Posted on 12/10/2010 9:23:15 AM PST by SeekAndFind
What a concept!
I'm sure Sharpton, Jackson, The Messiah, etc. would be out there preaching THIS with Community Organizers EVERYWHERE....if they were aware of this exciting idea!
The reason he is talking to Bill Clinton is now obvious. It’s talk triangulating time.
It's
The
Spending,
STUPID!!!!
Not enough. Cockroaches have been known to get through openings as small as 2mm ....
The Amendment banning the income tax must be worded in such a way that no generalities are used, such as "commerce" or "welfare" or "interstate" or "emergency,"
"Shall" is immutable. Congress shall pass no law, under any circumstances, nor shall the Supreme Court or the Executive Branch have any jurisdiction whatsoever to modify this Amendment in any way under any circumstances without adopting a new amendment which must be ratified by national popular vote of certified citizens only.
Been there, suffered that.
“#39 is for you as well.”
I think a flat tax with a one or two page form would do wonders for us.
We saw what happened to the Yachting and Boating industry when the “Luxury” tax was imposed ...
In Mamaroneck, Howard McMichael Jr., who is 52 years old and joined the family business, McMichael Yacht Brokers, in 1962, said his business has been hit by the tax and the recession. “In 1989, we sold 30 boats costing over $100,000,” Mr. McMichael said. “We sold 8 last year in that category and so far this year, we’ve sold 2.” The business was founded in 1935. “Traditionally, we have always sold a mix of new and used boats, with the bulk of sales, or about 60 percent of them, in new boats,” he said. “Today, new boat sales account for only 10 percent of our business.”
“WALTER SCHULZ, Boat Builder: (1992) When that tax came down, I mean, it was just as if, I know the metaphor sounds exaggerated, as if someone turned the faucet off.”
Yep. Just what we need in a down economy ... repressing sales and increasing joblessness. Good grief. People learn to do without and an unintended consequence is just like the luxury tax shutting down industries. People would buy less.
Less consumption? Less manufacturing. Less manufacturing? Fewer jobs (of what’s left) in plants, sales, distribution and retail as well as mfg. Bad idea, imo.
I know, I know. “This wouldn’t be the same.”
YES. It would. That lesson was a preview of what happens when the cost of goods goes too high. The fact that it might - and I stress might - be REPLACING taxes ENTIRELY doesn’t matter. People will buy less. It will depress the economy.
Although, I guess, the companies in the country would all have to be hiring people to cope with the paperwork and cripple them with guaranteeing the bonds, tracking payments, etc. As if purchasing and bookkeeping wasn’t odious enough. No chance any Gubmint agency would overload you with paperwork, right?
Not mine though. I’d retire.
Yes we did but what I'm talking about is nowhere akin to that at all! I'm not talking about putting a tax on top of a tax as was done there. I'm talking about pulling a thoroughly corrupt tax system (the income tax) by it's roots and REPLACING it with something much more in keeping with what our founders envisioned (the FairTax).
Less consumption? Less manufacturing. Less manufacturing? Fewer jobs (of what’s left) in plants, sales, distribution and retail as well as mfg. Bad idea, imo.
I know, I know. “This wouldn’t be the same.”
YES. It would. That lesson was a preview of what happens when the cost of goods goes too high. The fact that it might - and I stress might - be REPLACING taxes ENTIRELY doesn’t matter. People will buy less. It will depress the economy.
And that argument is just plainly WRONG on many levels!
“And that argument is just plainly WRONG on many levels!”
Facts can be wrong. Opinions can’t. When the rewards for thrift are greater, people will exercise thrift more often than they do today. Why is that hard to believe?
Think what you want. In my opinion, a consumption tax would depress sales ... people would just not pay for things they might otherwise purchase ... just to save even more money. Buying a new car would be pretty tough, maybe I can squeeze a few more miles out. It’s natural.
Manufacturing would suffer, sales, distribution, trucking, retail ... revenues would drop and jobs would be lost. The OPPOSITE of what we need right now.
That is my opinion.
When you add that thrift incentive to a lot of things, they become luxuries. It really is that simple. And we learned by the yacht example (which is an excellent way to illustrate my point) that even the super rich will do without things they ordinarily buy when it becomes too much money and the savings incentive is high enough to reward thriftiness. I am not opposed to thrift; I am saying that it would be a natural result of a consumption based tax that is not addressed.
The flaw in your argument is that you assume that the prices of things would be higher under the Fairtax than they are currently under the income tax. That is just plain wrong! They would not be and, in addition, your customers would have much greater purchasing power with which to make purchases of your products. THAT is my opinion which is backed up by quite a lot of scholarly research.
“The flaw in your argument is that you assume that the prices of things would be higher under the Fairtax than they are currently under the income tax. That is just plain wrong!”
Not at all what I said. You are not understanding the difference between the urge to save and spending.
I said the incentive to be more thrifty would be greater. Same principle as using cash instead of CC ... when the outlay is can be avoided, you tend to do it more often. I understand your point and I understand the tax system you support. I disagree with it. You are not seeing my point. The INCENTIVE to be thrifty - as I said, a good thing - would be more pronounced.
Look. You go into a place and buy something. What the hell, it’s only 50 bucks. Can you live without it? Probably. What if you didn’t buy it? You’d save $50 bucks. What if it was $75 bucks? You might be even MORE INCLINED not to buy it.
My point is almost directly opposed to what you are thinking it is. I think it might work TOO well.
I get what you are saying but even if you were right, that is only one small aspect of the change I propose.
What about all the manufacturing that will quickly move back to the USA once all the tax disincentives brought about by the income tax system are removed?
“What about all the manufacturing that will quickly move back to the USA once all the tax disincentives brought about by the income tax system are removed?”
That depends on how much people are spending. Why bring back manufacturing to a non- or under-consuming nation?
Why aren’t the big tax breaks being offered to companies now worth anything? They don’t produce cash. I can buy equipment and write off a whole bunch of stuff I couldn’t before, or get a subsidy, but I don’t need it because nothing is selling. Inventories are killing us. It’s a mess. Credit was cut, lines were slashed, banks and big co’s started hoarding cash and stopped hiring. No cash moving out here anywhere...
Regardless of the reason, an illiquid market is death to capitalism. Period. That’s why Zero is so dangerous and why they are trying to ramp up spending and taxes. It will bring us to full stop. Illiquidity will kill capitalism. Withdrawing the movement of cash is the death of us.
I must not be as smart as you are.
Can you please explain how paragraph 2 above eliminates the problems with paragraph 1?
I fail to see how criminal behavior would be eliminated.
How do you police the consumer tax? Easy. Apply it at the wholesale level for commerce of physical products, and for services, have severe, business-ending penalties.
Anything is better than the current incomprehensible system.
Call me stuck-in-the-past stupid, but if there are truly items that all should enjoy
I must not be as smart as you are.”
Obviously,
“Can you please explain how paragraph 2 above eliminates the problems with paragraph 1? I fail to see how criminal behavior would be eliminated.”
Can you explain why the two need be related? Does the second line refer to the first in any way?
“How do you police the consumer tax? Easy. Apply it at the wholesale level for commerce of physical products, and for services, have severe, business-ending penalties.”
Yes, that should work. The murder rate is completely manageable and the trade in narcotics is very manageable. Thieves are very sensitive to laws, especially the tough ones.
“Anything is better than the current incomprehensible system.”
No. “Anything” isn’t better. “Anything” depending on what it is, could be worse. We could have you making policy, for instance. Something that works is preferable.
“Call me stuck-in-the-past stupid, but if there are truly items that all should enjoy...”
An incomplete sentence to round out your incomplete thoughts. Appropriate. How does paragraph 1 relate to this? But your wish is granted. You are stuck-in-the-past stupid.
Thanks. I believe I already stated that I understand the Fair Tax and how it would work, but by “a more informed discussion” I take it to mean you do not think so. That seems to me to render further discussion rather fruitless, since you reject my opinions out of hand. But thanks for the civil dismissal. It is much better than the KMA that is so popular these days.
Thanks for the link - I had forgotten about that story.
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.