Calling it both ways, by his own hand, within a matter of minutes when it suits'm.
Posted on 05/12/2005 7:46:54 PM PDT by Your Nightmare
Members of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform on May 11 expressed concerns over the FairTax national retail sales tax, a plan that has emerged as an alternative with a major grass-roots push.
Panel chair Connie Mack, vice chair John B. Breaux, and other members worried the plan would be difficult to enforce, would be regressive, and would require a high rate in order to take in enough money to fund the government.
Breaux raised concerns that the proposed 23 percent (tax-inclusive) rate would not be sufficient to raise the revenue necessary to fund the government. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would take as much as a 57 percent (tax-exclusive) rate to be revenue-neutral. Further, Breaux said he thought exemptions that would be carved out to make the sales tax progressive would also complicate it.
Mack, who raised concerns similar to his fellow panelists', said he was "intrigued" by the plan. "But if it's such a great idea, why haven't other political entities around the world pursued it?" he asked.
Americans for Fair Taxation Executive Director Tom Wright emphasized that the plan emerged after "thorough academic research" and "thorough polling" The strong grass-roots push has resulted in some of the group's 600,000 members appearing at each of the panel's hearings and has inspired a large comment-writing campaign to the panel in support of the plan.
Sales tax advocates were among the 20 witnesses who gathered before the panel for a full day of testimony on tax reform proposals. Although the group has held several other hearings in Washington and around the country, the May 11 meeting was its first hearing on specific reform plans since Bush appointed the panel in January. The panel has been charged with identifying tax reform proposals that are progressive, encourage charitable giving and home purchases, and are revenue-neutral. The proposals are due by July 31.
Among the tax replacement and reform plans presented to the panel were the value added tax, consumption-based tax, and the flat tax, as well as proposals that would use the current income tax as the foundation.
Witnesses generally claimed that theirs was the fairest, simplest, most flexible, most transparent revenue-neutral proposal that would improve economic growth and savings while meeting the president's criteria of encouraging charitable giving and home buying. Witnesses presenting consumption-based plans praised their overhaul as taking millions of low-income taxpayers off the rolls, being easy to transition to on a worldwide basis, and including safeguards to prevent new loopholes that would result in increased complexity down the road.
Tax reform panel members, who agree the current tax system needs to be fixed, grilled witnesses without revealing whether they will ultimately endorse a consumption- or income-based tax or a different mixture of the two.
Read the bill, looey, and you'll see that CNN selling at retail would be subject to audit as a registered seller.
Are you stating that CNN sells nothing at retail?
Profit is a residual which may result if revenues exceed costs of production. It cannot be accurately predicted and may not exist at all depending upon market prediction accuracy. Thus, there is no way to know how much one would budget for potential income taxes.
One just hopes they will have to pay some since that means they were profitable. Business owners never know what those profits are going to be until the books are balanced at the end of the year.
No I don't. Not all Third Assistant Vice Presidents are accountants.
Income taxes are a dependent variable calcuable from the profit variable which is dependent upon costs and revenues. Income taxes are not a factor in profit determination. Income taxes are dependent upon profit. Profit is not dependent upon income taxes.
Taxes on income are a liability determined by profit. Payroll taxes are a cost/expense.
T= T(costs, expenses), Profit is not dependent upon income taxes.
Your end of the day profit, net profit after taxes, most certainly is dependent on the tax burden.....and it's a cost, that full absorption cost systems try to allocate throughout the year......
Changing the wages of Company A does not create greater demand for A's product.
This is one point we differ I do not see adding 30% on to the price of the products through the FT LOWERING prices just the opposite.
While I would love to believe that wages are going to rise and prices fall I can't fit it into any economic model with which I am familiar. This scenario is never going to be acceptable to the Class Warriors since it would mean excess profits as the companies would be gaining the SS taxes generally paid for workers at first cut. Capacity utilization rates will be crucial in determining the direction the economy would go. Given an unemployment rate as low as it is should profit increases stimulate more hiring inflationary pressures will be greatly increased. I can't see taking such a step as FT without great cautions being exercised the wrong step could be disastrous.
I am speaking of income taxes not all other taxes. Estimations must be paid but they are not definitive. Sometimes they are not final for years.
That's correct......but sophisticated costing systems take taxes into effect. It's not accurate to suggest that taxes are something other than a cost to business....the money to pay the taxes doesn't grow on a special tree. It's no different than the money used to pay rent. It increases product cost, reduces investor return, or reduces employee pay. There is no separate tax tree....it's all coming out of the corporate treasury.
We're talking about 'cost' not 'profit'. And costs are not mainly factored by profit. Costs are factored by 'gross'. 'Gross' subtracted by cost of production, wages, cost of paper work, and taxes; both currently paid taxes and those taxes paid later by saving their money and paying those taxes later, this includes income tax.
Only after all this has been taken out of the 'gross' do you get the 'profit' for a business.
One just hopes they will have to pay some since that means they were profitable. Business owners never know what those profits are going to be until the books are balanced at the end of the year.
The above statement is complete BS. Businesses can use their accounting records over one or more years to discern a pattern and present a general plan as to what the 'gross', 'profits' and how they will pay in taxes in the upcoming year.
No I don't. Not all Third Assistant Vice Presidents are accountants.
So your a corperate socialist without the intelligence to know where your paycheck really comes from.
Seems to me with a growing economy arising from more efficient business operations and increased capital investment providing additional implementation of technological productivity improvements, wages are more likely to increase with productivity and time than to fall as you seem to think.
AG #534 12:09 PM PDT:
Don't know of many employers likely to raise wages of any employee without big guns behind him forcing it (e.g. unions & stikes), or exceptional merit of the individual (tail of the bell curve) in improving the bottomline of the business. Don't see either happening with repeal of a tax that is levied on a business. Can see a business take that action that will maximize his profit in a competitive market. Arbitrarily raising wages of all employee's has not genenerally been shown to be a profit maximizing activity.
Calling it both ways, by his own hand, within a matter of minutes when it suits'm.
and how they will pay in taxes in the upcoming year. = and how MUCH they will pay in taxes in the upcoming year.
Your end of the day profit, net profit after taxes, most certainly is dependent on the tax burden.....and it's a cost, that full absorption cost systems try to allocate throughout the year......We were talking about how businesses might adjust their prices to account for income taxes they might owe at the end of the year. Are you suggesting that a business might raise their prices to offset their income taxes? If so, why don't they raise their prices a little more to get a higher net profit? And maybe just a little more...
and how they will pay in taxes in the upcoming year. = and how MUCH they will pay in taxes in the upcoming year.How much profit will they make in the upcoming year? Do you really think the business knows?
Calling it both ways, by his own hand, within a matter of minutes when it suits'm.
What part of: "Businesses can use their accounting records over one or more years to discern a pattern and present a general plan as to what the 'gross', 'profits' and how they will pay in taxes in the upcoming year." do you not understand?I understand all of it (although I don't necessarily agree with it), but I don't see that statement in the post I replied to.
Changing the wages of Company A does not create greater demand for A's product.
Why not? I once worked for a major electronics company. With a raise in wage, I was able to release more of my income to pleasure rather necessity first and purchase more of my Companies products.
When my wage was lower, my priorities had to lay with more mundane purchases. My demand for my company's products rose with capacity to purchase them.
Economically, demand is more than mere want, it must result in sales in order to affect supply/demand equilibrium with price.
However in saying that, the issue is not the specific products of one's own company where the effect of changes in taxation are concerned. We are discussing a macro factor and its effect on consumption as a whole and upon product demand as a whole in relation to wages and prices. It does not matter that you purchase your company's goods or services others do, and as their wages rise their demand for Company A products rise with their capacity to purchase them, while at the same time an increase in your wage you find you are more inclined to purchase B or C's products. The effect on aggregate demand and supply equilibrium is the issue.
This is one point we differ I do not see adding 30% on to the price of the products through the FT LOWERING prices just the opposite.
The reason price can lower is because business costs are lower. Demand rises for those goods relative to one's ability to purchase them.
If your wage is unchanged, (lower costs on business certainly do not cause lower wages) then you are able to purchase more than you would otherwise. Remember the total tax revenue collected out of the economy remains the same, it is savings in overhead costs (above and beyond the relief of taxes on businesses) that leads to greater purchasing power overall through greater efficiencies achieved in production of goods and services.
While I would love to believe that wages are going to rise and prices fall I can't fit it into any economic model with which I am familiar.
Ever hear of consumer electronics? Increase in productivity initiates precisely that mode of action. The key is in recognizing that when any product can be produced more efficiently (i.e. at lower cost) prices in a competitive market can lower and profits/wages can rise with increased market volumes. But even if a wages paid are held constant in a rising productivity scenario (as is the generally happens in the short term) the consumer's ability to purchase products, hence demand increases for products to meeting the increased supply that is made available through rising productivity.
This scenario is never going to be acceptable to the Class Warriors since it would mean excess profits as the companies would be gaining the SS taxes generally paid for workers at first cut.
What excess profits? Competition for market share drives price down, competitors across the board realize savings of reduced overhead when income and payroll taxes are repealed. Those companies that can successfully lower there prices will force the rest to do likewise. For any that don't follow suit will see what profit they had wither away for lack of demand as customers go to their competitors offering product at the lower price.
I can't see taking such a step as FT without great cautions being exercised the wrong step could be disastrous.
What's the worst that can happen? Wages go up, and prices remain constant, still a net gain because not only are taxes repealed on business, overhead costs go down allowing that increase in gross wages paid you that you figure must happen out of the Class warfare scenario. The net result is still an increase in purchasing power of wage earners at of the amount of overhead savings realized, that are translated into wage increases. Once again demand rises, due to more efficient production of goods and services. The the economy grows while the same level of revenues are taken out for government.
The issue in the resolution of any scenario is the fact that not only are taxes per-se removed from producers, tax related overhead is removed as well. It is the latter that assures increased purchasing power of households and economic growth sufficient to preserve the same level of revenues to government.
Now if we can break all the rules and throw out the revenue neutrality convention, and lower NRST rates such as to create real tax cuts, as consumers and citizen we are even better off by the amount of tax relief of the cuts.
The problem remaining as to how to constrain government's propensity to spend in the tax cut case. That requires a change in attitudes of the electorate as to the value of more government. Therein is one of the strong reasons for moving to a totally visible tax system, fewer voters end up believing that government is a tooth fairy, when the see the impact in direct terms when tax is extracted from them with every purchase they make.
Perception of cost of government on a person basis through the entire electorate is a necessity if we are ever to break the paradigm driving ever higher government
Get the tax collection mechanism separated from the individual citizen, but assure they all perceive the burden that largess and excess government imposes in their daily lives. Only then can the electorate be said to have the opportunity to knowingly, intelligently and responsibly exercise their franchise to vote. And only then will and opportunity exist to force a reduction in government.
tax fraud dufus
Maybe it's just one affiliation. Not that you'd avoid lyingg about it anyway.
Maybe they organization is paying your company - not you.
We have to watch what you say very closely.
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.