Posted on 01/28/2006 1:15:41 PM PST by Eaglewatcher
How much tax do you think GM and Ford are going to pay with the losses they are running.
It ain't the corporate income tax the gets them, its the employer's half of SS/Medicare taxes and cost associated with corporate tax planning, tax avoidence schemes, return preparation, filing and record keeping, and the audit and litigation costs that go with the current system that are there regardless of whether or not one penny of "income" tax is paid.
Profit or in the red, those costs do not go away and go along with all the other regulatory costs that are killing manufacturing in this country.
If anyone would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25) offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and SS/Medicare payroll taxes outright and replace them with with a national retail sales tax administered by the states.
H.R.25,S.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.Refer for additional information:
Here is the big lie that we are supposed to be so afraid of:
Under the fair tax either A) Workers keep 100% of their paychecks and prices for goods and services go up by some amount or B)Workers keep the same paycheck they have now and prices - across the board - drop like a rock.
In both scenarios the income tax, payroll tax and all the attendant compliance and IRS gestapo-ism goes away.
THAT is the big lie we are supposed to assume will prevent the fair tax from ever becoming law. Read RFG's link. That's all it is. Yawn.
Your choice A) screws anyone who has already accumulated wealth since it causes the value of a dollar to drop
Your choice B) is incorrect, prices drop but the 30% tax added on top makes them about the same as now. There is no scenario with prices dropping like a rock inclusive of the FairTax. If there was, I would likely support this plan, but of course that is impossible because that would be a Free Lunch-- increased purchasing power for every wage earner with the stroke of a pen. It's a fairy tale.
Your answer: B) is misleading because prices will drop like a rock as you have conceded earlier in many posts, in fact, that is the entire point of your pen-palling with Jorgensen. The lower prices will be taxed, yes, but the final amount of the tax as proposed is 23% and could be lower.
In short, it amounts to a tax on a tax, on a tax, on a tax,... up to as many companies that are in the supply chain. Each of the above listed parts the auto manufacturer must buy has it's own supply chain that adds its tax cost into the price of its product. A radio manufacturer pays tax on a tax on a tax in its supply chain. The vinyl maker has its own tax on a tax on a tax it pays on its supply chain. The auto manufacturer has all of those cascading taxes embedded into it's end product price of a car. The tax on a tax doesn't stop there because the car dealer adds its tax and compliance cost into the selling price of the car.
All that tax on a tax on tax is a humongous ball and chain on efficiency, the economy and individual prosperity.
When a car dealer sells a $20,000 Ford $5,000 of that price is embedded/cascading tax cost. When Ford Motor Company closes its doors the United States federal government losses the $5,000 for each car Ford would have sold had it not gone out of business.
When the parts and supply chain are not made in the United States the federal government gets none of the supply chain embedded tax. Foreign governments get it.
How to turn around the trade deficit and create a large and solid mass of new jobs.
Rep. Bill Archer, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee:
"A recent survey was done, in Europe and Japan, of the major corporations and I was astounded at the results. They were asked, 'If the US abolished its income tax and went to a sales tax, would that have any impact on your decisions?' Eighty percent of the corporations said they would build their factories in the United States of America. Twenty percent said they would move their international headquarters to the United States of America."
There exists tax competition among governments. It's not a matter of if consumption-based sales tax will gain dominance the world over, but when, and which country will lead the charge and which countries will play catch up.
The United States must take the lead.
That's the short list. For more information see fairtax.org or search: "national sales tax" OR "national retail sales tax"
there is more money in non-retirement accounts and home equity etc. than there is in taxable retirement accounts. under your scenario A) every one of those dollars would be devalued 15-20%.
That is why they call the FairTax a tax on accumulated wealth.
most of the taxes present in any product are income and payroll taxes.
You have proven repeatedly that you are not mentally equipped to understand this legislation and I have no intention of rehashing the same old discussion with you. The record is already there on the previous threads.
As a witness on theses threads for many years I can say without equivocation that it is you that either doesn't understand the FairTax legislation or, more probable, you willfully chose to deceive the reader. Concurrently, pigdog has proven his veracity by presenting the facts honestly. People make errors, the honest person acknowledges his or her errors and then corrects them in order to benefit by the process.
9/15/05 Neal clarifies embedded taxes and "keep 100% of your paycheck"
Boortz excerpt from link above: We write in The FairTax Book that the competitive pressures of the marketplace will force prices down when embedded taxes disappear from the cost of retail goods and services, and we cite 22% as the average amount of those embedded taxes. Does this 22% include the income and payroll taxes that are paid by employees? Yes, it does. So ... what does this mean to your paycheck after the FairTax becomes law?
When the FairTax is implemented, and when business and personal income and payroll taxes disappear, your employer is going to have to make a decision. He will either take some or the entire amount he had been withholding for federal income and payroll taxes and add it to your weekly check, or he will readjust your pay figures so that your entire paycheck will be equal to what you used to call "take home pay" before the FairTax. The employer may also decide to do a little of both. Either way, you can see that the amount of money you actually receive as pay – the amount you can put into your bank account – will not decrease, and may actually increase.
On a larger scale real wages will rise to the extent to which the nation's employers decide to return the embedded costs of their employee's income and payroll taxes to the employee. Likewise, the cost of the products or services produced by the employer will be reduced to the extent to which that employer retains all or a portion of those income and payroll taxes together with the other taxes on capital and labor eliminated by the FairTax. Once again, a zero-sum, revenue neutral game.
Now, let's elaborate on the "keep 100% of your paycheck" line that appears in The FairTax Book. It is certainly true that after the FairTax becomes law there will be no more withholding from your paycheck for any federal taxes. What you earn is what you get. This is not to say that your gross pay will equal what it was before the FairTax. This will depend on what your employer does when the embedded costs represented by the tax burden you have passed on to your employer disappear. One thing is certain: You will suffer no decrease in real or net earnings --- the amount of each paycheck you deposit into your bank account every other week.
Tell folks you are going to abolish SS & Medicare, and see how long your political party lasts.
Here's one more fact to take into account. There are probably more folks employed in the tax industry than there are in the domestic automobile industry. How much unemployment do you really want in the country?
The VAT (sales tax) has been a drain on the European economy for a generation. You can hide the tax as it is in the present system, layer it in a VAT, or put it all on the end as a sales tax. It doesn't really matter, the government is going to make sure its take doesn't go down.
If you want to boost export by not putting the tax on exported good, you just have to raise the tax on goods consumed domestically.
Don't you see how that is EXACTLY THE SAME THING?
Well, true.
But then you have to wonder why the snare-tax snake-oil salesmen are saying the the scam-tax(tm) will help the failing manufacturers.
Only to the "I've got mine so to hell with you" crowd of which you are undoubtedly a charter member.
The FairTax allows taxpayers to keep the (even according to the CBO) $250,000,000,000.00 (that's $250 billion with "B" and a hideously low estimate in truth) per year currently being wasted on compliance under the present system and that DOES NOT include the costs of operating the IRS which also goes away! I'd say, given that, those same taxpayers purchasing power is going increase mightily with the stroke of that pen!
If you want to boost export by not putting the tax on exported good, you just have to raise the tax on goods consumed domestically.
No doubt you fail to acknowledge your blind ignorance. To boost exports by not putting the tax on exported good remove the tax on exported goods. DUH!!! The only thing you suggested was raising taxes on goods consumed domestically. In other words, you only raised taxes.
If you're merely ignorant I suggest you put forth the effort to educate yourself on the FairTax. Having read the information there if you want further clarification many people on these threads enjoy helping people with honest intentions. If, on the other hand you have an agenda to uphold, perhaps maintain a vested interest in the status quo, then you mark yourself as an enemy of economic freedom. In that case you seek to waste their time which in turn detracts from them helping people with honest intentions.
You are in the later category, IMO. And not worth the effort wasted on you. Save for exposing your intent to thwart the movement toward economic freedom.
That is why they call the FairTax a tax on accumulated wealth.
That's a fine line, your "devaluation of a dollar". I'll bite. Let's say it is a devaluation of a dollar (which happens ALL the time under inflationary scenarios), why would I prefer to devalue my labor?
More of your lies!!! The "Free Lunch" notion is something you conjured up as a strawman to rail against.
Indeed the record is there on many different threads (and other than just your own vanity posts that you normally link to), and the record shows you're full of beans ... as well as dishonesty.
You have recently admitted you had opposed the FairTax all along while at first you made the pretense of only needing to have one or two shmall things explained to you when all along you were merely hiding your 100% opposition. That's a disgusting form of deceit - but right in line with the rest of your dishonesty.
Your misstatements are childishly inept since there has not been a "... myth which has been totally exposed as wrong even by Boortz himself ...". That's merely more of your own wishful thinking - and nonsense to boot. Groww up!!
Hey, dum-dum. You said we'd been all through those misleading selective excerpts of yours - and we have - so why do you bring them back up after claiming you won't?
Just can't keep from lying, I guess.
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.