Posted on 10/19/2011 12:27:42 PM PDT by Brookhaven
Enough of us are pissed off at the O, so.
You keep preaching to the older folks that we need reform. We can’t do it alone. Lots more of you than us.
But under Fair Tax all government taxes are removed and replaced by a sales tax. That is not the case in the 9-9-9 plan. Two taxes remain, plus excise taxes like gas tax and tire taxes and airline taxes remain as well. That has got to skew the percentage from the 22% Fair Tax has been using.
If they employer kicked in their half (the expense you're referring to) then we'd be talking an over 15% increase in take home pay.
Perhaps. But that isn't going to happen. And for half the country the amount taken out by the 9% income tax will exceed the amount taken out by their part of FICA and the income taxes they currently don't pay. So they're net losers on this.
“Lower prices would be the last thing I would do.”
But they would be the first thing someone else would do. Or did you somehow forget that you’re not the only “retail business owner”? Prices would be competed down, duh.
You are the first person on Free Republic to call me a Cain supporter.
Being honest in the discussion doesn’t make me decided on a candidate.
If Cain wins the primary I will vote for him in the general. But I have my doubts about voting for him in March at this time, but it is a couple dog or politician years before the primary.
“the national sales tax will become a VAT hidden away from consumers”
Why? A national sales tax has nothing to do with a VAT. If Democrats are hell bent on adding one, they’d do it with or without 9-9-9. Nothing about 9-9-9 makes a VAT more likely, because, unlike currently popular speculative fever dreams, VATs are not pumped up sales taxes. They have nothing to do with eachother, any more than income taxes and tariffs do.
Actually, income and corporate taxes ought to be more of a concern, as they have spawned the sort of Leviathanian tenticles for collection and oversight necessary for spontaneous VATS and completely unnecessary for the implementation of a retail surcharge.
“There is no way to explain it”
Then why are you posting?
“you guys really have no idea how bad things are for businesses right now”
If it’s bad, all that means is competitors have all the more reason to undercut eachother, and all the less reason to rest on their cumfy new tax cushion.
fwiw Duh Boy, my prices are already lower than anyone else within 30 miles.
In the business world I live in, prices will indeed go down as a result of someone trying to get a competitive edge. Once one does it, all competitors will eventually follow. I agree with you in that it may not be 100% uniform, but prices will go down.
Well, I hope I am not "preaching" at older folks, but we certainly need some commonsense to prevail. And we need to stretch the tax burden out to a broader audience. Whether that is with Cain's idea or with something else, more players are needed on the field. Some 47% of the adult voting population pay nothing. That leaves just a few to carry the load. Thanks for helping.
And the reason was only that the public doesn’t understand and that it “seems” to be hurting Cain’s chances of being elected. Instead of mounting an ad campaign to explain the plan the guy chickened out. His comment had nothing to do with the plan being good or not.
Then why isn't a BMW the same price as a Subaru?
“Then why isn’t a BMW the same price as a Subaru?”
Questions like these make me wonder why the kabillion dollar educational industry doesn’t bother teaching basic economics. Then I realize they’d just screw that up, too, and turn us all into Keynesian or Marxist, or Keynesio-Marxists, and, heck, nevermind.
We’re all gonna buy used apples. It will be all we can afford with a 27% tax.
The beauty of Cain's plan is that it will encourage capital formation and apple-eating.
“Duh Boy, my prices are already lower than anyone else within 30 miles”
“Duh Boy”? I better bow out of this battle of the wits right now, if that’s what I’m up against.
I took economics in college. But I've also been in the real world long enough to realize that what sounds good in theory is not always applied in fact. Markets aren't perfectly competitive. Economic elasticity is not as easy to compute as it is in the lab. Information does not flow equally to all parties in the market. And there are factors that impact demand more than just supply and cost. And corporations, surprisingly enough, don't value their customers and their workers more than their shareholders. So if given a choice between catering to one and screwing the other two, the corporations will choose that in a heartbeat. Virtually all the savings companies realize under Cain's plan will go to the company and its shareholders. As it should. That doesn't make it wrong, that's just the way it is.
You can if taxes and compliance costs are reduced for producer allowing him to get the product on the shelves cheaper.
I am amazed by the Freepers on this and many other threads that seem to be absolutely befuddled by the free market system. As you can see, I was making the same point as you did just a few posts above your entry.
I’m amazed at the number of folks who aren’t able to see how all the workings of the free market system, and instead cynically believe that business owners are so greedy that they’d ONLY choose to hoard the additional margins of lifted governmental impedances.
In summary, your point is valid, no matter the inability of folks to grasp it.
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.