Posted on 05/12/2005 7:46:54 PM PDT by Your Nightmare
Are you saying you don't pay federal income tax every year like the rest of us?
Hmm. "An excise tax is a sales tax on a specific item."
Yep. Absolutely. For a sales tax is nothing more than an velorum excise levied on many items.
As far as analysis of any product sold under a general sales tax goes, simply analyzing a single product under a general sales tax is all that it takes to render it an analysis of a specific case. That of course does not leave out used analysis of typical elements or average of sector outputs common to such analysis.
You had to go to the Idaho State Statutes to find someone who agreed with you! LOL!
LOL indeed. It only takes one exception to your claim that a retail sales tax is legally not an excise to disprove your spin. More can be found, but one is all that is needed.
Sorry YN. Your spins and rhetorical flapping around are nothing more than blathering in the wind to find anything you can to hang your hat on.
Too bad you spend to so much to spitting in the wind, such a fruitless exercise for, what I presume is otherwise, a grown person to engage in.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.
"the consumption of the commodity" Do you know what a "commodity" is?
Do you know what the term "paid sometimes upon" means? or "an inland imposition" means?
An excise may be legally levied on any and all employments, i.e. services rendered for a wage or fee, as well as goods collected from the purchasers and employers of those services or consumers of those goods.
All that distinguishes a retail sales tax is the fact that one aquires a good or service from a retail vendor of such who collects the tax from the purchaser thereof.
You are all too hilarious. You give a link to what is in fact a hit piece representing the JCT/CRS/etc. SQL principals and expect it to be taken as dogma??
Get serious. These are the folks wh make up the burden tables that are so misleading, remember? They have an absolute and obvious bias in the Status Quo and you are not honesst enough to admit it.
As to the private correspondence - I'll keep it private since that's what it is defined to be. As for your observations on the economic models of others, you're merely parroting the stuff from the hit-piece link you gave. Get some independent viewpoints. These don't amount to much but shows how desperate the DC SQL branch of your group is becoming.
Can't address the content, eh? What does the CRS care about the tax system we have? And they don't make up the burden tables.
Not in your feeble mind perhaps. But here it is... don't melt!
Earn $100,000 and keep $80,000 after tax. You can figure the rate more than one way silly.
1) amount of tax divided by the total INcluding tax (ie tax inclusive); 20k/100k=20%
2) amount of tax divided by the amount remaining EXcluding tax (tax exclusive); 20k/80k=25%
There is no one way to figure percentages. Both rates above are correct obviously. You can use either you wish.
Really, why do you get into the math anymore?
Excise Tax:And the authors obviously think a sales tax is different from a excise tax, otherwise why would the FairTax bill establish an Excise Tax Bureau and a Sales Tax Bureau? Aren't they the same?
An excise tax is a tax on the sale or use of certain products or transactions. So every time you make a telephone call, buy a plane ticket, or ride in a car (to name but a few), you are paying an excise tax.
He sells "Pay No Income Tax" kits. That's one of the main reasons he's an income taxer.
excise tax vs. sales tax
An excise tax is one levied on the purchase of a specific commodity or group of commodities (e.g., alcohol or tobacco). A sales tax is one levied on all commodiities with only a few specific exclusions (e.g., all purchases except food).
So many misstatements, so little time.
"Investors who lend you money are not concerned about income taxes since they are paid interest which is a tax deductible COST. They only want to be sure that you make a profit so that you CAN pay income taxes and that there is enough revenue to pay the interest and principle."
Most people do not consider lenders to be investors. Sometimes lenders are referred to using the more generic form of that term, but that obviously was not my intent.
"Investors who buy stock are generally investing for the Capital Gain in the Stock and again are not concerned about income taxes since often the CGs come before any profits are made. Generally the stocks having the largest capital gains do not pay dividends either."
Here we go again, fragmenting the various components of economics and pretending they exist in isolation, never affecting each other. What makes a stock appreciate in value? Earnings. What type of earnings? Net Income. What is Net Income? Net AFTER TAX Earnings. Please don't tell me there are other factors that affect the value of an equity. I know that. Nevertheless, all other things being equal, a business that has a higher Net Income will be valued higher than one that has a lower income.
"Once more your cluelessness is apparent since the potential investor has to face the same income tax for ANY investment thus it cannot be a factor in his decision."
I hate to break the news to you, but the market for investment capital has gone global. Therefore, your contention that corporate income taxes are a constant is incorrect. Even when you compare alternative investment opportunities within the USA, taxes are hardly uniform in their application and they most certainly are a factor in (equity) investment decisions. For example, I have seen situations in which mergers were carried out solely to preserve tax NOL carry-forwards of the predecessor. The company being acquired had no value (in some cases), except to shelter future profits from taxation. In other cases, start-up technology companies showed higher after-tax pro-forma earnings because they would be able to take advantage of R&D tax credits. Therefore, a premium would be paid for their future (pre-tax) earnings because of a lower effective tax rate.
I could give other examples, but those on this thread who don't have their own agenda can grasp this concept very quickly. The point is that (1) taxes are NOT constant, contrary to justshut's unsupported assertion, and (2) they most definitely enter into equity investor's decisions, IOW these people look at the "bottom line" in terms of total return.
Thanks for the link to your textbook, YN. I had a decent introduction to economics quite a few years ago and better than decent training in accounting. However, having been in financial management for quite a few years, I have actually put many of these concepts into practice. My understanding of how a company prices its products, for example, does not come (solely) from a textbook. It comes from being involved in pricing decisions and debating these issues with CEOs, VPs of Sales & Marketing and other senior managers.
"I hate to break the news to you, but the market for investment capital has gone global."
Ok, before some wise guy corrects me and says "it always has been global", I will revise and extend my remarks. Globalization is THE economic megatrend of this part of our history. I could cite statistics, but I think everyone on here understands that.
Perhaps I should have said "the market for investment capital is increasingly global with each passing day."
It's true, looey, that MOST people with a command of English can understand what the bill says about the gross payments, but certainly you do not.
Read the bill again and see what it is that is being taxed looey and tell us how the federal government can tax state taxes - or in fact where you got the notion that state taxes were involved at all.
You've had you head handed to you on this one about a zillion times and yet still you persist is spouting the same trash ... hoping that saying if enough will make it so. (it won't).
It's not that I can't but that there is no need to since the bias in the piece is obvious.
And, yes, the JCT, CRS, CBO, and other similar groups have a VERY large vested interested (as do you apparently) in retaining the existing suystem. And yes, the tax burden tables developed by these groups are highly misleading and are one of the reasons that we have arrived in the present tax mess we're now in. Congress thinks such tables are meaningful when in fact they are just the opposite.
Apparently you can't/won't see that because of your own bias.
I understand perfectly well that your #1175 mentioned is nonsense and nothing but.
Then you're not normal. Sorry.
So what have you been addressing for the last two hours? The definition of excise tax and sales tax. Yeah, that's a lot of content.
You have no basis at all for such a statement and you apparently do not grasp that any state taxes first must be applied before the FairTax item is sold (and the state tax applied at that point) - none of which exists at present since many (if not most) of the states will most likely conform their taxes with the FairTax for various reasons and the state tax would then applied after or at the same time as the FairTax but the FairTax would no be taxing the state tax at all.
You're simply wrong pal. You can't have things as you would like them to be simply to argue about it.
One of your better notions, looey. Nutcase, but better than many you come up with.
Would you match him dollar for dollar??
Read the bill so you'll have a better grasp of what you're discussing.
Are you trying to tell us you have the only definitions of "excise"???
Here's another that directly contradicts what you say and additionally shows that sales taxes are merely a particular form of excise:
"... tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity ..." (got that - SALE of a commodity??).
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.