Posted on 01/31/2005 7:12:16 AM PST by bmweezer
Why in heaven's name would an employer drop wages?The taxes employer's pay are nowhere near the amount required to drop prices >20%. To drop prices that much you would have to reduce wages by the amount of payroll/income taxes that the employees were previously paying, ie. take home pay stays the same.
The way I am understanding this the employer will actually be laying out less money by not having to pay all the insidious taxes on the wages.
I have a TV but seldom watch it.
Thanks for the advice.........
Cute little feller aint he.
Why...the employers other expenses will also drop, particularly in the cost of purchases to do business, including but not limited to dealing with tax code compliance.
We have two. We leave the living room set on FNC so the dog can stay informed. I watch the, Discovery, History, Science, and Military Channels from time to time but usually I'm outside in the rain yelling at my neighbors.
"This would most definitely increase savings."
At the President's economic summit last month, one of the economists there said that she spoke for most, if not all, of the economists on the panel when she said that they viewed our low savings rate as a fundamental economic problem which must be addressed and that there were a number of other economic problems which emenated from that.
:)
if we ever implement this (I am not holding my breath) it needs to cover everything except food, PERIOD. No gerrymandering coverage to give breaks to pet projects ot industries. In addition, the law should require a 75% majority to change the tax rate in any way, this ensures that they have to really NEED the change in order to enact it
People spend too much time indoors now days. I'm outside unless I'm sick.
"In fact, taxing income is WORSE than taxing exports, because it not only accomplishes the same effective tarrif for exports, it effectivly puts that tarrif on ALL American made goods, even if sold domestically. Other countries (China being a big one) are able to insert their products in American markets without being burdened by Federal taxes. That is the exact oposite of protectionism. Both the current system and the Flat Tax are effectively protectionist measures for everyone else at America's expense. The FairTax shifts the point of collection from production to consumption. This allows our products to be exported without the burden of federal taxation (consistent with the Constitutional prohibition on export tarrifs). ALSO, it taxes imported goods at the same rate as domesticly produced goods."
Great post, OHelix. That is one of the most cogent and comprehensive explanations of the benefits as far as international trade is concerned that I have seen.
Here is a litle exerpt from Saturday's Atlanta Journal Constitution "S.C. county's port plan runs into stormy seas"
"At stake is a proposed $350 million container port to handle the explosion of international trade, mainly from China.......... East coast container traffic is predicted to double over the next 15 years."
Our trade deficit is now at an all-time high and continuing to grow. Our tax system is a major contributing factor to that situation. Of course, neither the WTO nor any of our trading partners could raise a legitimate objection if we addressed this issue by passing the FairTax, since we could point out that we would be taxing our own produced goods the exact same way that we would be taxing theirs.
Globalization is THE economic megatrend of the first part of the 21st century. It is absurd in this environment to continue to operate with a tax system that penalizes our own producers in this way.
"The amount of information I have to report to the feds keeps expanding. First it was just my current location, address, and family size. Now you are saying I have to prove my immigration status too? How am I supposed to do that? National ID card? Internal passport?"
SSN will do just fine. BTW, are you saying that you prefer the current system based on concerns about personal privacy? Are you serious?
"To the consumer, therefore, that 13% tax increase looks only like a 3% increase. Hey, not so bad, huh?"
You missed one very important point, which is that EVERYONE will have to pay the increase. Politicians can no longer play class warfare and divide and conquer. I expect that there will be substantial pressure to lower the rate.
Thanks, ag
I only miss a sunrise if it's cloudy and rainy. I never go to movies. I seldom eat out, (due to lack of confidence in the restuarant industry not expense). I only go out to bars once or twice a year. I spend more time with my wife than most men do, because she is my best friend and I like her. My dog would go to work with me if I'd let her.
"The NRST would be the only federal tax so your pay check would have no federal withholdings. State tax withholdings and state tax laws would remain unchanged."
That is very doubtful. Almost every state with an income tax piggy-backs onto the federal system. With no federal system to piggy-back onto, most states would drop their income taxes. Here in GA, there is already a bill in the GA general assembly to do that.
In all likelihood, most American workers would keep their entire paychecks - minus voluntary deductions such as health insurance, union dues, etc.
LOL.
Both, it depends on your point of reference. In terms of a sales tax as you are used to paying, it is 29.87%. In terms of an income tax you're used to paying, it's 23%. The two tax systems use different mechanisms (tax-exclusive for state sales taxes, tax-inclusive for income and payroll taxes).
The example is easier to understand on a $100 total bill, after taxes. The pre-tax item price is $77, the tax is $23. Under the state sales tax model, the tax rate is 23/77 = .2987 -- under the income tax model, the tax is 23/100 = .23 .
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.