Posted on 01/31/2005 7:12:16 AM PST by bmweezer
Yes, it would be the perfect excuse to jail all those socialist politicans in those states. Also, considering Calf and New York are leading the way in becoming third world class states, I think the governments in those states may need a reckoning of that sort.
People are NOT that stupid. The Simpsons' behavior is not the way most people (or any people really) behave. Most people know the tax refund is their own money -- they just think of it as forced savings. I know no one who thinks of it as a "free gift" from the feds.
Mostly because Republicans know that if they try, Grover Norquist and/or Club for Growth will be racing to see who can knock `em down first and thus claim credit. :)
But she would.
...and I guess I should have continued reading because it looks like that angle has been addressed! I'm so damn impatient.
I got as far as about the 5th paragraph and found about 6 errors in fact and logic and couldn't read further.
I won't call the author an idiot though. To be as wrong as he is, he has to be a deliberate liar. No idiot could be that wrong so consistently.
So the elimination of the cost to comply with the tax code, the match on SS and Medicare, and other tax expenses that would be eliminated by the NRST would have zero effect on the cost of operating a business and the cost of production?Not zero, but closer to zero than 20%. The cost of complying is estimated at ~$100 billion and the payroll tax is ~6.2% of employee wages (and most economists believe the employee actually pays for that through lower wages, not consumers through higher prices). You are a long way from being able to drop prices enough where we wouldn't notice the FairTax.
Under the NRST for example, a $100 retail item consists of a $77 product plus a $23 tax
No. A $77 item would have a 23% tax of $17.81.
The total would be $94.81.
A $100 'retail item' would cost $123.
Now, let's say the government raises the NRST from 23% to 26% -- a whopping 13% tax increase! Your retail price goes from $100 to $103 to accomodate the tax.
Bull. -- A $100 'retail item' would then cost $126.00, tax included.
To the consumer, therefore, that 13% tax increase looks only like a 3% increase. Hey, not so bad, huh?
That 3% increase looks like a $3.00 increase [per hundred] to most rational people paulsen..
Why are you different?
People are NOT that stupid. The Simpsons' behavior is not the way most people (or any people really) behave. Most people know the tax refund is their own money -- they just think of it as forced savings. I know no one who thinks of it as a "free gift" from the feds.
Quick and easy experiment to try that will show you how "stupid" people are.
In about a month start asking people if they have done their taxes yet. If they say yes, ask how much they had to pay in taxes. Almost all of them will say, "I got money!"
Thank you for the further comments, Badray...they are appreciated.
I've had a marvelous education on this thread and I'm starting to love the concept more and more, whereas I think I was leaning more towards the concept of a flat tax, ala the Steve Forbes concept.
Since I tend to buy used items, grow a lot of my own food, and even do a bit of sewing and other needlework, I can see this as being a big boost in our disposable income, thus permitting us to spend more, thus contributing to the economy probably even more than we currently do.
And the elimination of the IRS is the icing on the cake!!!!
Maybe this guy should chat with Neal Boortz.
Woe is me. Wringing my hands now!
Even if this is correct (whcih I highly doubt, given your tendencies to mis-representCare to give an example?
my score still runs 5 independent economists/think-tanks at 23% (+/- 1%) and two that disagree.Care to give me a link to the other's papers? Right, you can't because the AFT is holding them and refuses to publish them. Hmmm.....
Serious question.
Say somehow there was an exemption on savings prior to the NRST. When you go to the store to buy $10 worth of something and you give the cashier two 5's, how will you prove they were either both from pre NRST savings, or that 1 of them was and thus only half the transaction is subject to taxation?
Also, with the NRST you will no longer pay tax on savings, investments, retirement accounts, etc...
Works out the same, basically, either way. Either prices lower or wages increase -- the purchasing power for the same unit of work is roughly the same either way. Use whichever method you prefer, but be consistent, and the net result will be close enough regardless of the method.
The used goods economy is not what makes America the world's economic powerhouse. We are the world's sole superpower because of the way the economy is currently structured, and it is a consumer economy. You mess with it at your peril. If you want to make America into a used goods economy then you need to look to other countries where that is the case and see how they live. The world's foremost example of such an economy is Cuba. They have been repairing old machinery, mending old clothes, and growing their own food since the U.S. economic sanctions were implemented. I don't want to live in a an economy that imitates the Cuban one.
No where have I said that the out the door price would drop. I have said the retail price would drop. It would.
Oh how you underestimate people. Yes. People ARE that stupid.
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.