still a profit and pays taxes on said profit.
How much in taxes would they company made if consumers hadn't purchased any products? All you are doing is arguing semantics. The consumer is ultimately paying the taxes for corporations.
1) You're a nimrod
2) You support the status quo
3)You practice Million Man math.
Your understanding of consumer economics is based on the back cover of "Spiderman" comics.
I guess that it is a good thing that you have ZERO ability to control the outcome of the NRST debate. But. till then, you can argue with yourself since you are the virtual "font" of truth and enlightment on taxation. And, You're STILL a nimrod.
Semper FI
Of course, no one cheats on their taxes today, right? No one under reports income right? There will always be cheaters, but there are a lot less retailers than income tax payers, always will be, so it will be easier to enforce.
Now THERE is one hell of an admission! Congratulations!
Most companies look for a fixed percentage margin (profit) on their sales, so using your little model, I would be adjusting my consumer price to gain that "true" $20.00 profit. So 'splain to me again about how reducing the corporate tax won't reduce prices... I am enthralled....WROOOOONG! They get as much profit as they possibly can. Whatever the market will bear. Besides, even if the corporate income tax was in prices, it isn't much as a percentage of consumer prices, ~2-3%. Not much of a drop when you are adding 30% to my costs.
The subject is sales tax rates not income tax rates or percentage of income.
State of California would probably look at it as an opportunity to raise state income taxes.
Let me give you a counter example...Sorry, but you just proved my point. The corporation sold their product for whatever the market would bear and paid taxes on the profits. If the company didn't pay taxes, they would still sell if at the same price (that's what the market will bear), but keep all the profits. With the corporate income tax, the consumer paid the same price as without, but the capital holders received less return on their investment.
A company makes a product for 80$ and tries to sell it for 100$. Consumers don't buy the product due to superior and cheaper products being in the market place. The company decides to lower prices to break into the market. Consumers start buying the product, the company makes a smaller profit then anticipated but still a profit and pays taxes on said profit.
How much in taxes would they company made if consumers hadn't purchased any products? All you are doing is arguing semantics. The consumer is ultimately paying the taxes for corporations.
Man do work in the real world???? The more you expound, the more I am convinced you are a government bean counter. Some of your views are so.....wierd. I thought I was joking about the spiderman comics. I am now thinking it is true. Companys plan and forcast (so that they are in business NEXT year) on a constant fixed profit line. Pricing is adjusted according to the PLAN. In my company we have a forecasted profit plan. Market dynamics do play a role, but NOT to the level that you seem to think that they control things. You are back out there trolling with that red herring again. I wan't going to respond to you , but, I would HIGHLY recommend you study economics from somewhere other than "Sponge Bob">
Semper Fi (and good bye!)
Now THERE is one hell of an admission! Congratulations!Not against a consumption tax. Would like a VAT or the Flat Tax. I just don't like a NRST and don't like the way it's being promoted with half truths and distortions.
What happens to state sales tax, property, capital gains, inheritance...?
Speaking as an invester, Realtor, and having done some building: My guess is new construction would take a short term hit, offset somewhat by increases in remodeling/addition jobs. This should also help with many of the urban sprall issues communities are struggling with. Cost of new construction will also fall though. When a big builder starts a job, he knows how much he plans to make on the deal, after all expenses and taxes. With his income taxes eliminated, the markup will be less, so new home prices should go up less than the amount of the tax. Existing homes aren't taxed, so I don't see a significant impact there. Possible though that since new homes will sell at a premium, existing homes will get a bump, so it will be a boom for home equity loan market.
LOL! I tole him and tole him but he just won't listen!
Uh huh and that's $77,000 worth of product + 29.87% tax.
Yep, and your take home pay will increase since their will be no withholding taxes.
Companys plan and forcast (so that they are in business NEXT year) on a constant fixed profit line. Pricing is adjusted according to the PLAN. In my company we have a forecasted profit plan. Market dynamics do play a role, but NOT to the level that you seem to think that they control things. You are back out there trolling with that red herring again. I wan't going to respond to you , but, I would HIGHLY recommend you study economics from somewhere other than "Sponge Bob"So why don't you just double your profit line?
So buy the same car one year old for $15,000 and pay no tax.
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.