Posted on 09/17/2004 9:16:15 AM PDT by LincolnLover
"I'll reduce my income when you agree to reduce yours."
Geez, you haven't learned anything at all on these threads, have you, LL? When your costs go down .... oh, never mind. What's the use?
"You have to be FOR something, YN. What is your preferred alternative?"
What about Willie Green's proposal to eliminate corporate income taxes and substitute import tariffs (which would violate WTO provisions and precipitate a trade war)? would you like to argue THAT position? You could be the first FReeper that Willie has been able to recruit!
Of course, you would have to argue that keeping personal income taxes and payroll taxes is positive. I'm sure Willie would help you with that argument.
If my costs go down, won't your costs also go down?...As I said, when you agree to reduce your income, I'll do the same.
+30% tax.
Presently, a $100.00 gross sale would be minus any income taxes due, the balance is mine.
After a sales tax, the same $100.00 gross sale would be minus 23% with only $77.00 left to spend...
$77.00 minus 23% taxes yet to pay when I want to, or have to spend it.
My $100.00 gross sale after the sales tax would be taxed at 41%...The remaining $59.00 would have to include the cost of the goods sold, profit, wages etc.
Is that how everyone you know figures a sales tax?
======
No of course not - we've had this discussion. when i think of overall tax burden, i (and anyone else i have EVER talked to) use inclusive rates. when i'm determining the price of an item, i use exclusive.
i think both rates are useful. my post was to point out intellectually dishonesty.
No, he only pays taxes on his profits. Even if he had a 20% profit margin and paid 33% total effective tax rate, the most he could drop his prices due to taxes is < 7%.
====
you are forgetting two things that you yourself taught me-
compliance costs and taxes embedded in production goods...
so it is NOT true that he only pays taxes on profits... those are the only taxes recognized by the ingnorant masses though.
yn told me that he did not object to a consumption tax, just the fair tax.
i have asked him to explain why he would not object to a cnsumption tax - but haven't gotten info yet - but i'm willing to wait.
Presently, a $100.00 gross sale would be minus any income taxes due, the balance is mine.
=======
you have omitted other areas of savings in your operations - all of the stuff you buy in production will be cheaper.
So whatever profit margin you require (hence the $100 price) can still be obtained with a lower price.
i have asked him to explain why he would not object to a cnsumption tax - but haven't gotten info yet - but i'm willing to wait.I believe I have answered you.
you are forgetting two things that you yourself taught me- compliance costs and taxes embedded in production goods...You must have me mistaken for someone else. I'm the one who thinks the compliance cost is grossly overstated and that labor and capital holders pay most of the corporate income tax.
You must have been dozing off on these threads for the past several years. For the 10 millionth time, ALL taxes are paid by individuals.Governments don't pay the FairTax?
no- your estimate was 8% of prices was embedded tax...and you used lower than normal compliance costs.
regardless, that 8% (whether accurate or not) was omitted from the scenario
sorry if i missed it - i'm in and out- i will look again- apologies
Geez, you haven't learned anything at all on these threads, have you, LL? When your costs go down .... oh, never mind. What's the use?Ummm, Jorgenson's numbers are a fluke of his model. You are also ignoring what the central banks would more than likely do to protect the value of current assets.
goverments collect the tax in prices (like any other entity).
what are you getting at?
That 40% of the INCOME Tax revenues would be paid by governments and therefore "hidden" from the public. They would be "embedded" in your state and local sales, income, and property taxes.
just like they are now
The quote I posted shows, legally, a tax on income (contractors/employees) is not a tax on its source (government).
Which is totally irrelavant to the issue of Congress exempting federal contractors and suppliers from any federal tax it chooses to.
The quote you posted addressed the issues of intergovernmental immunity from taxation as regard employees of government contractors and government agencies, and not the express exemption of such contractors or employees from remitting taxes or receiving credits for federal taxes they remitt.
My statement: "Now if you can figure out how to credit back the embedded taxes of all government consumption purchases to government contractors and service providers for income/payroll taxes before the NRST is implemented, we can discuss providing equivalent exemption to the government on its consumption under the NRST as a viable option."
Your quote does not provide any basis for a constitutional prohibition or problem in Congress exempting contractors or suppliers, as you appear to be concerned with:
YN:" The basic reason for the tax on government consumption is that you can make the rate seem lower than it is (kinda like using the inclusive rate). You also need to read up on your constitutional law in regards to income/payroll taxes and government contractors."
with the federal government from exempting its contractors and suppliers from paying any federal tax Congress may allow thereby relieving contractors and service providers of the burdens of remitting federal taxes and remove the inefficient round robin payment of federal taxes that occures as a consequence of imposing taxes on federal contractors thereby providing the ability to negotiate lower contract payouts and consequent budgetary savings to the federal govenment.
Nor does it remove the alternative action of
AG: "exempt government from paying the NRST if you like, and reduce the target revenues by that amount. That way we can assure government wouldn't get a windfall in spendable funds with which to grow on and unecessarily raise tax rates."
Which totally removes the roundrobin payment you apparently object to as a trick:
YN: ""giving ourselves money equals revenue" trick?"
If it is a trick in the NRST it is equally a trick in the current income/payroll tax system for govenment to finance income/payroll taxes paid by its contracters and service providers indeed its employees, not to mention income taxes expressly imposed on beneficiaries of the Social Security system.
If it be a trick, it should be totally removed as regards any tax system, the current tax system as well as the NRST without the specter of windfall tax revenues accruing to government that could be applied to even greater growth of government programs.
Your logic, as usual, is a non-sequiter as regards the situation under discussion.
...Thus the government is required to pay(itself) the NRST which replaces those taxes paid via government consumption purchases and hiring practices....LOL!...Talk about a (oxy)moronic circle jerk....LOL!
That doesn't explain anything and it doesn't come close to why there's a 30% tax ON "any government" employee's wages, salaries and benefits.
Hey Geez. That reminds me of your e-mail telling me Clinton's pay'n you $1700 a month to post on the sales tax threads.
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.