Rep vs. Dem Differences

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

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

"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.

"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.

"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.

.... 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

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

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

"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.

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