This looks good on the surface, but inacting a 9% Federal Sales Tax would add $.09 on every dollar that you spend on top of city, county, and state sales tax already in place. So in most states, the sales tax when people go to the store to buy groceries will double. So people on fixed incomes would lose what they can purchase because the tax would be close to $.20 for every dollar they spend. It sounds like a small amount, but it adds up quickly. Not to mention, that would add 9% if you buy a car, home appliance, have someone do work on your home, etc etc. Yeah, the 9% flat income tax would offset the 9% Fed sales tax to an extent, but you would pay more in the Fed sales tax at the end of the year then you saved in the income tax.
Quote from: dbacks fan on September 22, 2011, 11:27:29 PM
This looks good on the surface, but inacting a 9% Federal Sales Tax would add $.09 on every dollar that you spend on top of city, county, and state sales tax already in place. So in most states, the sales tax when people go to the store to buy groceries will double. So people on fixed incomes would lose what they can purchase because the tax would be close to $.20 for every dollar they spend. It sounds like a small amount, but it adds up quickly. Not to mention, that would add 9% if you buy a car, home appliance, have someone do work on your home, etc etc. Yeah, the 9% flat income tax would offset the 9% Fed sales tax to an extent, but you would pay more in the Fed sales tax at the end of the year then you saved in the income tax.
Follow this up closer. I'm willing to bet he's borrowing on his close friend, Neil Boortz' "Fair Tax". That plan has a "pre-bate" in it for lower income people so it's not a regressive tax on them.
A consumption-based tax system is not a panacea for all the ills of the current tax code, but it would eliminate so many loopholes and increase collections based on the calculations used to figure the program.
Another question: Would it be a 9% tax or a 12.5% tax?
The Fair Tax people try to call a 30% tax a 23% tax by reverse engineering the rate.
Something that costs $100 would cost $130, which is a 30% tax. They then take the $30 tax and divide it by the $130 total price
$30 is 23% of the total price when the price is $130.
If the Cain tax plan follows that logic, it would be 12.5%, as something which costs $100 would be $112.50.
Quote from: dbacks fan on September 22, 2011, 11:27:29 PMNot to mention, that would add 9% if you buy a car, home appliance, have someone do work on your home, etc etc. Yeah, the 9% flat income tax would offset the 9% Fed sales tax to an extent, but you would pay more in the Fed sales tax at the end of the year then you saved in the income tax.
Think of the effect on buying a $25,000 car. Would you be able to finance the tax, or would it be due immediately like the state excise tax? The added cost of purchasing a car would go up $2250 or $3125 depending on how they call it 9% (see previous post)
What about the lender financing the higher cost. What extra value does your collateral have when an extra $3000 is slapped onto your car? Wouldn't that pose a greater risk to the lender? Wouldn't interest rates have to be jacked up considerably for that risk?
Whackie tax plan that punishes the saver and taxes what's already been taxed once before when first earned.
Hilarious to me that this guy won the Florida Straw Poll. Go Herman! You're making the GOP/Teabaggers proud.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on September 24, 2011, 09:24:20 PM
Would you be able to finance the tax, or would it be due immediately like the state excise tax?
I expect you would be able to finance it as can already be done. Think of the car dealership ads that say "We pay your tax and tags.". You know they don't pay it, it's in the price of the car. The state gets their money right away which keeps them happy. You get to pay the tax and first year tag over the time of the loan.
Quote from: dbacks fan on September 22, 2011, 11:27:29 PM
Yeah, the 9% flat income tax would offset the 9% Fed sales tax to an extent, but you would pay more in the Fed sales tax at the end of the year then you saved in the income tax.
That would obviously depend on how much tax you presently pay and how much you spend.
From the 2009 Forms and Instruction Booklet (The last one the Feds mailed out.):
A taxable income of $55,000 yields a Federal Income Tax of $9944. for a single taxpayer status. $9,944/$55,000= .1808 (18.08%, I'll round off to 18%) At 9% tax, you would pay $4972. in income tax. In order to pay the "other" $4972 in sales tax, you would have to spend $4972/.09 = $55,244. That would be more than your original taxable income.
If the single exemption and single standard deduction are eliminated, add $9350 to the taxable income. New taxable income = $64350. 2009 rates give $12,269 in tax. $12,269/$64,350 = .1907 (19%). 9% of $64350 is $5791, leaving $6478 to spend. $6478/.09 = $71978.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on September 24, 2011, 09:13:24 PM
Another question: Would it be a 9% tax or a 12.5% tax?
The Fair Tax people try to call a 30% tax a 23% tax by reverse engineering Business Math Manipulating the rate.
Something that costs $100 would cost $130, which is a 30% tax. They then take the $30 tax and divide it by the $130 total price
$30 is 23% of the total price when the price is $130.
If the Cain tax plan follows that logic, it would be 12.5%, as something which costs $100 would be $112.50.
Where do you get 12.5%?
If something costs $100 you only have to add $9.89 to get $109.89. $9.89/$109.89 = 9%. I would call that a 9.89% tax myself. $12.50/$112.50 = 11.1%. I don't think anyone would try to call that a 9% tax.
I haven't heard anyone trying to confuse the tax rate with what percent of a final price is the tax but then I am not a tax semantics groupie.
The method you describe sounds similar to calculating what percent of your sale price is "profit" compared to how much you marked something up. I put profit in quotes because it's not profit until expenses are subtracted.
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 25, 2011, 01:59:48 AM
Whackie tax plan that punishes the saver and taxes what's already been taxed once before when first earned.
I don't have a problem with punishing savers right now. The economy is stagnant precisely because of too much saving. It wouldn't be such a problem if banks were lending the money out, but they're not. To take a page from the Paulist book, Google paradox of thrift.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on September 24, 2011, 09:24:20 PM
Think of the effect on buying a $25,000 car. Would you be able to finance the tax, or would it be due immediately like the state excise tax? The added cost of purchasing a car would go up $2250 or $3125 depending on how they call it 9% (see previous post)
What about the lender financing the higher cost. What extra value does your collateral have when an extra $3000 is slapped onto your car? Wouldn't that pose a greater risk to the lender? Wouldn't interest rates have to be jacked up considerably for that risk?
Actually, no it wouldn't. Because the corporate rate would decrease for all of the companies that build cars (and the components that go into them) or any other goods for that matter. The price for goods and services would decrease drastically, and because people are taking home more money, what difference that remains would be insignificant.
Also Conan is right. There would be a probate for basic necessities. Cain is a proponent of the Fair Tax but he differs with most who believe that it can be implemented immediately.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 25, 2011, 01:02:33 PM
Where do you get 12.5%?
If something costs $100 you only have to add $9.89 to get $109.89. $9.89/$109.89 = 9%. I would call that a 9.89% tax myself. $12.50/$112.50 = 11.1%. I don't think anyone would try to call that a 9% tax.
I haven't heard anyone trying to confuse the tax rate with what percent of a final price is the tax but then I am not a tax semantics groupie.
The method you describe sounds similar to calculating what percent of your sale price is "profit" compared to how much you marked something up. I put profit in quotes because it's not profit until expenses are subtracted.
Red
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 25, 2011, 01:02:33 PM
Where do you get 12.5%?
If something costs $100 you only have to add $9.89 to get $109.89. $9.89/$109.89 = 9%. I would call that a 9.89% tax myself. $12.50/$112.50 = 11.1%. I don't think anyone would try to call that a 9% tax.
I haven't heard anyone trying to confuse the tax rate with what percent of a final price is the tax but then I am not a tax semantics groupie.
The method you describe sounds similar to calculating what percent of your sale price is "profit" compared to how much you marked something up. I put profit in quotes because it's not profit until expenses are subtracted.
Red, the "rate offence" is a standard Liberal talking point that you can get on most of the lib sites attacking the FairTax. There are several more we will hear too, like "If companies are taxed less they are going to just pocket that money and the poor are going to get poorer."
Quote from: Gaspar on September 26, 2011, 06:37:39 AM
Red, the "rate offence" is a standard Liberal talking point that you can get on most of the lib sites attacking the FairTax. There are several more we will hear too, like "If companies are taxed less they are going to just pocket that money and the poor are going to get poorer."
Nothing at all like what's currently happening, amirite?
Quote from: we vs us on September 26, 2011, 09:06:59 AM
Nothing at all like what's currently happening, amirite?
Nothing!
Companies are holding on to profits right now for an entirely different reason. :D
amirite?
Hey, pull up MSNBC and look at the headlines. They're treating Cain like some insignificant worm, and they don't even mention he is the "Tea Party candidate." Also, they don't mention that Cain has logged more time in FL talking directly to constituents than all of the other candidates combined.
Instead they make this odd jump to the conclusion that because people voted for Cain, they want Christie to run.
You wonder why MSNBC has become the anus of the network news channels.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 26, 2011, 09:18:49 AM
Nothing!
Companies are holding on to profits right now for an entirely different reason. :D
amirite?
Yes, you are right: companies are being taxed less, they've pocketed the money, and the poor are, in fact, getting poorer. It stands to reason that, if we tax them even less, they will continue doing what they're doing. All the while, the poor -- and also, incidentally, the middle class -- will continue getting poorer.
The former governor of Michigan made that very point on the Daily Show this morning. Michigan cut taxes 99 times and made it easier to do business in Michigan, which did nothing but continue to ignore them. There are just too many other factors involved. It wasn't till the state partnered with the Feds in an effort to attract businesses, in particular the batteries for electric cars, that any headway started to be made.
You could cut taxes to zero and outlaw unions and corps will still send their business to China. You could lock the doors on the EPA, OSHA and Justice departments and the corps would just pocket the profits and blame it on something else (that Obama did). We have established that states and the Congress are prostitutes for the pleasure of the corporations.....they're all just haggling on the price right now.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 26, 2011, 10:11:19 AM
The former governor of Michigan made that very point on the Daily Show this morning. Michigan cut taxes 99 times and made it easier to do business in Michigan, which did nothing but continue to ignore them. There are just too many other factors involved.
Like unions and rampant crime in urban centers.
Come on guys! Don't pretend. You have to eliminate the uncertainty that the private sector is feeling.
They don't know if their health care expenses are going to rise 7% or 37%.
They don't know if they are going to have to weather another recession, and if so they don't know how long it's going to last.
They don't know if they are going what their taxes are going to be for the next 5 years, but they do know that the government wants to stick it too them.
They don't know how much the energy they need to produce is going to cost, but they do know it will cost more the heat/cool and ship because of new regulations.
They have a president that keeps saying "I'm going to tax you to pay for my spending. . .You are the reason, and I want my pound of flesh! . . .You don't pay your fair share."
How the $%$^ do you think those mantras are going to help anything?
You know, it would probably be different if he would actually do something and pull off the band-aid, but instead, he makes 3 years of speeches, and you never know if, or, and when the hammer is going to fall.
He's had 30 campaign fund-raisers and raised more money than God for his 2012 campaign. The typical president has about 3 to 5 fundraisers by this time in a re-election cycle.
It is obvious that with every fiber of his being he hates the private sector, and with the exception of a few donors willing to pawn their soles for favor, the private sector hates him too.
I don't blame ANYONE for conserving cash, or doing what it takes to hold tight their key employees until the storm passes. The companies that don't will most likely cease to exist when President Obama blows the seventh horn.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 26, 2011, 10:33:21 AM
He's had 30 campaign fund-raisers and raised more money than God for his 2012 campaign. The typical president has about 3 to 5 fundraisers by this time in a re-election cycle.
I dunno, I hear God is doing pretty good these days. At least judging by the collections at His branch offices.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 26, 2011, 10:35:55 AM
I dunno, I hear God is doing pretty good these days. At least judging by the collections at His branch offices.
They're skimming!
Better lay off the java mr. G. You're likely to burst some veins and start drooling.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 26, 2011, 11:36:01 AM
Better lay off the java mr. G. You're likely to burst some veins and start drooling.
Sorry, I'm a bit tender on that subject. I had a $85K deal fall through last week, and the CEO told me exactly what I posted above as the reason he was not going to upgrade, or buy trucks or hire 3 extra technicians. He finished the conversation by saying "we'll talk again when this clown leaves office."
I can't blame him.
Does it take a straw man to beat a straw man thats President.....
Quote from: Gaspar on September 26, 2011, 10:33:21 AM
They have a president that keeps saying "I'm going to tax you to pay for my spending. . .You are the reason, and I want my pound of flesh! . . .You don't pay your fair share."
Sounds familiar.....
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=18150.msg212421#msg212421 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=18150.msg212421#msg212421)
Quote from: dbacks fan on September 26, 2011, 01:11:41 PM
Sounds familiar.....
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=18150.msg212421#msg212421 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=18150.msg212421#msg212421)
It sounds familiar because that's how taxes work no matter who's in charge of the gov.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 26, 2011, 12:30:22 PM
Sorry, I'm a bit tender on that subject. I had a $85K deal fall through last week, and the CEO told me exactly what I posted above as the reason he was not going to upgrade, or buy trucks or hire 3 extra technicians. He finished the conversation by saying "we'll talk again when this clown leaves office."
I can't blame him.
Yeah, but your real world experience on the issue is irrelevant because it doesn't agree with Keynes nor liberal dogma.
Reality is like kryptonite to liberals.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 26, 2011, 02:03:05 PM
Yeah, but your real world experience on the issue is irrelevant because it doesn't agree with Keynes nor liberal dogma.
Reality is like kryptonite to liberals.
I don't doubt someone said that to you, and I don't doubt that that's someone's reasoning for killing a deal with you. I don't know that other person's finances, nor his business, nor how you fit into his plans. I don't know much of anything about the deal but I do know that if he's making expand/not expand decisions on who's in office and his plans, he's deciding to run his business based on partisan conclusions rather than the facts on the ground. Why? Because the things Obama has proposed and passed are almost all Republican policy prescriptions from the very recent past, and most of which were undoubtedly acceptable to your business partner before Obama got his filthy socialist hands all over them. This includes everything from healthcare reform, industry bailouts, tax levels lower than the Reagan/Bush I era, a rapidly shrinking federal payroll, regulation reform, etc. Obama's been a really effective moderate Republican, yet if businesses aren't investing or expanding because he's not business friendly enough, I can only suggest the business folks have no grasp of history or economics. Because up until three years ago a lot of this stuff was mainstream and acceptable.
There really is no place in a well run business for hate politics. It just is folly to blame one man, or one party, or one philosophy for so much. Especially when the problems are so profound and widespread. And like you said, when those beliefs are historically ludicrous.
When Carter was running for office a republican friend of mine, whom I much respected for his business sense, told me I would lose my mortgage deduction should Carter be elected. Of course that didn't happen and ironically it is now a Republican proposal. A local builder, Creekmore I think, told anyone who would listen that he was selling everything if it looked like Carter would win because the economy would destroy everyone. Just seems laughable now, but back then people around here were truly scared of change.
It seems alot like ESPN and their puppy love for the SEC. It makes enemies for them outside of the south and reduces their credibility. Or like Cain calling Obama a liar. Galvanizes all his negatives and shows a lack of discipline.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 26, 2011, 10:33:21 AM
Come on guys! Don't pretend. You have to eliminate the uncertainty that the private sector is feeling.
They don't know if their health care expenses are going to rise 7% or 37%.
They don't know if they are going to have to weather another recession, and if so they don't know how long it's going to last.
They don't know if they are going what their taxes are going to be for the next 5 years, but they do know that the government wants to stick it too them.
They don't know how much the energy they need to produce is going to cost, but they do know it will cost more the heat/cool and ship because of new regulations.
There is always uncertainty in business. These whiners are spending too much time listening to Chamber of Commerce lobbyists and not enough time with their heads out of their asses. Cutting taxes more isn't going to forestall another recession. Guess what kept China out of recession? Keynesian stimulus! They haven't known for the past 20 years whether health care expenses are going to rise 5% next year or 35%. We haven't had energy price stability since freakin' 2001. Obama's policies may not have fixed any of these issues, but they're all pre-existing. This is just disaster capitalism at its finest. And all the small business owners hearing the freakout are rightly concerned. All they hear is doom and gloom, so why should they be optimistic?
Quote
It is obvious that with every fiber of his being he hates the private sector, and with the exception of a few donors willing to pawn their soles for favor, the private sector hates him too.
I don't blame ANYONE for conserving cash, or doing what it takes to hold tight their key employees until the storm passes. The companies that don't will most likely cease to exist when President Obama blows the seventh horn
That's why he's signed tax cut after tax cut into law. Because he hates the private sector. You are so disconnected from reality that it's gone beyond amusing, and all the way to pity.
And
1
2
3
Everyone else explains away the tepidity of a real business person as partisan. There are a lot of Democrats noticing the uncertainty too guys.
Hah! A real businessman? Bernie Madoff was a real businessman. Warren Buffet is a real businessman. Trump is too. There is certainly room in the world for differing views of what is good, effective business philosophy and what is regurgitated political doctrine.
Any one here ever watch that show, "Sharks"? The one where the business people listen to proposals from entrepreneurs and offer money to partner with them? It is amazing to me that such successful business people can see the same project so differently. And never, never has anything about uncertainty over the health care act, or any of these other problems that you folks think are hindering the business community ever come up. They don't talk politics either. They couldn't care less because they know business is like a shark, if you're not constantly moving, you're not living.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 26, 2011, 03:42:25 PM
And
1
2
3
Everyone else explains away the tepidity of a real business person as partisan. There are a lot of Democrats noticing the uncertainty too guys.
How is it not? Uncertainty is one thing, and yes everybody's feeling it. But that's not what Gassy's client is doing. He's specifically not expanding until Obama's out of office. That's just bad business.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 26, 2011, 03:42:25 PM
Everyone else explains away the tepidity of a real business person as partisan. There are a lot of Democrats noticing the uncertainty too guys.
If you were referring to my comment, I'm not quite sure how you got that from what I wrote. I wrote that the partisan bull is making it hard to cut through the fog and see what's really going on. I don't blame anybody for not investing right now. We're still in the process of eating the biggest economic smile sandwich since the Great Depression. The Eurozone is collapsing despite the forced austerity, giving the lie to the post-stimulus economic measures we've taken. There's great reason to be uncertain, but it hasn't got smile to do with Obama's politics, FFS.
Quote from: nathanm on September 26, 2011, 03:53:38 PM
If you were referring to my comment, I'm not quite sure how you got that from what I wrote. I wrote that the partisan bull is making it hard to cut through the fog and see what's really going on. I don't blame anybody for not investing right now. We're still in the process of eating the biggest economic smile sandwich since the Great Depression. The Eurozone is collapsing despite the forced austerity, giving the lie to the post-stimulus economic measures we've taken. There's great reason to be uncertain, but it hasn't got smile to do with Obama's politics, FFS.
The Eurozone will not collapse. Relax.
Print more money.
Ignore Cain.
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 26, 2011, 04:21:48 PM
The Eurozone will not collapse. Relax.
They're fighting the tide; they will succumb. And if we don't take the opportunity to fix our own problems, the waves will be crashing on the shores of our own currency soon enough.
Whether the Euro goes away entirely or merely shrinks to a 3 or 4 state currency, I can't say. I can say that Germany will be in for some pain in either scenario. They've finally realized that, hence the sudden attempt at action after months of hemming and hawing. Printing money won't do anything to fix it, for plainly obvious reasons. The Euro's problem is almost entirely the imbalance between economies like France and Germany and economies like Greece and Ireland. The latter two (and more!) need inflation relative to Germany, but that's not possible with a single currency.
I've been beating the print more money idea for three years. The velocity of stagnant money needs a fire lit under it. Politics keeps the Fed from reinflating the economy. Instead, we have this horrid deflation/stagflation.
These headwinds will pass. Equities will be the winner.
Why Don't the Deficit Hawks Want to Tax Wall Street?
http://www.truth-out.org/why-dont-deficit-hawks-want-tax-wall-street/1317044046
"In short, it is hard to understand why taxing financial speculation never appears on the agenda of the deficit hawks or gets mentioned in budget reporting, if the issue really is deficit reduction. On the other hand, if this is all about using an economic crisis to push a longstanding agenda to cut Social Security and Medicare, then everything suddenly makes sense."
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 26, 2011, 04:47:11 PM
I've been beating the print more money idea for three years. The velocity of stagnant money needs a fire lit under it. Politics keeps the Fed from reinflating the economy. Instead, we have this horrid deflation/stagflation.
You can print all you want, but with trillions in excess reserves, it's clear the money isn't going anywhere. The entire idea behind printing more money to jump start the economy is that a larger money supply will cause inflation, which will reduce debt burden, which then frees assets to be used for consumption or investment. In the present situation, the money supply has already been expanded through QE and QE2, yet inflation has failed to take hold due to a lack of demand.
Until there is demand, printing money is as useless as a Nerf sledgehammer. Since the private sector isn't creating demand, it's up to government, but when government also refuses to create demand, well..look around. This is a problem that can only be fixed from the demand side. Supply side solutions will do nothing.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 26, 2011, 03:26:19 PM
There really is no place in a well run business for hate politics. It just is folly to blame one man, or one party, or one philosophy for so much. Especially when the problems are so profound and widespread. And like you said, when those beliefs are historically ludicrous.
When Carter was running for office a republican friend of mine, whom I much respected for his business sense, told me I would lose my mortgage deduction should Carter be elected. Of course that didn't happen and ironically it is now a Republican proposal. A local builder, Creekmore I think, told anyone who would listen that he was selling everything if it looked like Carter would win because the economy would destroy everyone. Just seems laughable now, but back then people around here were truly scared of change.
I remember Barbara Streisand
threatened promised to leave the country if George W got re-elected. She didn't go.
Seems to me that Carter had some difficulties with the economy and the morale of the voters in the later part of his single term.
Quote from: we vs us on September 26, 2011, 03:52:11 PM
He's specifically not expanding until Obama's out of office. That's just bad business.
Time will tell.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 26, 2011, 10:11:19 AM
The former governor of Michigan made that very point on the Daily Show this morning. Michigan cut taxes 99 times and made it easier to do business in Michigan, which did nothing but continue to ignore them. There are just too many other factors involved.
Some of Michigan is not too bad. The last time I visited Detroit, the business I was visiting allowed their employees to park their cars inside the building after dark. Some even parked inside during daylight hours.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 26, 2011, 10:25:15 PM
Some of Michigan is not too bad. The last time I visited Detroit, the business I was visiting allowed their employees to park their cars inside the building after dark. Some even parked inside during daylight hours.
If you're not from there you have to be careful as a traveler. Take a GPS, because many of the street signs have been removed or turned around by thugs so that people get lost and ultimately end up with fewer possessions.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 26, 2011, 10:15:14 PM
I remember Barbara Streisand threatened promised to leave the country if George W got re-elected. She didn't go.
Seems to me that Carter had some difficulties with the economy and the morale of the voters in the later part of his single term.
This is not tit for tat. Streisand is an entertainer. She may mix political hatred and business, but I doubt her business manager does. Its just dumb business to confuse personal animosity with practical business.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 27, 2011, 07:30:32 AM
This is not tit for tat. Streisand is an entertainer. She may mix political hatred and business, but I doubt her business manager does. Its just dumb business to confuse personal animosity with practical business.
I actually mostly agree with your basic premise. Your examples are (usually) a bit one sided so I thought I'd add a bit of balance.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 27, 2011, 07:12:46 AM
If you're not from there you have to be careful as a traveler. Take a GPS, because many of the street signs have been removed or turned around by thugs so that people get lost and ultimately end up with fewer possessions.
What? Are you saying that the fine people of Detroit may want to make my visit there less than enjoyable?
;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 27, 2011, 07:46:44 AM
I actually mostly agree with your basic premise. Your examples are (usually) a bit one sided so I thought I'd add a bit of balance.
Me? One sided? There is only one side. ;D
From side to side, either side, is the other side.... of me.
Yes, there is the devil's work here. 9-9-9 upside down..... ;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 26, 2011, 10:15:14 PM
I remember Barbara Streisand threatened promised to leave the country if George W got re-elected. She didn't go.
Seems to me that Carter had some difficulties with the economy and the morale of the voters in the later part of his single term.
What you really mean is when he got elected.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 27, 2011, 09:05:00 AM
What you really mean is when he got elected.
No, I believe he's referring to stagflation, 15% mortgage rates, the Iran hostage crisis, etc.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 26, 2011, 10:33:21 AM
Come on guys! Don't pretend. You have to eliminate the uncertainty that the private sector is feeling.
They don't know if their health care expenses are going to rise 7% or 37%.
They don't know if they are going to have to weather another recession, and if so they don't know how long it's going to last.
They don't know if they are going what their taxes are going to be for the next 5 years, but they do know that the government wants to stick it too them.
They don't know how much the energy they need to produce is going to cost, but they do know it will cost more the heat/cool and ship because of new regulations.
They have a president that keeps saying "I'm going to tax you to pay for my spending. . .You are the reason, and I want my pound of flesh! . . .You don't pay your fair share."
You know, it would probably be different if he would actually do something and pull off the band-aid, but instead, he makes 3 years of speeches, and you never know if, or, and when the hammer is going to fall.
He's had 30 campaign fund-raisers and raised more money than God for his 2012 campaign. The typical president has about 3 to 5 fundraisers by this time in a re-election cycle.
It is obvious that with every fiber of his being he hates the private sector, and with the exception of a few donors willing to pawn their soles for favor, the private sector hates him too.
I don't blame ANYONE for conserving cash, or doing what it takes to hold tight their key employees until the storm passes. The companies that don't will most likely cease to exist when President Obama blows the seventh horn.
That is such a lame excuse for not buying capital equipment...or any other tool, machine, part or supply needed to run a business. Does your client actually believe he has it worse than all the wildly successful companies in Europe. Who operate at a much higher level of taxation/regulation?? If so, then he truly is stupid - not just ignorant!
And yeah, there are many wildly successful companies in the world that are hurting right now due to the economic cycle we are in. It is NOT going to be permanent. It will be either slightly shorter or slightly longer than anyone expects. It will get better. And anyone who is not looking to get their infrastructure in place now is missing an opportunity they will never see again. There will be NO better bargains on ANY item for the rest of my expected life time (25 years or so....). Prices are down, tax breaks are at the best levels they can ever be for many years to come, people to hire can be cherry-picked. How can there be ANY uncertainty or hesitation to move right now based on future needs.
The whole RWRE argument about doom and gloom follows the herd mentality we saw with the stock market dump of 2008. Can't buy enough when the prices are highest, can't stay away enough when the prices are lowest. Bunch of stupid out there. When people are wringing hands and moaning and groaning - that is the time to move to position yourself for the better times coming. And when everyone is jubilant, watch out - it is going into the dumpster!
Quote from: Conan71 on September 27, 2011, 09:07:05 AM
No, I believe he's referring to stagflation, 15% mortgage rates, the Iran hostage crisis, etc.
I was talking about the part that said George got elected - not re-elected.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 27, 2011, 09:05:00 AM
What you really mean is when he got elected.
Could have been. I just remember her making a big deal of it and then not following through.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 27, 2011, 10:48:48 AM
Could have been. I just remember her making a big deal of it and then not following through.
Well, she's a pretty good singer, but like so many who play the "I'm not a real <fill in the blank>, but I play one on TV" type, she is welcome to her opinion, but it isn't worth any more than yours or mine.
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 25, 2011, 01:59:48 AM
Whackie tax plan that punishes the saver and taxes what's already been taxed once before when first earned.
Hilarious to me that this guy won the Florida Straw Poll. Go Herman! You're making the GOP/Teabaggers proud.
I believe the plan is to remove federal withholding.
Quote from: dbacks fan on September 22, 2011, 11:27:29 PM
This looks good on the surface, but inacting a 9% Federal Sales Tax would add $.09 on every dollar that you spend on top of city, county, and state sales tax already in place. So in most states, the sales tax when people go to the store to buy groceries will double. So people on fixed incomes would lose what they can purchase because the tax would be close to $.20 for every dollar they spend. It sounds like a small amount, but it adds up quickly. Not to mention, that would add 9% if you buy a car, home appliance, have someone do work on your home, etc etc. Yeah, the 9% flat income tax would offset the 9% Fed sales tax to an extent, but you would pay more in the Fed sales tax at the end of the year then you saved in the income tax.
Doesn't this tax exclude groceries?
^^^ Without knowing the details, it 'sounds' like a 9% tax on everything for his federal sales tax. That's why I said it would be on top of whatever tax you pay at the register.
Quote from: sgrizzle on September 27, 2011, 06:51:23 PM
Doesn't this tax exclude groceries?
Yes. It excludes food, and basic necessities.
He is correct though. Initially it would look and feel like you were paying more for goods and services, however you would be taking far more home, and the prices on goods and services would come down accordingly because the costs of raw materials, production, distribution and the over-all cost of doing business would decrease significantly, not to mention the labor costs of managing the current complex business tax system.
So if you were to go out and buy that $1,500 upright washer you saw advertised last week before the new tax structure took effect, you would pay about $1,722 for it, however your paycheck that was $800 last week would end up being about $950. But. . .that's not all. . . now that it costs the less to assemble, ship, merchandise, advertise, and sell that washer, and because the effective tax rates on those services are always passed down to the consumer, the price on that washer would be forced down by competition at or even below the $1,500 level.
So, by eliminating burden along the production, supply, distribution, and merchandising lines and shifting that burden to consumption, you get efficiency that saves the consumer money, and increases revenue to the government by eliminating thousands of layers of bureaucratic waste. These dollars are still dollars by the time they are counted as revenue rather than fractions of dollars.
It helps everyone. Conservatives can rejoice in the fact that it spurs economic growth and job creation, and Liberals can rejoice that it provides more revenue for funding social programs, enrichment initiatives, environmental stewardship, and condoms in elementary schools.
The only threat it does pose is to the 10 billion dollar tax preparation industry.
Eventually when this becomes the standard 23% Fair tax most of the tax prep industry will have shifted into other accounting niches.
Ceteris Paribus.
That's an interesting analysis of the effects of the plan. It is a logical, if not a bit optimistic, projection of both consumer and business behaviors. I just don't see either actually behaving that way in reality. When prices go up due to increasing fuel costs, shortage of materials etc., the general rule is that they never go back down when those cost elements decrease. Just like government, businesses prefer to keep that largesse and spread it around to other needs (like salaries, dividends, other less profitable areas). Also of note is the marketing rule that it is much harder to raise prices than it is to cut them, therefore once you suffer the results of raising a price the manufacturer is hesitant to lower that price lest he get stung again by increasing costs.
The consumer on the other hand is likely over time to accept the newer price as acceptable. There was a huge outcry when gasoline hit a $1. Then it creeped up to 1.39, 1.59, 1.79 then another outcry at $2.00 a gallon. I made plans in 2005 for my fuel costs with a 33% increase over what I thought it would be. The price hit that point and didn't stop. Consumers now are planning for fuel costs in whole dollar budgets. $30 per week for fuel regardless of the cost per gallon. So, there is little incentive for the marketer to lower his price just because his costs have decreased. Especially during a fairly non-competitive business environment.
Here is an example of assumptions that go wrong in the real world. You would expect that demand for durable goods would stay predictable and constant. So, that upright washer at a reduced retail price would not stimulate more sales of washers because such durable goods are more dependent on population growth or decline. People don't trade in a frig or washer that is still working well without huge changes in the product. That is until around the mid nineties. At that point the manufacturing of those durable goods was coalesced into just a couple of large manufacturers who were unhappy with that durable goods model. They started to reduce warranties, reduce lifespans, reduce quality....and increase the "sexiness" of the products by making them a status/fashion item. They could do that because of the lack of competition in that market. Hence there will be no decrease in the price of that washer. The sales will increase however because of the manipulation of the product and its marketing. So any increase in income to the consumer evaporates because of the new model.
I have often heard that the real reason we don't have tax reform that establishes simple taxation is the resulting chaos it would cause in employment for the tax accounting and law professions. If so then there would be resolute opposition to such a plan by the congressmen, lobbyists and associations that represent these functions. They would also make a strong argument that tax law is used to generally encourage/discourage the business community whose excesses have historically caused havoc on the populace. Both sides, government and business, share the same human resources and seem to understand that.
The assumptions you have made are logical and support the plan. As long as it all takes place on a computer model.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 28, 2011, 08:38:36 AM
Here is an example of assumptions that go wrong in the real world. You would expect that demand for durable goods would stay predictable and constant. So, that upright washer at a reduced retail price would not stimulate more sales of washers because such durable goods are more dependent on population growth or decline. People don't trade in a frig or washer that is still working well without huge changes in the product. That is until around the mid nineties. At that point the manufacturing of those durable goods was coalesced into just a couple of large manufacturers who were unhappy with that durable goods model. They started to reduce warranties, reduce lifespans, reduce quality....and increase the "sexiness" of the products by making them a status/fashion item. They could do that because of the lack of competition in that market. Hence there will be no decrease in the price of that washer. The sales will increase however because of the manipulation of the product and its marketing. So any increase in income to the consumer evaporates because of the new model.
That's why I have acquired a couple of sets of older Maytag washer/dryers (washer with the simple gear box design), and plan to keep them forever. Repair every 5 or 10 years will always be cheaper than buying new anything. And since Maytag is really now just another Whirlpool, I would not buy the new ones.
Same thing with vehicles. I have settled on a transportation platform that works extremely well for me and am looking for at least 2 or maybe 3 more identical to add to fleet. These 3 or 4 will last me basically forever (barring wrecks). Rebuilding everything in them forever will still be
hundreds of dollars a month cheaper than any other vehicle procurement plan available.
It's people like me that are bringing the economy down - I make do and only buy new/replacement when absolutely mandatory. Like a water heater that crapped out last weekend (GE old - Whirlpool new - still won't last.) after only about 10 years. No excuse for that nonsense, but hey, what can ya do? Yeah, I can, and probably will, design/build my own water heater, but will wait until I can integrate a solar panel accessory to go along with that. Stainless steel tank. Adequate insulation - 6 or 7" versus 1.5". Solar boost. Extremely low operating cost, but will cost me about $900 to install. Will last my lifetime.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 28, 2011, 09:09:25 AM
Yeah, I can, and probably will, design/build my own water heater, but will wait until I can integrate a solar panel accessory to go along with that. Stainless steel tank. Adequate insulation - 6 or 7" versus 1.5". Solar boost. Extremely low operating cost, but will cost me about $900 to install. Will last my lifetime.
Water heaters are killed by two things, neither of which you will be able to avoid with your design.
1. Dissolved solids like calcium and iron solidify in the tank and impede energy transfer, coat the thermostat, or in some cases just fill it up!
2. Softened water or low ph water actually eats the elements or in a gas tank, erodes the thermostat sensor (usually copper) or any other metal parts that come in contact with the water inside (a problem we don't have in Tulsa unless we have a water softener or RO system).
Stainless tanks will leach chromium oxide, a flavor that we admire in some wines and beers, but rather off-putting in water, it will also be harder to insulate effectively.
I'm just sayin. . .
What I don't understand is, if we reset the entire tax environment -- which is essentially what the Fair Tax movement is advocating -- why the value of a dollar itself wouldn't also reset. It stands to reason that if tens of billions more dollars become available to consumers and to corporations, wouldn't that essentially equal a huge inflationary push downwards on the value of the dollar? And wouldn't that mean, as Aquaman suggests, that prices would find a sort of value equilibrium? Just because the dollar price of a washer would change doesn't mean the value proposition would change. It also doesn't mean that, even if I have $800 more in my pocket every month, that prices wouldn't take that into consideration and adjust accordingly.
In general, I don't understand what the "fair" part of the Fair Tax movement is there to remedy. To whom will this be more fair?
Quote from: we vs us on September 28, 2011, 10:10:09 AM
What I don't understand is, if we reset the entire tax environment -- which is essentially what the Fair Tax movement is advocating -- why the value of a dollar itself wouldn't also reset. It stands to reason that if tens of billions more dollars become available to consumers and to corporations, wouldn't that essentially equal a huge inflationary push downwards on the value of the dollar? And wouldn't that mean, as Aquaman suggests, that prices would find a sort of value equilibrium? Just because the dollar price of a washer would change doesn't mean the value proposition would change. It also doesn't mean that, even if I have $800 more in my pocket every month, that prices wouldn't take that into consideration and adjust accordingly.
In general, I don't understand what the "fair" part of the Fair Tax movement is there to remedy. To whom will this be more fair?
Well, that validates my line of thought as well. The system is fluid but it seems the amount of liquid (population) is all that changes. Pressures build up and dissipate to equalize.
Not to be too weird, but it seems to me the there are two things at play here. The natural proclivity of business in our system is to lower its cost, maximize its profit and generally suppress or eliminate its competition and the apportionment of wealth among the population tends to skew towards the top tiers and stay there without artificial adjustment. Those two segments welcome and benefit from flat taxes, lower taxes, regulations etc. Its a tougher case to make that anyone else does as they are the sustenance for the other two.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 28, 2011, 10:25:21 AM
Well, that validates my line of thought as well. The system is fluid but it seems the amount of liquid (population) is all that changes. Pressures build up and dissipate to equalize.
Not to be too weird, but it seems to me the there are two things at play here. The natural proclivity of business in our system is to lower its cost, maximize its profit and generally suppress or eliminate its competition and the apportionment of wealth among the population tends to skew towards the top tiers and stay there without artificial adjustment. Those two segments welcome and benefit from flat taxes, lower taxes, regulations etc. Its a tougher case to make that anyone else does as they are the sustenance for the other two.
Not weird at all. I think that's essentially what we're seeing. Which is why I don't know who a Fair Tax actually benefits. It's being sold as "more money in your pocket, prole!" but I'm not convinced at all that once the dust settles we'll see anything approaching "fairness." I have a feeling it'll just funnel more wealth upwards, only using a much more novel mechanism.
Quote from: we vs us on September 28, 2011, 10:10:09 AM
What I don't understand is, if we reset the entire tax environment -- which is essentially what the Fair Tax movement is advocating -- why the value of a dollar itself wouldn't also reset. It stands to reason that if tens of billions more dollars become available to consumers and to corporations, wouldn't that essentially equal a huge inflationary push downwards on the value of the dollar? And wouldn't that mean, as Aquaman suggests, that prices would find a sort of value equilibrium? Just because the dollar price of a washer would change doesn't mean the value proposition would change. It also doesn't mean that, even if I have $800 more in my pocket every month, that prices wouldn't take that into consideration and adjust accordingly.
In general, I don't understand what the "fair" part of the Fair Tax movement is there to remedy. To whom will this be more fair?
Great questions!
Yes you will see a drop in the value of the dollar but only temporarily. There is no such thing as major surgery without a little pain!
Those tax preparers, tax lawyers, and Internal Revenue Service employees, who are typically well educated and well equipped with transferable skills, will have to find other, more productive work. The projected 10.5 percent growth in the economy during the first year of a FairTax will provide plenty of new jobs.
When you combine the Tax prep industry with the IRS you have $265 billion dollars spent every year on measuring, tracking, sheltering, documenting, and filing Taxes. The simple view would be to envision that $265 billion as an influx of revenue to the economy, but in actuality it would be far greater since the productivity of that industry today can only be measured as negative. I would estimate more like half a trillian in influx to the economy.
Any devaluation will only be temporary.
Quote from: we vs us on September 28, 2011, 10:34:56 AM
Not weird at all. I think that's essentially what we're seeing. Which is why I don't know who a Fair Tax actually benefits. It's being sold as "more money in your pocket, prole!" but I'm not convinced at all that once the dust settles we'll see anything approaching "fairness." I have a feeling it'll just funnel more wealth upwards, only using a much more novel mechanism.
How would it funnel money anywhere? It simply eliminates the waste in a revenue-neutral manner.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 28, 2011, 10:51:15 AM
How would it funnel money anywhere? It simply eliminates the waste in a revenue-neutral manner.
Because someone wired wevus' brain to assume everything revolves around wealth inequality?
Just messing with you wevus ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 28, 2011, 10:50:07 AM
Those tax preparers, tax lawyers, and Internal Revenue Service employees, who are typically well educated and well equipped with transferable skills, will have to find other, more productive work. The projected 10.5 percent growth in the economy during the first year of a FairTax will provide plenty of new jobs.
That is EXACTLY the same argument we have heard from the "tax cuts at all costs" crowd for the last 30 years! And it is crap. Just as the cuts argument is crap. Never happens that way. Never will.
What does it take for reality to reach these people???? Only two things will help; cut spending AND eliminate the Bush tax breaks for the 1%'ers - ending the class warfare in this country waged by those 1%ers. Both are necessary AND sufficient. Either alone is necessary, but insufficient.
I remain skeptical that it can be done first off. Might take an armed revolution.
Then I am still skeptical of the philosophy that simple tax or fair tax will do anything but redistribute professional financial and administrative employment while giving the illusion that things have really changed when in fact the same operant formulas remain in place (the two detailed in my previous post).
Is there any other system of government similar to ours that has this current tax program in place, how did they do it and how is it working? The european model of value added? Are we like them?
Historically, in our country, has there ever been a time before the IRS, that had a combination of national prosperity, a flatter wealth distribution curve and untaxed, poorly regulated manufacturing? A significant amount of the population may have to become farmers for this to work.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 28, 2011, 12:44:04 PM
Historically, in our country, has there ever been a time before the IRS, that had a combination of national prosperity, a flatter wealth distribution curve and untaxed, poorly regulated manufacturing? A significant amount of the population may have to become farmers for this to work.
Yes, it was the robber baron era of the late 19th century. Whose excesses led to long overdue regulations related to a wide variety of corporate activity. And whose descendents now have been selling the country a "bill of goods" containing the BS items that 1) government is bad - all of it, no matter what. And 2) taxes being cut is always the answer. Well, we certainly have proved both of those wrong in the last 30 years. Except the electorate hasn't understood yet.
So according to political genius Janeane Garofalo, Herman Cain is being used by the Tea Party to hide their racism.
(http://dingo.care2.com/greenliving/dog%20listening.jpg)
I contend that any Democrat that votes against President Obama is a raciest. . .no. . .wait, any Democrat that votes for President Obama is a raciest, because it would be raciest to vote for a person of another race simply to prove that you are not raciest, right?. . .Wait. . .no.
What if the black Tea Party members vote for someone other than Herman Cain, does that make them raciest for voting for someone who is not black just to prove that they are not raciest? If black Democrats vote for Hillary, does that make them raciest because they are trying to prove that they are not raciest to hide their racism?
Hey Janeane, why don't we all just vote based on the candidate's platform, history, accomplishments, and experience this time. Close your eyes if you have to.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 29, 2011, 02:23:50 PM
So according to political genius Janeane Garofalo, Herman Cain is being used by the Tea Party to hide their racism.
I contend that any Democrat that votes against President Obama is a raciest. . .no. . .wait, any Democrat that votes for President Obama is a raciest, because it would be raciest to vote for a person of another race simply to prove that you are not raciest, right?. . .Wait. . .no.
What if the black Tea Party members vote for someone other than Herman Cain, does that make them raciest for voting for someone who is not black just to prove that they are not raciest? If black Democrats vote for Hillary, does that make them raciest because they are trying to prove that they are not raciest to hide their racism?
Hey Janeane, why don't we all just vote based on the candidate's platform, history, accomplishments, and experience this time. Close your eyes if you have to.
If you're trying to be condescending or insulting to anyone I think you're off target.
I think black tea is supposed to better for you. At least, if you have to drink the tea.
Quote from: Townsend on September 29, 2011, 02:27:49 PM
If you're trying to be condescending or insulting to anyone I think you're off target.
Wait, what?
;D