If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Peter Gottlieb"
writes: The general observation that consumers pay all the taxes paid by their suppliers is of course completely correct. It is somewhat amazing to consider the true amount of tax that we all pay when everything is accounted for. More than merely amazing. The Americans for Tax Reform traced the taxes imbedded in the cost of various goods. One was a Ford Taurus automobile, priced at $23,000. They found the car could have been sold, at the same profit, for $12,700 with the imbedded taxes removed. The buyer of that car, who might be under the illusion all taxation has been successfully pushed off on "the rich" pays and astounding $10,700 plus interest when he purchases that car. Surprise! -- Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS PP-ASEL Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "CB"
writes: Did you notice the reference Bush made Thursday to "tax reform?" That's us, Delay, Hastert and Cheney are on board with the FairTax as well as many others. It will not be an isue in this election, but during the second term we will have a real chance to make our case for it and maybe een get it done. I love campaigns like this. It usually means stop taxing me an go tax someone else. In this case, no. What we are trying to do is to have the appearance of the tax structure reflect the underlying impact of taxation more accurately so people can make their political decisions based on reality instead of an illusion. The reality is that eventually, all taxes wind up impacting us as an invisible consumption tax, concealed in the price of goods and services. What the FairTax will do is to make that tax transparent so everyone can make their political choices in full knowledge of the impact of the cost of government on their lives. -- Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS PP-ASEL Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
"Wdtabor" wrote in message ... In article , "Peter Gottlieb" writes: The general observation that consumers pay all the taxes paid by their suppliers is of course completely correct. It is somewhat amazing to consider the true amount of tax that we all pay when everything is accounted for. More than merely amazing. The Americans for Tax Reform traced the taxes imbedded in the cost of various goods. One was a Ford Taurus automobile, priced at $23,000. They found the car could have been sold, at the same profit, for $12,700 with the imbedded taxes removed. The buyer of that car, who might be under the illusion all taxation has been successfully pushed off on "the rich" pays and astounding $10,700 plus interest when he purchases that car. Surprise! Of course the big con with taxation and especially indirect taxation is that it affects the middle classes the worst. The poor have no money so they cannot spend much. However when they do spend they tend to go for branded products because of the quality. I was in India and given a choice of spending a days pay on a quality branded soap or and hours pay on a local variation it was the quality version that won out - why because poor people really want value for money and in this case, the branded soap bar lasted 20 times longer that the cheap bar. The middle classes are hit the hardest as for them they are right in the middle of the income bracket so they have a high marginal and overall tax burden. As consumers, they also get hammered and with only a little discretion over what to buy etc they have little choice about the taxes they pay. The best off are and always have been are the rich and the tax system is geared to protect them. When you have more money than you know what to do with it other than engage in conspicuous consumption then buying anything not necessary a normal life become cheap. The $1m boat brings with it a sales tax and a property tax. So what it is still cheap. The marginal rate of income tax for these people and the overall tax burden set against their income and wealth is also low. It may seem like a lot of $s but is still proportionately smaller than the middle classes. Fairer taxes to me means people paying their fair share. You cannot be more than fair to one section of society without being less than fair to the others. Shift the sales taxes away from the things people need to have to live and put tax on the things that are not essentials to live. |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
"Wdtabor" wrote in message ... More than merely amazing. The Americans for Tax Reform traced the taxes imbedded in the cost of various goods. One was a Ford Taurus automobile, priced at $23,000. They found the car could have been sold, at the same profit, for $12,700 with the imbedded taxes removed. The buyer of that car, who might be under the illusion all taxation has been successfully pushed off on "the rich" pays and astounding $10,700 plus interest when he purchases that car. Surprise! No surprise. But just how to you plan on getting the government to release itself from the public teet? Our two significant parties don't seem differentiable from one another when it comes to spending money, they only argue about where. You can shift around who pays the biggest tax burden, you can shift around programs, but the only way to fix things is to reduce how much is spent and this is an enormously difficult problem to tackle. |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message et... "Wdtabor" wrote in message ... More than merely amazing. The Americans for Tax Reform traced the taxes imbedded in the cost of various goods. One was a Ford Taurus automobile, priced at $23,000. They found the car could have been sold, at the same profit, for $12,700 with the imbedded taxes removed. The buyer of that car, who might be under the illusion all taxation has been successfully pushed off on "the rich" pays and astounding $10,700 plus interest when he purchases that car. Surprise! No surprise. But just how to you plan on getting the government to release itself from the public teet? Our two significant parties don't seem differentiable from one another when it comes to spending money, they only argue about where. You can shift around who pays the biggest tax burden, you can shift around programs, but the only way to fix things is to reduce how much is spent and this is an enormously difficult problem to tackle. It will cost a lot of jobs and that means votes . Whether it is government employees, or employees working for government contractors. why make problems for yourself. Bush is just going to borrow the money and Kerry is going to raise taxes. I know which is sounder and going into debt at the current rate is not a good idea. Sooner or later the tax payers are going to have to pay the bill. Its a bit rich asking our kids to pay extra taxes in the future to fund our tax cuts now so as we can have a ball. They wont thank us for it and nor should they. |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
.... The Americans for Tax Reform traced the taxes
imbedded in the cost of various goods. One was a Ford Taurus automobile, priced at $23,000. They found the car could have been sold, at the same profit, for $12,700 with the imbedded taxes removed. The buyer of that car, who might be under the illusion all taxation has been successfully pushed off on "the rich" pays and astounding $10,700 plus interest when he purchases that car. Surprise! I understand that when ALL taxes are considered, we in the USA have a *regressive* tax system. vince norris |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
The result is that taxes most definitely DO affect businesses, and since
they cannot pass along all additional expenses to their customers, part of the tax decreases their profit and so effectively the business owners DO pay taxes (separate from their personal income taxes, that is). To a degree -- but long before personal "profits" get cut the business "extras" will go out the window. Things like new equipment, landscaping, added staff -- ALL of that stuff will be eliminated long before a business owner's personal income is diminished. And THAT is how taxes hurt the economy. All that is true enough, but your analysis is incomplete, Jay. What happens to the money taxed from businesses and consumers? The government spends it. Your local government buys a new garbage truck, and hires a couple of guys to drive it. Or builds a school, which creates jobs for contractors, masons, electricians, plumbers, etc. They spend almost all the money they earn. The Feds pay the troops who in turn buy food and other supplies. The Feds buys C-130s (even if the Air Force doesn't want them (!) creating jobs for Lockheed-Martin employees. They in turn buy new cars, gas to run them, etc. A couple of those employees might even spend a night at your place on their way to OSH! vince norris |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
But it does not necessarily raise the price of bread by the full amount of
the tax. The increased price will reduce demand and to optimize profit the bakers will absorb some of the increase. The general observation that consumers pay all the taxes paid by their suppliers is of course completely correct. Strictly speaking, an increase in price will NOT reduce "demand," it will decrease the *quantity* of bread purchased. Economics textbooks define demand as a "schedule of the various quantities people buy at various prices...." The demand for some products is quite "inelastic," which means the quantity does not vary much as the price changes. I would imagine the demand for bread is fairly inelastic, so that the quantity would not change very much if the price rise were small or moderate. And aren't your two sentences contradictory? If bakers absorb some of the tax, then consumers do not pay "all" the taxes paid by suppliers. vince norris |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
"vincent p. norris" wrote in message ... And aren't your two sentences contradictory? If bakers absorb some of the tax, then consumers do not pay "all" the taxes paid by suppliers. Not contradictory at all, just different domains. 100% of the income for a baker derrives from the sale of goods (renting the apartment upstairs would be a separate business, for example). Therefore, the consumers pay every single penny of tax that the baker owes. Now, if the baker's taxes increase significantly, market conditions may prevent the baker from increasing product prices enough to fully cover those taxes. So, part of what was the baker's profit now goes to the government. The consumers still pay all the taxes the baker has, but the baker now gets less pay. |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
You idiots that post a two-line answer without bothering to snip the top fifty
lines of repetitive drivel are wasting bandwidth, don't you? Jim "CB" shared these priceless pearls of wisdom: - -"Wdtabor" wrote in message ... - In article ANB_c.122971$Fg5.92285@attbi_s53, "Jay Honeck" - writes: - - - Their customers have to pay for it. No business really pays a tax, -ultimately - all taxes (including FICA and Personal income) wind up buried in the - cost Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup) VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor http://www.rst-engr.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aluminum differences | Lou Parker | Home Built | 16 | August 25th 04 06:48 PM |
Differences between Garmin 295 and 196? | carlos | Owning | 17 | January 29th 04 08:55 PM |
differences in loc/dme and loc with dme appch at KRUT? | Richard Hertz | Instrument Flight Rules | 19 | January 25th 04 07:49 PM |
Differences in models of Foster500 loran | Ray Andraka | Owning | 1 | September 3rd 03 10:47 PM |
question: differences between epoxy layup and plaster | Morgans | Home Built | 3 | August 6th 03 04:46 AM |