The historical Gold to silver price ratio was 15 or 16. It was higher than that 100 years ago. They were never priced the same.
Posted on 08/25/2007 9:11:11 PM PDT by gpapa
Please read posts 77 and 78.
Excellent!
Well done again!
How to go ih2005!
WTF does the price of gold have to do with anything?? Gold is just a metal , that like silver , copper and lead has value based on actual usage and perceived value ,,, 100 years ago silver and gold were priced the same ,,, Would you like to trade me an ounce of your gold for an ounce of silver? Gold only retained it’s valuation as it still has industrial uses (mainly in electronics). As your post was so totally off the subject I will take it that you have nothing of value to add and you are just attempting to muddy the waters...
Oh, so glad that you can exclude me from the conversation from pointing out the blatant flaw in the theory that ‘hidden taxes’ drive up the price of goods. I told you a method of determining the lowest profit margin out there, so you could see how little of it is even remotely affected by taxes, and thus, I’m muddying the waters by demonstrating the flaw in the argument.
But I’m used to this; I might as well attack a religious cult as to actual bring up realistic concerns about the ‘fair tax’ plan, and the effects that it could bring. Then again, least the cult people are mildly truthful in never wanting to hear an opposing opinion.
My understanding is that there are up to 23% in corporate taxes embedded in the cost of goods, not 7-8%.
Employers would not pay any taxes either and that should dramatically reduce cost.
The historical Gold to silver price ratio was 15 or 16. It was higher than that 100 years ago. They were never priced the same.
Could you breakdown the 23%?
I guarantee that every corporation of 50 employees or more in the United States spends more money each year to be in compliance with worker health benefits than they do for taxes, and FairTax does not eliminate the ordinary bookkeeping, nor reporting of salaries, thus any proposed compliance savings are minimal at best.
People keep trying to build these houses of cards, but they continue to fall flat. Expect counter prices for goods to be either at, or above a hundred and fifty percent of what they will be the day before. Without a doubt, the largest employer in America, that being businesses with ten or less employees, will find their tax burden multiplied under this plan when leases and utilities and advertising fall under these taxes. I know my own small business faces $2,500 a month in FairTax liability, which is roughly 10% of the monthly gross. Yes, I'm also counting in there the loss I'll take every time someone uses a credit card to buy an item, because the compliance percentage benefit is smaller than the credit card transaction charges.
I agree with you, and that was part of my point: there are many with vested interests in maintaining the status quo (H&R Block, anyone?). No argument here.
Always Right makes a good point: “Gone where? Into price reductions or into the pockets of the workers and the business owners? I really don’t see employees lining up to take pay cuts so that it may be passed to the consumer.”
Please consider that the workers will still take home the same pay ... their take home pay ... and not take home the government withholding portion.
Their take home is still at 100%. In fact, calculating their yearly “withholding refund” they likely will get 100+%.
Plus, no more income tax filings ... which is huge headache gone.
So how do you get to the illegal monies of the underworld after the FT becomes law.
They paid no Fed Inc Tax on it before or will they after the FT becomes law.
Their spending will not change one iota after the FT would become law.
Why would it change,the prices on consumer goods won’t change after the FT,they will be the same.
Only change will be the sales tax amt will now be paid by the consumer as a seperate tax after the good or service was reduced by elemination of the “embedded’ tax previously included in the price to the consumer before the FT
Another guy who thinks he would be getting his full paycheck with the Fair Tax in place
Once again,see the architect of the National Sales Tax Dr.Dale Jorgenson at djorgenson@harvard.edu
He will explain why you will be bringing home the same net pay you do now
Rejecting all the Tricks of FairTax supporters and calculating the tax rate Honestly—by including the higher spending that it mandates and by being realistic about what could actually be taxed—professional revenue estimators have always concluded that a national retail sales tax would have to be Much, Much Higher than 23%.
A 2000 estimate by Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation found the tax-inclusive rate would have to be 36% and the tax-exclusive rate would be 57%.
In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department calculated that a tax-exclusive rate of 34% would be needed just to replace the income tax, leaving the payroll tax in place.
But if evasion were high then the rate might have to rise to 49%.
If the FairTax were only able to cover the limited sales tax base of a typical state, then a rate of 64% would be required (89% with high evasion).
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.