Posted on 12/18/2005 4:46:00 PM PST by FairOpinion
YES! 83% (8832 votes) A consumption tax would be great for the American economy. Do away with complicated income taxes!
NO! 17% (1761) A consumption tax would not be fair for low-income households. Keep the current income tax system!
We'll send your vote to your congressional representative and senators.
Do income taxes increase the cost of a good?Principled:
Of course I may not get what I want for my product, but I'm sure going to try. I can anticipate tax expenses pretty well and try to recover them.That statement proves the answer is no.
If you have to "try" to get what you WANT because of taxes and you have to "try to recover them" there's nothing stopping you from trying TO GET WHAT YOU WANT anytime...regardless of taxes.I assure you that I increase the price of my service to allow my after-tax return to be what I require.
LOL! Gee if it's that easy I would simply "require" more and increase my price...Oh but wait, If I do that I'll have to raise my price even more because my taxes would be more.
Or if it disclosed that prices ALREADY include an extra 30% to cover taxes and tax costs that will be eliminated and replaced with the same amount?
You guys are too much making up fake reasons to reject tax reform - why don't you just tell your real reason????
You're lost again.
I missed this post earlier.
Your fundamental misunderstanding is that you believe profit (and thus the tax on it) is an expense/cost of production. It is not. Those costs are cost of labor, cost of materials, cost of capital (which includes fees and governmental costs: licenses etc.) There is no catagory of cost which includes income taxes. When your accountant prepares you tax return he does not include income tax as an expense.
And no economist will support the claim that profit is a cost.
Your practice is flying by the seat of your pants. Theory is derived from gathering information from many more sources and extracting the essence from them.
That statement proves the answer is no.
No, it doesn't. It shows that even if I don't get what I want, I may get some of it - that I may recover some of my anticipated reductions in return... which is what I said.
Beyond that, the income taxes of a retail business are only a small part of the taxes and tax costs in the price. Every business in the chain of production passes these costs upstream to retail. That would include business income taxes, EE payroll taxes, compliance costs, copier lease expenses, retained earnings for future investment, et al.
When my accountant tells me how much I owe in taxes, does that amouint reduce my net return?!
No, you have that wrong. You accused me of same above - used "repeastedly" even. I asked you to show me where I said that. You have not done so.
EE=ER
sorry
Never happen. Too much fraud potential.
Reducing the number of tax collection points by 90% will make it much easier than now?
I wonder what percentage we are talking about - 10%?. Our state and local sales taxes are already 8-9%. I wonder what the net affect on consumer spending would be. More money in people's pockets, but all of a sudden things are 10% more expensive. Would it be a wash? I don't know.
Prices will remain stable even after the additon of the nrst - which some say is 30%, others say 23%.
Here's why: if you spend $100 on an item and $23 of it was tax, what would you say the rate is?
Answers vary. I use both rates depending on context. Would you say the rate is 23/100 or 23/77? There are reasons for both.
Suffice to say that the nrst will add appx 30% to the pretax price so that when paid, the tax will represent 23% of the total - as in the example above.
See the bill here. Enter HR 25 in the search box.
The problem that this ran into is the smaller retail shops, about 90% of the shopping places. In order to be sure all sales taxes collected are passed on, there is a need to impose draconian controls over these shops and even they they would not be effective.
I am just telling you why congress isn't entertaining it.
The flat tax only eliminates one or two code sections.
What about the elderly on fixed income, paying no FICA. They get no benefit, only higher prices. hmmm.
Thanks for the reasoned reply - all too rare on these threads!
It may seem to tax reform proponents that those reasons are not valid. Reform proponets could say the same, that rebuttals to some reasons seem to fall on deaf ears. Hence the nature of anonymous posting. It's so much easier face-to-face to see another's point of view.
FAQ #13. Consider the source when evaluating.
Worries about cheating will doom an easing for small business. The reform panel recommended that companies grossing $1 million or less report their income and nearly all of their expenses on a cash-flow basis. Simpler reporting would come with a catch: Special bank accounts would be required. Firms would have to deposit all receipts into them and pay business expenses from the accounts. Banks would give a summary at year end to firms and the IRS, which could then compare the reports with amounts shown on tax returns. But even that system isn't foolproof. Taxpayers could still evade tax by not putting receipts in the accounts.
It makes the difference in many elections, and will continue to do so. Ask Bob Barr. Hell even ask Johnny Isakson who won without strong support but was surprised by a very strong showing from a complete unknown based solely on support of the nrst.... Hermann Cain.
'Course, Georgia is the most aware state - so Georgians are all about passing the reform. So are our pols, unless they are not fully informed or are marxist dems... cuz this is the death knell to unbounded growth of goverment.
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.