National Retail Sales Tax - You gotta be kidding!

GOPNATION.COM ^ | January 31, 2005 | Steve Pudlo

[Your Nightmare]

A $100 'retail item' would cost $123.

Jonestown, you've been hoodwinked. The 23% rate is what's known as the "tax inclusive" rate. It's the percentage of the gross payment including tax that is paid in tax. The rate in sales tax terms is 29.87%.

So a $100 item would have an additional $29.87 in taxes added to it for a total of $129.87. And $29.87 is 23% of $129.87 so these guys claim you are paying a 23% sales tax. Clever, huh?

[Tax-chick]

I've never raised a chicken.

[international american]

"The poster wouldn't have made it through law school."

He muzz be a law school graduate sympathiser/ tort lawyer symathiser

[ancient_geezer]

I'll find it on the site.........that link is not working either.

That's strange, I have no problem with the link, just takes awhile to load is all.

Do have the adobe acrobat reader installed on your system? If not all you can do is download the pdf as a file.

[Your Nightmare]

You can't even answer a simple yes or no without spinning the answer. Let me rephrase the question: do you have any reference where Dr. Jorgensen provides any founding or reference that AFT's rate is too low?

No, just that one. Do you have any reference where Dr. Jorgenson provides any founding or reference that AFT's rate is just right? I really would love to see it.

[OHelix]

I'm sure there could be some issues there, but at present I think that would be a good thing. I don't know how you could prove you had the money and that it was after tax, as opposed to borrowed money. I would think that would be necesary or people would borrow money and claim it was after-tax to apply for the credit, or even claim money they did not really have. I wonder if it was already considered and dismissed for some reason... even if just simplicity.

[kevkrom]

Getting back to the actual flow, I take it that a manufacturing corporation would not pay tax on items it purchases to produce a product; otherwise, the cost of the ultimate product, before mark-up is considered, would be exponentially higher because of the successive generations of tax-paid being forwarded to the end-user. So by a corporation's not paying taxes on parts purchased, the cost of the end product (before profit is added) is theoretically cheaper. Do I have this right?

That's it in a nutshell.

[BikerNYC]

Are you prepared to provide the government a full personal and real property inventory from which that can be determined?

If it means I won't get taxed twice on that money, hell yes.

[international american]

"I still remember how the public employee unions-flush with cash from compulsory union dues-were able to successfully portray his proposal to reform the Health Care Financing Administration as an all-out assault on the Medicare program."

Exactly right!

[BikerNYC]

I wonder if it was already considered and dismissed for some reason...

It may have been, because with a large budget deficit switching over from one kind of tax to another and double taxing certain money during the transition would be a huge windfall for the government.

[Gabz]

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.

I guess you can call me a Cuban....though my Irish ancestors probably wouldn't care for that.

What a condescending statement to make.

[Le Seigneur De Porc]

I also notice the poster hasn't returned..........

Boo!

[Badray]

Do you really believe that retailers will drop their prices, or will they behave as always? Have you ever heard of the free market? Competition? Consumer demand?

Not for you, but for others who are serious about learning about this proposal. . .

If retailer "A" maintains his price at the same level despite his costs being dramatically reduced, and retailer "B" lowers his, who do you think that the customer will buy from? Will not "A" have to drop his price to compete and stay in business?

If all the Chevy dealers decide to break the law and collude on price, Ford, Chrysler, and Toyota will sell more cars while Chevy entertains the illusion that they are making more money.

Please make your next false objection a little tougher. This is just too simple.

[Gabz]

She would have 30% more money but things would cost 35% more.

Please explain why anything would be costing 35% more. That makes no sense at all.

[international american]

I wanna hear that myself.

[scott0347]

So lord of pig what was your handle last time you were here? Is this your picture? Do you have a masters in flatuaation?

[international american]

Get the steamroller fired up......

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

http://www.thbookservice.com/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=c6505

[Conspiracy Guy]

Well it's time again.

[international american]

ROTF....