LMAO!! The whole friggin system is broke!! You must work for the IRS.
Posted on 11/03/2004 10:42:24 AM PST by tgusa
Sold at RETAIL. not just anything sold.I checked my numbers and they are products sold at retail. They are the NIPA PCE numbers + exports. So my point is still valid.
Twenty-two percent of everything sold in the U.S. plus exports would mean the "hidden fed tax costs" would be $2.31 trillion! The total taxes paid by businesses in 2003 was $488.25 billion, and most of that was payroll taxes which virtually every economist agrees is really paid by labor through lower wages. That leaves a minimum of $1.8 trillion for business tax compliance costs! Most reasonable economists put the number around $100 billion. Let's double that to $200 billion to be fair, that leaves $1.6 trillion.
The numbers don't add up.
ROFL
LMAO!! The whole friggin system is broke!! You must work for the IRS.
My comment was facetious; I was pointing out that as crooks you cannot expect them willingly to act in such a way as to expose their crimes to the light of day. In reality I would like to see quarterly tax payments as much as you would and for the same reason.
I'm gonna take your word for it over the research of dozens of published expertsDozens? Want to provide a list?
"The flip side would be that the longer the production chain, the higher the embedded taxes"
"Using that logic something with thousands of components, like a car, would have HUGE price reductions."
You obviously don't understand the concept of a production chain. It is the number of steps that a product must pass through, IOW the number of corporate entities that add their corporate income taxes and payroll taxes to the price they pass up to the next level.
Question: If 1,000,000 items are produced from scratch from 500,000 different producers and sold to a single producer who incorporates them into a single product that it then sells to the end user, how many stages are there in the production chain?
(a) one
(b) two
(c) 500,000
(d) 1,000,000
Been there, done that lots of times. You simply ignore the sources and call them dumb. LOL
You can do simple multiplication, can't you?
Yes. More than simple AMOF. Lewislynn can't though.
How 'bout .23x1=.23 or 23%
He is the only, yes ONLY poster over the 6 years I've been here that doesn't know how to work with percenages but thinks he does.
Obviously you need help identifying the concept of refereed journals.
Also, here's a book for you:
OOOH! Strong reply!
Retailers get 1/4 % or $200 (IIRC) , whichever is greater.
I knew the retailers would get the 1/4% but not the $200 if it was greater. A person could set up ten businesses and sell one or two items per retail outlet and the total tax remitted might be less than $100. The business owner would be paid more for reemitting the tax than he grossed on the twenty products sold. One hundred dollars tax remitted, yet receives $2,000 for remitting the tax. There must be a qualifier that stipulates other than a business owner whose 1/4% is less than $200.
Yes. More than simple AMOF. Lewislynn can't though.No, very simple. I'll make it even simpler for you. The FairTax base for 2003 was $8.865 trillion. This doesn't include exports or other things not in the base. 22% of $8.865 trillion is $2.038 trillion. That's the total amount of price reduction you are claiming (sans the "embedded taxes" in exports & other expenditures). Corporate taxes for 2003, including payroll taxes which most certainly aren't born in prices, was $488.25 billion. Subtract that from 2.038 trillion and you get $1.55 trillion. Besides compliance cost (max. ~$200 billion) where is the rest of this money coming from?
Well then you need to use a sarcasm tag to denote that.
In reality I would like to see quarterly tax payments as much as you would and for the same reason.
I still don't think you get it. I DON'T want to see quarterly tax payments. I want to see payments when you or I damn well please. No man, be it a man from the government or thug on the street, has the right to force me to give up a portion of my life. And that man most certainly doesn't have the right to distribute my life/property to another.
There was a time in America if you wanted something you had to pay for it. If you wanted to take someone to court, you had to pay for it. If you were found guilty of a crime, you had to pay for it. If you wanted your kids to go to school, you had to pay for it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no Utopian fool. I understand that a voluntary tax scheme cannot happen overnight. Nor can the welfare state be eliminated overnight. It will take time, sweat, and a whole lotta heartache and whining before it happens. The point is that it needs to happen. We need to go back to the style of government we had before the Sherman Antitrust Act. This point in history is the exact moment when the freedom that America promises began to suffer. That freedom was given a knockdown punch with the Great Society programs. Ever since then we've been wading in the muck of Socialism, and it's high time we get out of the muck.
For America to survive as a free country we must address the exact cause of our problems. The problem is government. I may be throwing out an Occam scenario, but it's very clear to me, as well as others that are like minded, that government is intended to serve one purpose and one purpose only: to protect its citizens from force or fraud. Period. Government should not be in the compassion business because governments can't be compassionate. Only individuals can be compassionate. Government is there to protect our inalienable rights - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not education. Not health care. Not housing. Not the environment. Not animals.
Well what about the poor you might ask? To that I answer, f**k the poor! People that are poor are there because they made poor decisions. Sure there are cases where a person or family has legitimate reasons for hardships, but it is NOT the proper function or responsibility of government to help them. There are plenty of people out there, including myself, who would gladly help someone out in a bind or take care of someone incapable of taking care of themselves. It is fundamentally wrong for someone to force me to do so. Just as it would be fundamentally wrong for someone to force me to go to a certain church, or require me under threat of force to be a member of a certain political party.
Freedom is not always pretty, but it does always work.
Without an IRS or similar the government has no way to identify, much less discriminate between who is rich and who is poor.
It is contradictory to a fundamental basis of the NRST to require people to report their income to the government.
Apparently, Myrddin has created a mind-spun fabrication. Based on the notion that if it's not specifically in HR25 that congress might make it happen. It's possible, but highly unlikely. Especially since reporting ones income to the government it is a key factor that is being jettisoned.
There's no provision that replaces it in order to require a person to report their income to the government.Wages are still required to be reported.
17+6=____________
Zon: There's no provision that replaces it in order to require a person to report their income to the government. 334
Wages are still required to be reported.
Nice try -- NOT!
Will my income be reported to the government?. Are the millions of small business owners that don't pay themselves wages, are their incomes reported to the government?
Honesty rules!
Honesty outlives the lie. It always has. It always will
See post 339.
Honesty rules.
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.