Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RobFromGa
For services the cost is almost all labor.
I've asked several times (though I know the answer) which part of service costs get cut to reduce the service price 20 to 30%...

BTW, They can't show you how you how it can be done (because it can't). It's always the other guy who's going to do it then force you to do the same.

158 posted on 08/19/2005 5:07:03 PM PDT by lewislynn (Status quo today is the result of eliminating the previous status quo. Be careful what you wish for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies ]


To: lewislynn
I've asked several times (though I know the answer) which part of service costs get cut to reduce the service price 20 to 30%...

BTW, They can't show you how you how it can be done

Wrong. I showed you a real example. The owner of the business charges $75 an hour so that he will "bring home" $55. Without the taxes and tax costs he pays, he could bring homw $55 by charging $55.

In the case of the nrst, he would be able to charge $55 and bring home $55. The tax would be paid by the client bring ing the total back to about $75 - just what he's paying today.

This is a real example of a real company.

160 posted on 08/19/2005 5:24:46 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies ]

To: lewislynn; Your Nightmare; Always Right; sitetest
I posted this a couple days ago (the assumption that it was the business owner who was going to forgo profits to let the business cut costs, a_g came up with economic gobbledegook as the explanation, now it seems that Principled understands how the plan works too. (he'll probably be shipped to a FairTax reeducation facility for letting the cat out of the bag).

The wage owners keep their income taxes and payroll taxes and get a lot more takehome pay, the business owners (read shareholders) get to keep the same amount as now.

Posted by RobFromGa to ancient_geezer
On News/Activism 08/17/2005 6:48:33 AM EDT · 461 of 560

The consequence derives from the repeal of the current tax system and its burdens on much of the economy and thus is referred to in terms of removing taxes. The impact however is much more wide ranging than just the amounts actually remitted to government by businesses as taxes.

Your whole reply reads like a econmic report and it is full of gobbledegook that makes no sense to a small business owner, to take just one example of your thinging,

The consequence derives from the repeal of the current tax system and its burdens on much of the economy and thus is referred to in terms of removing taxes. The impact however is much more wide ranging than just the amounts actually remitted to government by businesses as taxes.

Businesses remit income to the government in only two places: employee pay and business owner profit. We have already established clearly that the employee will get ALL of his money that is now being withheld for no net savings to the business from that change. If the business owner also gets to keep ALL of his profits and not pay income tax on them then therre is no net savings to the business from that change.

But I think that is where the FairTax is getting their money for businesses to reduce prices. They expect that business owners as a group will be willing to get the same amount of income and dividends that they now receive and pass their tax savings back to the business. But even at 50% profit margin, there is no 23% to be gained from the business owner.

You need to quit lookng at the studes for a minute and look at the real world.

181 posted on 08/19/2005 7:13:23 PM PDT by RobFromGa (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran-- what are we waiting for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson