Urban planning community | #theplannerlife

+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 63

Thread: Presidential Tax Politics & the "Fair Tax" [split from 2008 Presidential Election thread]

  1. #26
    Cyburbian el Guapo's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Samsara
    Posts
    5,074
    Quote Originally posted by Maister View post
    Seems like it would be a very efficient method of shifting the tax burden on to the poor.
    "What Jesus fails to appreciate is that the meek are the problem."

  2. #27
    Cyburbian graciela's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Galactica
    Posts
    298
    I may be mistaken but I believe that one of the features of the fair tax is that people will not be taxed or will receive rebates on items that are considered necessities like food or clothing. There are specific guidelines but I can't remember them at the moment. I read the book a while ago but have slept since then.

    The best advice I could give would be to read the book that explains the concept and decide for yourself. I have been to both pro and con websites on the subject and there are many misconceptions out there on both sides. As the wife of a small business owner, I find it a more favorable system than the current one. I am amazed that my husband can keep his business afloat with all of the taxes he gets hit with. Making the tax system fair is important, but making sure that frivolous government spending is under control is just as important in my book.

    Of course, I am one of those political freaks: a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

    I work in the public sector just so we can afford decent health insurance (but that is a whole 'nuther can o' worms). The hours aren't bad either...
    Responsible Beverage Server since March 26th, 2008

  3. #28
    Cyburbian vagaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Yo momma's house!
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally posted by zmanPLAN View post
    Seems that Clinton is toast...

    I watched a news program last night about the 4 top candidates (according to NBC) and their stance on the economy and taxation.

    While I feel, if elected, Huckabee would turn the Constitution into a religious document, I did find his eradication of taxes and implementation of a 23% national sales tax intriguing. What are the thoughts of the Cyburbians on this?
    Probably will never happen! The government will not give up the power of taxation. It is the one huge stranglehold on the people. I like the Fair Tax and would love to see the IRS abolished. Out of all the candidates in this election, I think Huckabee is the only one that has even remotely mentioned this. But his religious views overshadow any good ideas he has about tax issues or any other.
    ...my lifestyle determines my death style!
    - Metallica

  4. #29
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Whose Yur Planner View post
    On this point I will disagree with you. The poor is a rather broad category and conservatives like to paint them as a bunch ne'er-do-wells, welfare moms and the such. The poor consist of college students, those just starting out, retirees, the disabled, accident victims and others that fate has not dealt the best hand to.
    Making such a hasty generalization for all conservatives based on nothing more than ad populum stereotype (even if you have personal experience that was interpreted that way) is not beneficial to the liberal ideological cause. An extremely overwhelming majority of conservative-minded people understand that the poor are not "ne'er-do-wells" and that "the poor" consist of nearly every socioeconomic, cultural, religious, and geographic group that exists. Many of us are actually listed as poor or have been there in our past. We are the ones who know from our experience that liberal programs did more to hold us back than let us out of poverty. (Yes I know I'm not giving evidence, but that's not my main point and I would like to move on)

    Quote Originally posted by Whose Yur Planner View post
    To say just suck it up and do better does them a disservice. With gas over $3 a gallon, which inflates the cost of everything else, the expense of a car and keeping a roof over their heads, there just isn't enough money to go around. A consumption tax would drive these people further into a hole they cannot dig themselves out of. Finally, who are we to deny a lower income person a few simple pleasure, especially in a country where spending money is all important.
    No one is trying to deny anyone anything. In fact, we are trying to give them more freedom to spend as they choose. However, to deny or shade over any personal responsibility for their spending would do them the disservice, as it perpetuates poverty cycles.

    Quote Originally posted by Whose Yur Planner View post
    Also keep in mind, with all the off shoring, out sourcing and the such, we have cut off alot of people's ability to advance. Not everyone is cut out for college nor has the ability to go. With the cost of higher education these days, even that dream is getting rarer. What made this county great was the idea that if you worked hard, you would get ahead. That is when we had factory jobs for those who were inclined that way.
    The greatest thing about free market capitalism is it's ability to compensate for its own weaknesses. What made this country great, and what continues to do so, is the fact that if you work hard and are innovative, you will get ahead - not because you are entitled to it, but based on your own innovation and freedom.

    Quote Originally posted by Whose Yur Planner View post
    One thing I learned from college many years ago, is that taxes are a method of redistibuting wealth. Tax serve a social function as well as an economic one. Regressive taxes defeat this purpose and it is a valid purpose. It's one of the things that keeps this country from having a revoltution. It's the whole hope thing. Sorry, I've worked in poor and dieing areas. It has given me a heart for the lower income people. It's also made me very thankful for the blessing I've received.
    This pinpoints the fundamental difference between American conservatism, which really is classical liberalism - the government should not redistribute wealth. I'm not saying it does not currently, and I agree that taxes currently serve a social function and as a method of redistributing wealth. However, the purpose is not valid. It's based on an extremely loose interpretation of the "general welfare" clause in the Constitution which, if you read the founding fathers (Federalist papers, Antifederalist papers, various treatises, etc), is not the original intent of the document, nor our government. The hope comes from faith in the American people, not the American state.

    On a minor note, I've been poor and me & my parents have since been active in select charities combating homelessness that actually tackle the root causes - and these organizations have been private charities that promote the responsibility, freedom, and rugged individualism that built this country and brings people out of poverty, not makes them dependent on government charity and wealth redistribution to be marginally out of poverty.

  5. #30
    Member
    Registered
    Feb 2008
    Location
    St. Peters, MO
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally posted by vagaplanner View post
    Probably will never happen! The government will not give up the power of taxation. It is the one huge stranglehold on the people. I like the Fair Tax and would love to see the IRS abolished. Out of all the candidates in this election, I think Huckabee is the only one that has even remotely mentioned this. But his religious views overshadow any good ideas he has about tax issues or any other.

    You are correct, the Government (Current politicians in power) will be reluctant to eliminate the income tax! However, the United States is a government "of the people", and that is us! That is why the FairTax is a Grassroots effort. We the people MUST express our desire to our Congressmen and Senators, i.e. vote them out if they do not express the will of the people. American grassroots efforts have changed the minds of politicians in the past. For example, Women have the right to vote because the American people wouldn't take it anymore. The same was done with Prohibition and then the repeal of prohibition. My point is that it is not impossible!!!

  6. #31
    Cyburbian Plan-it's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2005
    Location
    In the Peach State
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally posted by vanderbh View post
    You are correct, the Government (Current politicians in power) will be reluctant to eliminate the income tax! However, the United States is a government "of the people", and that is us! That is why the FairTax is a Grassroots effort. We the people MUST express our desire to our Congressmen and Senators, i.e. vote them out if they do not express the will of the people. American grassroots efforts have changed the minds of politicians in the past. For example, Women have the right to vote because the American people wouldn't take it anymore. The same was done with Prohibition and then the repeal of prohibition. My point is that it is not impossible!!!
    Your assumption here is that most of the people in this country want this boondoggle of a tax policy. Count me out.

    I would prefer that congress and the president learn how to balance a budget, reduce waste, correct purchacing inequities (Haliburton anyone) and restrain spending.
    Satellite City Enabler

  7. #32
    Member
    Registered
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    Making such a hasty generalization for all conservatives based on nothing more than ad populum stereotype (even if you have personal experience that was interpreted that way) is not beneficial to the liberal ideological cause. An extremely overwhelming majority of conservative-minded people understand that the poor are not "ne'er-do-wells" and that "the poor" consist of nearly every socioeconomic, cultural, religious, and geographic group that exists. Many of us are actually listed as poor or have been there in our past. We are the ones who know from our experience that liberal programs did more to hold us back than let us out of poverty. (Yes I know I'm not giving evidence, but that's not my main point and I would like to move on)


    No one is trying to deny anyone anything. In fact, we are trying to give them more freedom to spend as they choose. However, to deny or shade over any personal responsibility for their spending would do them the disservice, as it perpetuates poverty cycles.


    The greatest thing about free market capitalism is it's ability to compensate for its own weaknesses. What made this country great, and what continues to do so, is the fact that if you work hard and are innovative, you will get ahead - not because you are entitled to it, but based on your own innovation and freedom.


    This pinpoints the fundamental difference between American conservatism, which really is classical liberalism - the government should not redistribute wealth. I'm not saying it does not currently, and I agree that taxes currently serve a social function and as a method of redistributing wealth. However, the purpose is not valid. It's based on an extremely loose interpretation of the "general welfare" clause in the Constitution which, if you read the founding fathers (Federalist papers, Antifederalist papers, various treatises, etc), is not the original intent of the document, nor our government. The hope comes from faith in the American people, not the American state.

    On a minor note, I've been poor and me & my parents have since been active in select charities combating homelessness that actually tackle the root causes - and these organizations have been private charities that promote the responsibility, freedom, and rugged individualism that built this country and brings people out of poverty, not makes them dependent on government charity and wealth redistribution to be marginally out of poverty.
    Excellent post.

  8. #33
    Member
    Registered
    Feb 2008
    Location
    St. Peters, MO
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally posted by zmanPLAN View post
    Seems that Clinton is toast...

    I watched a news program last night about the 4 top candidates (according to NBC) and their stance on the economy and taxation.

    While I feel, if elected, Huckabee would turn the Constitution into a religious document, I did find his eradication of taxes and implementation of a 23% national sales tax intriguing. What are the thoughts of the Cyburbians on this?
    I feel the FairTax plan (HR25) which took 10 years of research & analysis, cost $23 million, a tax plan which has over 600,000 grassroots supporters, a tax plan that is endorsed by 80 professional and university economists, and is co-sponsored by 72 Congressmen is what our country needs.

    I recommend you read the paper by The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University and Laurence Kotlikoff, Professor of Economics at Boston University (available at http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/TaxingSalesUnderFairTax.pdf.). You will read about a sound methodology for estimating the FairTax base and computing the FairTax rate. Their paper demonstrates that the specified rate of 23 cents of every dollar spent is eminently feasible. This proper tax rate has been carefully worked out; and it does the job of: (1) raising the same amount of federal funds as are raised by the current system, (2) paying the universal rebate, and (3) paying the collection fees to retailers and state governments. Also consider that only 30% of the people pay Income Tax, whereas 100% will pay with the FairTax. This includes the 50 Million visitors to America as well as illegal aliens. Unlike some other proposals, this rate has been independently confirmed by several different, nonpartisan institutions across the country. Detailed calculations are available from FairTax.org.

    More than 80% of all tax returns are eliminated under the FairTax--every individual filing. What remains are retail outlets collecting the FairTax. Of these, 80 percent of all retails sales now occur at large retail chains like Wal-Mart. The point is oversight will still reside under the Treasury Department but the government's responsibility will be over a far smaller "universe" of tax collection points making compliance oversight far less costly and far more effective than the current system which costs $265 billion a year in compliance costs and still comes up $350 billion a year short of what is owed.

    Hard economic research by respected scholars on the price of consumer goods reveals that from 20% to 25% (depending on the product) of all prices today represent hidden income taxes and payroll taxes. Once these taxes are repealed and replaced with the FairTax, it is likely that market pressure would force retail prices to fall. Eliminating embedded taxes will also do something else -- it will remove significant price disadvantages suffered by American producers competing with tax-free imports. Eliminating corporate income taxes and capital gains taxes, which the FairTax would do, would likely make the American economy the most desirable place in the world to do business. Therefore, when people see their paychecks are much bigger, because they will not pay Income Tax, Social Security Tax or Medicare Tax coupled with the monthly prebate check, there will not be widespread cheating or tax evasion. It only takes one to cheat the Income tax system; it takes two to cheat the FairTax system (the retailer and the buyer).

    Ecomomists agree the FairTax is the only tax reform, that untaxes the poor! Currently, every wage earner looks at his pay stub and sees that income tax, social security tax and medicare tax has been removed from his earnings and he gets whats left. Even if the wage earner gets all his income tax back when he files, he still has paid 7.65% payroll tax (social security tax and medicare tax) on his earnings. With the FairTax the wage earner looks at his pay stub and sees no federal income tax or payroll tax removed from his earnings, therefore his paycheck is larger than with the income tax system. Also, every legal citizen with a social security number will receive a monthly check to pay the taxes on the basic necessities up to the poverty level. As you can see everyone, including the working poor are far better off with the FairTax.

  9. #34
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Section 14-12-7, 3rd PM
    Posts
    2,096
    I like the idea of the Fair Tax, but when they don't accurately give the tax rate in their sell, it is hard to take them seriously. What other numbers are they spinning to their advantage?

    Yeah I know technically, if you read the fine print, it is 23% not 30%, but sales tax is figured at the front not the back everywhere else. If something costs $1 and there is a 10% sales tax its $1.10. Not I paid $1.10 and 9.1% of that was tax. That was once called "fuzzy math".

  10. #35
    moderator in moderation Suburb Repairman's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    at the neighboring pub
    Posts
    5,966
    Quote Originally posted by Plan-it View post

    I would prefer that congress and the president learn how to balance a budget, reduce waste, correct purchacing inequities (Haliburton anyone) and restrain spending.
    Agreed. Personally, I want them to figure those items out before they dare attempt some major tax revolution, whatever it might be. You need a stable expense baseline before you really start tinkering with the income stream of government. Do you REALLY want the same people that have created a royally screwed up budget, rampant waste, etc. attempting to fix the tax system? There are other reforms needed before tax reform can be done in a "clean" environment.

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    - Herman Göring at the Nuremburg trials (thoughts on democracy)

  11. #36
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,683
    So,

    I own a pub.

    I pay (no joke) what you do at the grocery or liquor store for my product.

    So, for my instance, it is ~ $16 for a case of Bud Light. There are no taxes presently paid by me to the distributor because it is for re-sale.

    1) Under the fair tax, would I then pay .23% tax on each unit I buy, to the distributor upfront? or does it continue to be defrayed until after I sell a sub unit (can, bottle, or tap) to a customer?

    Fair Tax System
    A) $16 x .23 = $3.68 per case in Taxes
    B) Does not effect pricing of product IF, I no longer have to make payroll deductions.
    C) If I pay my taxes through the distributor up front, I like the idea, if I pay them through my account as sales taxes are paid now, I need to allow for over 3 times the amount of taxes I am responsible for now.
    D) Presently, I only pay taxes on product units I sell, the rest is legally folded back into the margin of overhead cost for operating. If I "buy" a unit of product for a customer (give one away free that is), am I then breaking the law as a tax evader?
    E) Will the State be able to add another "Fair Tax" on to me. Will the States maintain their present taxation system?
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  12. #37
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,195
    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia View post
    So,

    I own a pub.

    I pay (no joke) what you do at the grocery or liquor store for my product.

    So, for my instance, it is ~ $16 for a case of Bud Light. There are no taxes presently paid by me to the distributor because it is for re-sale.

    1) Under the fair tax, would I then pay .23% tax on each unit I buy, to the distributor upfront? or does it continue to be defrayed until after I sell a sub unit (can, bottle, or tap) to a customer?

    Fair Tax System
    A) $16 x .23 = $3.68 per case in Taxes
    B) Does not effect pricing of product IF, I no longer have to make payroll deductions.
    C) If I pay my taxes through the distributor up front, I like the idea, if I pay them through my account as sales taxes are paid now, I need to allow for over 3 times the amount of taxes I am responsible for now.
    D) Presently, I only pay taxes on product units I sell, the rest is legally folded back into the margin of overhead cost for operating. If I "buy" a unit of product for a customer (give one away free that is), am I then breaking the law as a tax evader?
    E) Will the State be able to add another "Fair Tax" on to me. Will the States maintain their present taxation system?
    I mentioned upthread that the Fairtax proposal exempts all 'business-to-business' sales, so wholesale sales would be exempt. Anyways, the current federal income tax ('paid' by everyone upstream of your transaction) that is already embedded in that $16/case of beer would stagger your mind.

    Also, as for state and local taxes, that is 100% up to the states and localities.

    Mike

  13. #38
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,683
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    I mentioned upthread that the Fairtax proposal exempts all 'business-to-business' sales, so wholesale sales would be exempt. Anyways, the current federal income tax ('paid' by everyone upstream of your transaction) that is already embedded in that $16/case of beer would stagger your mind.

    Also, as for state and local taxes, that is 100% up to the states and localities.

    Mike
    That didn't really answer any questions about comparing fair tax to the existing tax scheme.

    Adding state tax rates in will bring that closer to 30% or higher in reality, because you KNOW the state will add a % as well.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  14. #39
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Section 14-12-7, 3rd PM
    Posts
    2,096
    Duke, your $16 case of BL will have $4.80 of tax on it, not $3.68. That is the doublespeak I was eluding to. Your total cost will be $20.80. $4.80 is 23% of $20.80.

  15. #40
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,195
    Quote Originally posted by savemattoon View post
    Duke, your $16 case of BL will have $4.80 of tax on it, not $3.68. That is the doublespeak I was eluding to. Your total cost will be $20.80. $4.80 is 23% of $20.80.
    Except that he will be making a business purchase and that purchase is exempt from that tax. It will be $16 (minus the embedded current federal income taxes that will no longer be embedded in it).

    The current excise taxes on beverage alcohol would still be collected in the usual way, BTW.

    Mike

  16. #41
    Cyburbian Brocktoon's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Promoting synergies...
    Posts
    3,686
    One question that is really unclear is will there be a tax on b2b transactions if the business is the end user? For example if a business purchases a new building or a fleet of vehicles are they exempt from the 30% fairtax?
    "You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it,..." -Bane

  17. #42
    Cyburbian zman's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Tri-Cities, Washington
    Posts
    9,158
    Blog entries
    2
    Business to Business...

    So, with the Fair Tax, I could go and have my father buy me a car or truck under his business name? Would that prevent me from paying sales tax?

    Sort of along the lines of Brocktoon's post.

    Would tax-free "company" cars be a new perk? Seems this tax may add another perk to the small businessman (always a good thing, promoting small business).
    You get all squeezed up inside/Like the days were carved in stone/You get all wired up inside/And it's bad to be alone

    You can go out, you can take a ride/And when you get out on your own/You get all smoothed out inside/And it's good to be alone
    -Peart

  18. #43
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,195
    Quote Originally posted by zmanPLAN View post
    Business to Business...

    So, with the Fair Tax, I could go and have my father buy me a car or truck under his business name? Would that prevent me from paying sales tax?

    Sort of along the lines of Brocktoon's post.

    Would tax-free "company" cars be a new perk? Seems this tax may add another perk to the small businessman (always a good thing, promoting small business).
    You could try that now under state sales taxes. Just don't let the auditor see his business books.

    One more thing that I really, *REALLY* like about the Fairtax proposal is that the number of 'auditable points' in the federal tax law drops from the present 200M+ to somewhere between 10 and 15M - making it much, much easier and more cost-effective for the enforcers to keep an eye on everything. And the complexity of the auditable paperwork and record-keeping will be massively reduced, too.

    Mike

  19. #44
    Cyburbian Brocktoon's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Promoting synergies...
    Posts
    3,686
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    You could try that now under state sales taxes. Just don't let the auditor see his business books.

    One more thing that I really, *REALLY* like about the Fairtax proposal is that the number of 'auditable points' in the federal tax law drops from the present 200M+ to somewhere between 10 and 15M - making it much, much easier and more cost-effective for the enforcers to keep an eye on everything. And the complexity of the auditable paperwork and record-keeping will be massively reduced, too.

    Mike
    So corporations get a tax break on a new building and car while I have to pay 30% of my income for such items. That does not sound fair to me.
    "You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it,..." -Bane

  20. #45
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,195
    Quote Originally posted by Brocktoon View post
    So corporations get a tax break on a new building and car while I have to pay 30% of my income for such items. That does not sound fair to me.
    Remember that businesses do *NOT* pay taxes, PEOPLE pay taxes. *ALL*, repeat *ALL* 'corporate' taxes are simply passed along to their customers (read: "us") in the form of higher product prices.

    Mike

  21. #46
    Cyburbian Brocktoon's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Promoting synergies...
    Posts
    3,686
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    Remember that businesses do *NOT* pay taxes, PEOPLE pay taxes. *ALL*, repeat *ALL* 'corporate' taxes are simply passed along to their customers (read: "us") in the form of higher product prices.

    Mike
    Your right they don't pay taxes due to large deductions and other tax loopholes but the notion that a dollar for dollar pass through of corporate income tax is false. When Reagan cut corporate income taxes in 1986 there was not a drop in prices of goods and services although corporate earnings did increase as did share holder value. When Clinton raised the corporate income rate prices did not rise by 10%

    The notion that a for profit corporation will pass on savings to their customer when their costs decrease is untrue. If GM realized a tax savings next year of 30% do you really believe that they will reduce prices by 30% on all the cars and trucks they sell?
    "You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it,..." -Bane

  22. #47
    Cyburbian The One's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where Valley Fever Lives
    Posts
    7,997
    Blog entries
    1

    Don't Worry.....

    Quote Originally posted by Brocktoon View post
    So corporations get a tax break on a new building and car while I have to pay 30% of my income for such items. That does not sound fair to me.
    Brocktoon, this thread reminds me that we need to incorporate ourselves prior to implementing our plans for world domination. Maybe we should be an LLC? We could call it....Doom LLC or Doom Inc. or Doom LLLP.......something like that.....

    In the future we could all just become individual corporations and LLC's to avoid all this tax nonsense

    I'm thinking of becomming an LLC so I can buy a 6,000 pound monster truck to deliver the one bonsai tree a year that I will sell.....then writing the truck off...... (not that far from reality when you think of it.....)

    All tax policy should be directed towards supporting the middle class. (period) I can't wait for someone to dig this statement up when I'm running for the local dog catcher position 20 years from now
    “The way of acquiescence leads to moral and spiritual suicide. The way of violence leads to bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers. But, the way of non-violence leads to redemption and the creation of the beloved community.”
    Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
    - See more at: http://www.thekingcenter.org/king-ph....r7W02j3S.dpuf

  23. #48
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,195
    Quote Originally posted by Brocktoon View post
    Your right they don't pay taxes due to large deductions and other tax loopholes but the notion that a dollar for dollar pass through of corporate income tax is false. When Reagan cut corporate income taxes in 1986 there was not a drop in prices of goods and services although corporate earnings did increase as did share holder value. When Clinton raised the corporate income rate prices did not rise by 10%

    The notion that a for profit corporation will pass on savings to their customer when their costs decrease is untrue. If GM realized a tax savings next year of 30% do you really believe that they will reduce prices by 30% on all the cars and trucks they sell?
    Remember that cynicism NEVER wins debates against me.

    Anyways, following your suggestion of a 30% reduction in taxes on GM, if that is done GM might then have the cash to pay their pensioners.

    Mike

    Quote Originally posted by The One View post
    Brocktoon, this thread reminds me that we need to incorporate ourselves prior to implementing our plans for world domination. Maybe we should be an LLC? We could call it....Doom LLC or Doom Inc. or Doom LLLP.......something like that.....

    In the future we could all just become individual corporations and LLC's to avoid all this tax nonsense

    I'm thinking of becomming an LLC so I can buy a 6,000 pound monster truck to deliver the one bonsai tree a year that I will sell.....then writing the truck off...... (not that far from reality when you think of it.....)

    All tax policy should be directed towards supporting the middle class. (period) I can't wait for someone to dig this statement up when I'm running for the local dog catcher position 20 years from now
    The Fairtax proposal, as introduced in Congress, includes provisions for taxing the conversions of 'business' purchases to personal use, as well as provisions for tax credits for items that were purchased for 'personal' use being converted to business use.

    And yes, those records will be 'auditable'.

    Mike
    Last edited by Gedunker; 29 Feb 2008 at 1:47 PM. Reason: sequential replies

  24. #49
    Cyburbian The One's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where Valley Fever Lives
    Posts
    7,997
    Blog entries
    1

    Funny ha ha....

    If anyone out there believes that Congress or anyone else will take away the ability of the small business person to write off the big F-550 super duty for delivering bonsai tree's, under the guise of calling it "personal", I'd like to offer you some beach front property in Arizona.....and I don't mean on the river Yet another reason this would never fly, too many special interests in our current system of welfare.....er....ah....taxation......
    “The way of acquiescence leads to moral and spiritual suicide. The way of violence leads to bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers. But, the way of non-violence leads to redemption and the creation of the beloved community.”
    Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
    - See more at: http://www.thekingcenter.org/king-ph....r7W02j3S.dpuf

  25. #50
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dubai, United Arab Emirates
    Posts
    424
    Taxes are rather complex. A drop in the corporate taxes certainly increases the the wealth of the corporations, but the corporations use that additional money to hire more people, invest in research and development, and improve their infrastructure, all of which help the corporation expand and make more money (and pay more taxes). Ireland did with with astonishing success, and now most European nations have lower corporate taxes than the US, which is helping their companies be more competitive and prosperous in the global economy.

    I do agree that a drop in corporate taxes doesn't translate into a drop in prices, but it can result in hiring more people and increasing the overall wealth of the economy, making the said prices more affordable for even more people. As it is, there isn't a neat relationship, but it has been demonstrated to happen elsewhere.

    In general, a tax cut/increase really can't stand on its own. There has to be other accompanying factors to determine if it will be a success or a failure. Reagan cut taxes, but he also liberalized the financial regulations overseeing banking and the lending of money, and the US economy, despite some mild hiccups, leapt by leaps and bounds and the US is a far richer nation today than it was in 1980. Clinton raised taxes, but the technological revolution was right around the corner, and the decline in US spending on the military-industrial complex after the fall of the Soviets and the shifting of those researchers and scientists to the private sector, the economic collapse of Japan in the early 1990s, and a brave new world in which the US genuinely had no military or economic competitor of any note, helped the US economy offset the negative implications of higher taxes.

    We're still the richest and biggest economy, by far, but the next president will have to handle the tax issue with greater delicacy than past presidents did. Since we now exist in an environment with a resurgent European Union and a thriving China and India competing for raw materials, the US isn't the only game in town anymore. I won't pretend to know that more taxes will hurt (or not), but we aren't in the same political or economic situation of even ten years ago, so making comparisons to the past is pointless.


    Quote Originally posted by Brocktoon View post
    Your right they don't pay taxes due to large deductions and other tax loopholes but the notion that a dollar for dollar pass through of corporate income tax is false. When Reagan cut corporate income taxes in 1986 there was not a drop in prices of goods and services although corporate earnings did increase as did share holder value. When Clinton raised the corporate income rate prices did not rise by 10%

    The notion that a for profit corporation will pass on savings to their customer when their costs decrease is untrue. If GM realized a tax savings next year of 30% do you really believe that they will reduce prices by 30% on all the cars and trucks they sell?

+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 24
    Last post: 17 Jun 2011, 3:41 PM
  2. Replies: 1638
    Last post: 17 Nov 2008, 12:33 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last post: 05 Jan 2008, 9:24 AM