Posted on 01/28/2006 1:15:41 PM PST by Eaglewatcher
*yawn*
Glad you noted it. Frankly, it was more than I thought you would be capable of.
Sorry. No converts here.
You're not sorry. You don't want to be converted. I doubt pd was trying to convert you as I'm pretty certain he has your number -- knows your true color. I mean, it's not like you try to hide it -- you pretty much wear it on your sleeve.
Your posts have demonstrated that you have no desire to educate yourself on the FairTax nor be converted. In fact your intentions are to work against the FairTax and the economic freedom it moves Americans toward, IMO.
They don't "collect" money. They get a market price for their goods and services. If it covers their costs, they make a profit and pay taxes - if it doesn't cover their cost (like GM & Ford) they lose money and don't pay taxes. GM & Ford's prices had absolutely nothing to do with their taxes and very little to do with their costs.>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is so full of holes that it indicates that either you have some ax to grind or you are totally ignorant of business.
I'm not forecasting anything, I am simply saying that it is in the range of possibilities. I certainly wouldn't trust anything put out by the FairTax support group, they are known to misrepresent their plan re: wages and prices-- the two fundamental building blocks of the whole economy.
So, I consider the FairTax plan akin to going to Vegas and betting the whole shooting match on a spin of the wheel. If we were destitute as a country, rather than the greatest economy the world has ever seen, I could understand the need to play Russian Roulette. As someone who saved for ten years so I could build my own business, I am not in a frame of mind to gamble the whole thing away.
And I don't believe the bit about getting the yoke of the IRS off our backs either-- there will be another similar entity (maybe worse) to police and enforce this tax collection as well. Records will still need to be kept, and audits prepared for, just with a new set of rules.
This is a complete lie. The FairTax does not address any such structural demographic problems. Go ahead and enlighten us on exactly how the FairTax solves the demographic problems facing our entitlements.
Only an absolute fool would say there isn't!!!
It is amazing that anyone so foolish can even operate a keyboard!
I agree with your comments in post 118 to me.
I have no affinity for the present system, but changing the point at which the tax is put on the product, without cuts in both taxes and spending, isn't going to solve anything. If you pull out $5000 in hidden taxes, and add on a $5000 sales tax, you really haven't improved anything. If you cut out employee and employer portions of Medicare and social security, and put it into sales tax, you might be able to shift more of the tax burden to the 'rich', but other than that, you are still pulling the same amount of money out of the economy.
So when folks say you can solve all of industry's problems by shifting the tax structure, I call BS.
See my post 74. If GM and Ford go away, neither the need for the supply chain nor the distribution chain will go away. Cars will still be made and sold in the US. Some suppliers will make the transition, some will go away and be replaced.
On the supply side, while the American 2 increase the percentage of foreign content, the Japanese (and now the Koreans) are increasing their percentage of domestic content.
On the distribution side, the American 2 need to chop their dealer networks no matter what the tax structure is. Ford made a run at doing that, but wasn't able to make it stick.
"If you pull out $5000 in hidden taxes, and add on a $5000 sales tax, you really haven't improved anything."
Except that you have now made the cost of government visible to every voter in this country. I can't think of a better way to get people on board with spending reductions than to make them see the burden they carry with every purchase.
Who can't compete in the world market? Caterpillar does. Boeing does. Ford does. (It's the US market where Ford can't compete. They do quite well internationally.)
That wasn't your claim. If that is your claim, you are comparing apples to oranges. To compare the entire industry involved in the tax system, to only two entities of the auto industry, is not a fair comparison.
OK, the story deals with Delphi and Ford rather than GM and Ford. But GM spun off Delphi to try to put some distance between the two before Delphi went bankrupt. So I considered it fair to generalize to GM from Delphi. If you want to just deal with the two from the posted article, (and leave out the many profitable auto industry manufacturers in the US as well as non-automotive manufacturers who are successfully exporting), we can. Delphi was crippled by the GM bosses, not by tax policy. Ford does quite well in the international arena; their domestic problems are a result of poor management decisions over a number of years, not tax policy.
This is so full of holes that it indicates that either you have some ax to grind or you are totally ignorant of business.Maybe you would like to explain how GM lost $4.8 billion last quarter if the market price wasn't below their cost.
First YN repeats the tired old mantra that costs and prices exist in two separate economic universes and have nothing to do with each other. Production costs could go up substantially and "the market" would be oblivious to it and producers would still produce the same amounts at the same prices.Increases in production costs don't change what the buyer is willing to pay for a product. The product has a certain monetary value to the buyer and that's what they are willing to pay. If the producer can't make it for less than that, tough - the buyer couldn't care less.
They would become unprofitable but, what the heck, investors would never notice, so capital flows wouldn't be affected. Unprofitable companies would have no more trouble attracting capital than profitable ones.Companies that can't make a product for less than the market price lose money. If they do it for too long they go out of business. Companies go out of business every day. If they could adjust their prices to cover their cost, how would any company ever go out of business?
Just for the record, YN claims that he really supports tax reform, just not the FairTax. However, if you check his posts out, they are overwhelmingly on FairTax threads. You won't find a single thread where he explains the Nightmare tax and how it would work.That's because you Fairies hijack any other tax reform thread. You guys are an obsessed cult. Check out the threads on other tax reform plans and you'll see I'm trying to answer people's questions and address the issues. And then the Fairies show up...
Use an updated and conservative economic model of a 10% price dropLOL! yea use another updated phoney, madeup model. Where is an example of that updated and conservative economic model?
Also, The Fairtax (HR25) calls for Social Security bureaucrats to calculate the rate (after the first teaser year) to collect (both halves of FICA) 15.3% of the Social Security wage and self-employment income base but you Fairtaxers say 100% paycheck doesn't include the employer half so you can use it for the price reductions...My economic model calls that a tax increase...A hidden tax increase.
The problem for you is, the CBO attributes the employer half as part of individual income. Though there are no guarantees of trading price drops for cost savings, employers having to pay their employee's the other half (7.65%) would be another huge blow to your "economic model of a 10% price drop".
Than discuss American job growth and American Manufacturing growing in Amerca because we are the preferred Tax free zone in the world.As long as you aren't an investor.
Tehresa Heinz Kerry had a 12% tax rate on her and her husbands millions in the 2004 campaign. I think the Fair tax takes away the loopholes and the wealthy will pay more of their fair share on investment income to support not only the federal budget but for the first time investment wealth will now support Social Security and Medicare.Will the wealthy investors also get more benefits for their extra tax?..Oh, BTW, the elderly will pay more on their invesment income too...even if their investment was made with after tax income....That's why Kotlikoff likes it.47 posted on 01/27/2006 7:42:22 AM PST by merrillbender (Those That Know the Facts, love the Fair Tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
"That's because you Fairies hijack any other tax reform thread."
So you SQLs can come on any FairTax thread and start hurling insults but FairTax supporters aren't allowed on other threads? When did you make that rule up?
"You guys are an obsessed cult."
Since the Nightmare Tax only has one proponent, that term certainly isn't applicable to its supporters.
"Check out the threads on other tax reform plans and you'll see I'm trying to answer people's questions and address the issues."
So how many converts have you won to your approach to tax reform over the years?
"And then the Fairies show up..."
I can only imagine how discouraging it must be for you to have attacked the FairTax and its supporters relentlessly over the past few years and for it to continue to grow and add supporters.
"So when folks say you can solve all of industry's problems by shifting the tax structure, I call BS."
And when folks say that the only change the FairTax would create in the tax system is changing the collection point, I respond likewise.
"Who can't compete in the world market? Caterpillar does. Boeing does. Ford does. (It's the US market where Ford can't compete. They do quite well internationally.)"
Are you aware that we have a huge and growing trade deficit that appears headed toward $1 trillion per year by 2010? Your post above makes it seem as if you are completely unaware of that fact.
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.