Income tax

No, it didn't sail over my head. You throw out a lot of terminolgy, but fail to address the key issues:

Can corporate income taxes be accurately estimated? Yes, even if there is some short-term variability, taxes can be reasonably accurately estimated over the long term.
Can "employer's share" of payroll taxes be accurately estimated? Absolutely, it is included in payroll as any other employee-related cost.
Can complaince costs be accurately estimated? Yes. For small businesses, which comprise 90% of all corporations, complaince costs run an average of over 7 times as much as actual income taxes paid. Larger corporations can absorb the costs, relative to taxable income, better, but complaince costs still add a significant burden to their total tax costs.

Any business that does not take these costs into account when setting their product pricing will not stay in business for long.

Can corporate income taxes be accurately estimated? Yes, even if there is some short-term variability, taxes can be reasonably accurately estimated over the long term.

Already addressed this back in #31:

Planning for corporate income tax obligations DOES occur as part of the budgeting process, however, this is only to assure liquidity of cash flow when actual payment of taxes (if any) is due. While budgeting interfaces with corporate costing and pricing procedures, they are NOT the same thing and should not be confused.

Take a look at any corporate annual report. Note where they report Profits BEFORE Taxes and Profits AFTER Taxes. That should give you some clue as to where Corporate Income Taxes fit into the calculations. They are NOT subtracted from revenues as a COST. They are NOT factored into the selling price.

If you have difficulty with the terminology, that's your problem.

You know, I never thought of that!

Either way, his ideological and his economics circuits are cross wired such that his "I'm confused" warning light is always on.

Willie the G is grist for our mill, and his erroneous bumps just serve to keep our tax threads "in play" longer. Which is good, because then we are able to reach and educate more FReepers.

“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
[Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800.]

Scrap the Code! Scrap the IRS! Abolish the VLWC!

We will never be a truly FRee people so long as we have the income tax and the IRS.

Willie, you are stringing statements together like you're trying to present an argument, but it falls flat on its face. It doesn't matter how the profits are reported, they are still factored in to the costs of running the business, and in turn into the price to ensure long-term profitability. Just because my paystub reports gross pay and net pay after taxes doesn't mean that I don't plan on those taxes being taken out, and plan my finances accordingly. Do you honestly believe that a business would have less sense than that?

Not to mention, you keep ignoring the costs of the payroll tax amd income/payroll tax complaince, which are essentially fixed costs, just like anything else in the production process. For the average small business, these costs are far more than their income tax liability and for the average large business, these costs are roughly on the order of the income taxes paid.

No, the NRST is not worth fighting for. We have anger at the income tax, people see how much money is being extorted from them every year, every pay check for it. We should never replace it with a tax which cannot be estimated, cannot be seen, cannot be noticed. The income tax is smaller than the social security taxex. It is less than half the fed revenue and only about a quarter or a fifth of all the taxes people pay. However, they do not really know how much money they are being robbed by the other taxes so people don't complain about it. A tax which makes people angry is far better than a tax which people do not notice if we are ever going to get the government off our backs.

All of which points to the NRST as the better way to go. With the NRST, the entire federal tax burden of the individual is visible on each and every retail purchase. There is nothing hidden or un-estimatable about it -- it's charged on all retail items and explicitly itemized. Under the income tax, over half the population believes they pay little or nothing. Under which scenario do you really think people are going to get angrier about the massive size and cost of the federal government?

The government's big con is that they can convince the majority of the population that "someone else" is paying all of those taxes -- the "rich" or those "evil corporations" -- even if a large amount of those taxes eventually get paid, in one form or another, by the average Joe in higher prices, lower wages, and higher interest. With the shell game they play, this same majority suppoorts all of the government spending programs because they don't think it costs them anything.

But imagine instead a system where every time you buy a loaf of bread, a movie ticket, a CD, etc., you see you tax burden on the receipt. And when a tax cut benefits everyone pretty much equally, then pretty much everyone is going to be in favor of it. When the choice is phrased like "keep the national endowment for the arts (and some other worthless programs) or take an X% cut in the sales tax", then we can have an honest look at who thinks that should be a government program and who doesn't.

The NRST replaces both of those, plus estate and gift taxes.

That's one of the problems with it. We need to get rid of the SS tax and privatize Social Security. Right now it is the biggest hoax and theft perpetrated on the American people.

The other problem with the NRST is that it does not reduce taxes it keeps giving the monster the same and/or more money than it already extorts from the American people. This is only making tyranny more palatable. Sorry that is not a conservative position, it is a socialist position.

The short answer is that the NRST bill addresses revenue only. It doesn't address spending. These are seperate concerns -- and must be addressed separately in Congress. Attempting to lump too much into a single bill will ensure its defeat.

That's one of the problems with it. We need to get rid of the SS tax and privatize Social Security. Right now it is the biggest hoax and theft perpetrated on the American people.

Agreed, but see above. Until social security is gotten rid of (and the sooner, the better), we still need to collect the taxes to pay for it. getting rid of social security would knock the required NRST rate down from 23% to around 16% -- get rid of Medicare too and the rate drops down to just under 15%.

The other problem with the NRST is that it does not reduce taxes it keeps giving the monster the same and/or more money than it already extorts from the American people. This is only making tyranny more palatable. Sorry that is not a conservative position, it is a socialist position.

Congress will not even consider a bill that is not revenue-neutral, so again, trying to tie too much into it will kill it. If spending is decreased, then the provisions of the NRST would lower the tax rate in successive years.

This by no means makes the government "more palatable". While it does make complaince easier (and gets rid of a lot of wasted effort and expense), it should also be a rude shock to those who believe that "someone else" pays the taxes. It gives individuals explicit insight into how the size of government affects their daily lives. Under the income tax, things are more "palatable" because most people have absolutely no idea what the out-of-control government costs them. When it's explicit, then they can make an informed choice -- and that is precisely a conservative position.

The short answer is that the NRST bill addresses revenue only. It doesn't address spending. These are seperate concerns --

The short answer is that the NRST is not reform of the tax system. It is an attempt to make the extortion of money from citizens easier and more palatable. Therefore it is not reform at all. It is a continuation of the tyranny which will make it even harder to achieve the reforms which are required.

Nonsense. The NRST is serious reform -- it keeps the IRS thugs from peering through your personal records. It gets rid of the requirement to report your finances to the government. It gets rid of the social engineering in the code.

Just because the mechanism for the paying the taxes will be easier and less obtrusive, it doesn't make those taxes more palatable. On the contrary, it does just the opposostie. The income tax does a great job of hiding the fact that all taxes are eventually paid by individuals; and the true level of taxation is likewise hidden in a VAT-style manner. Under the current system, many people believe they pay no taxes, even though their actual burden is outrageously high.

Under the NRST, however, there is no sleight-of-hand. taxes are levied directly on an individual, for that individual's actual tax burden. No hidden taxes, no pretense that some "corporation" is paying taxes so you don't have to.

Here's a challenge for you... can you figure out your exact federal tax burden for last year? I can imagine you may be able to estimate it reasonably well, with some work, but you'll never have an exact number. Under the NRST, anyone can figure out their total burden easily, just by saving their receipts.

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.