Posted on 06/10/2005 11:13:37 AM PDT by Always Right
I rented apartments for over twenty years and NEVER had one lease which had an open ended payment contingent upon taxes being added. Of course, sales taxes were irrelevant to the rent calculation but if property taxes went up doing the lease period the property owner ate the increase.
And small company D wanting to gain market share drops the price forcing A, B, and C to follow suit or lose market share quickly and substantially to D.
Well the AMT comes quickly to mind.
But the real problem is excessive government spending - not the method of taxation.
Very true.
I am amazed when I hear people make claims that say by changing the *method* they will decrease the total burden.
Also agree. But a major change in the tax system will hurt some and help others. It can't be a win for everyone as sale tax proponents preach.
What if the product next to it doesn't go down? They didn't in Europe when businesses took advantage of the Euro switch to jack up prices.
That is an even bigger loser. Slavery is not the condition of Americans even if they pay income taxes. Pure silliness.
To compare a tax structure to a currency swap is not apples to apples. And the American economy is far more competitive and free than the European economy and market.
No actually the Founders explicitly changed that method when the Constitution was ratified. What you are praising is similiar to the method under the Articles of Confederation and turned into a disaster since the states just ignored the needs of the Confederation.
The $150,000 in purchases that go untaxed are untaxed in both tax systems. That is not a change.
What makes the nrst capture more (not all) is that there will be more tax money taken from the drug dealer. Under income tax, he only paid 1 of 3 components of his tax burden - embedded taxes in prices - he does not pay income or payroll tax. But under the nrst, the drug dealer will pay all his full tax burden in purchases. THat's the increase.
A complete and utter lie. The government pays taxes only on wages that are otherwise taxable services. Your typical civil servant would not have their salary taxed. This lie is based on a blantant misreading of the bill and one quote that was based on a single poorly clarified statement from an AFFT spokesperson.Sorry, you are dead wrong. Governments would pay the FairTax on the wages of their employees, all employees.
If it caused everyone to realize how much the government was stealing from us and to demand reform and to throw a bunch of the bums responsible out, how would that not be considered a win for everyone?
Unfortunately, my friend, your thinking on this is short-sighted and too narrow in its scope.
Let me explain what I mean, please:
All of that labor you are referencing, no matter its true size, is UTTERLY wasted, inefficient labor.
All of it.
It doesn't produce a single useful product or service.
It doesn't produce one dollar of revenue for government.
Nada.
Might as well just flush all that time and effort right down the toilet.
Freeing up that time, which by any honest estimate is huge, would be a boon to the American people, either in time that could be used to actually produce something of value, or even, hallelujah, to devote more time to their families, their communities, or even to leisure.
Not all benefits have a price tag. Life isn't all about money.
Long term, eliminating the drag on all of us that is created by this inefficient, silly income tax system, would be a positive good.
Looks like a private transaction to me. Do you currently remit taxes to the state and county whenever you buy an item at a yard sale? You won't do it under the NSRT, either.I don't think you understood what I was saying.
And company D realizes that his little price war didn't help his market share at all, and ruined his profits So he decides he liked the previous higher margins better than a bit more volume, and D,C, B, and A all go back to the higher prices.
FR doesn't have the bandwidth.
You keep your dream -- I'll disturb it no more. I have bridge to sell, though.....
Won't work. One of the reasons I left CA was because you have State Income Tax, State Sales Tax, and Property Taxes, plus the excise taxes on gas and other products. Plus Vehicle registration. Plus...
Taxes are never eliminated. Added to and expanded, yes. But never replaced or eliminated.
I bought a DVD player over a year ago for $19.99. Infact, I bought 3!
But they don't want to know anything except the address to send money - they don't want to know how much you make or anything intrusive like that he he.
Some of the saving (the actual income tax businesses now pay) will be quickly realized. That accounts for $650 Billion. Economist using IRS figures have calculated the cost of complinace of the code at $250 Billion, with most of the 'savings' being time spent by individuals filing out forms and record keeping and/or paying accountants to do it for them. The business share of compliance savings is at most $100 Billion. Forget the $650 Billion pigdog uses, he has no clue and incorrectly includes numbers that have no bearing on the discussion. This savings could be realized in the first year. Business would see about $750 Billion. But that savings represents less than 10% of consumer spending. Prices have to go up roughly 20%.
-- Gee, now that Boomers are moving into retirement and will be typically consuming more than they produce; there is a move afoot to shift the lion's share of taxes to consumers.
How convenient! --
You have hit the exact reason for a consumption tax. The Boomers are ending their careers and the government now needs a way to tax all those after-tax dollars that have been accumulated over the last 30 years.
A consumption tax so screws the retirees that have managed to keep some bucks after taxes.
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.