tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post6215987816103392613..comments2024-03-28T10:08:06.291-05:00Comments on Give2Attain: CEO to Worker Pay RatioJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-53371789845694357052014-04-19T20:32:01.802-05:002014-04-19T20:32:01.802-05:00"Which means that the seller of the used good..."Which means that the seller of the used goods gets 23 percent dded to his profit margin,"<br /><br />Not even remotely correct. The person who bought the used goods either paid the current "inflated" price (that includes all the intermediate taxes), or they paid the new "price neutral" price and the 23% tax. Either way, they paid for that item, when it was new, exactly what somebody who buys a new one would pay. When they sell it, they cut the price below the new (price + tax) price because it is used, just as they would today. The balance between new and used commerce would be exactly what it is today. And a sales tax is a lot more difficult to avoid than is an income tax with 70,000 pages of exceptions and loopholes. jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-63549930666181720852014-04-16T05:58:25.934-05:002014-04-16T05:58:25.934-05:00Used goods will sell for the same relative cost to... Used goods will sell for the same relative cost to new as is currently the case.<br /><br />That would be the way it works. Which means that the seller of the used goods gets 23 percent dded to his profit margin, because he doesn't have to pay tax and his competitor selling the same thing new, does. The fair tax is a subsidy to flea markets.<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-38055304729894317952014-04-15T19:04:47.617-05:002014-04-15T19:04:47.617-05:00I repeat. Used goods will sell for the same relat...I repeat. Used goods will sell for the same relative cost to new as is currently the case. The tax was paid once on the used item, and doesn't get charged again. The new item has the tax charged. There will be absolutely nothing like the number of people that invested in the cattle business because of the tax breaks and ONLY because of the tax breaks. jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-62785117302535021962014-04-15T07:53:39.501-05:002014-04-15T07:53:39.501-05:00We get back to a system in which economic decision...We get back to a system in which economic decisions are based on what is best for the individual making them, rather than on the tax consequences of the decision. <br /><br />Believe me on this, taxing retail sales will have an extraordinary affect on how people make decisions. As I understand it, the fair tax will not apply to used goods, which will have a huge impact on the durable goods market. When you are talking about a 25 percent cost savings, practically every transaction will revolve around ways to avoid it, legally, and illegally as well.<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-61009029320759708142014-04-13T07:22:05.881-05:002014-04-13T07:22:05.881-05:00That is correct. Those buying materials to be bui...That is correct. Those buying materials to be built into other things-- companies or craftspeople, do not pay the tax, but charge it to their end-users or retail customers. If they sell to someone later in the production cycle-- business to business-- there is no tax. If you sell your house or car, there is no tax, because it's used and the tax has been paid. The price of second-hand goods will not go down, however, relative to new, so there is no tax advantage to buying second hand, just the normal savings as you find today. <br /><br />We get back to a system in which economic decisions are based on what is best for the individual making them, rather than on the tax consequences of the decision. jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-46826210396307170762014-04-13T06:14:33.585-05:002014-04-13T06:14:33.585-05:00the tax is universal, and NO, there will be no tax...the tax is universal, and NO, there will be no taxes collected "along the way," because this is a RETAIL sales tax<br /><br />So people who buy and sell stuff not at retail aren't taxed. Good deal for them.<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-75986918728578411782014-04-12T20:14:19.092-05:002014-04-12T20:14:19.092-05:00"Presumably everything everybody buys along t..."Presumably everything everybody buys along the way will be subject to the tax, or is that another exemption to be carved out of a supposedly universal tax?"<br /><br />Yes, the tax is universal, and NO, there will be no taxes collected "along the way," because this is a RETAIL sales tax. I inquired about that, specifically, because of the way my house was built. Some of the material the workmen bought, and added into the cost of the house. Some of the material I bought directly. The material the workmen bought would NOT be taxed, because their price to me for the home would be taxed. The stuff I bought WOULD be taxed, because I am the retail customer. So the price of the house is the same either way, whether I buy all the material, or let the carpenter buy it, and it's the same price as it would have been under the existing system. Very simple.<br /><br />I understand the concern that some businesses would continue to charge their old price and pocket the extra 23% profit. Since liberals have done so much to suppress the competitive free market, there may be a bit of that, but most consumers are going to be put off by a sudden 23% jump in price. jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-27182734407923845502014-04-12T08:12:42.372-05:002014-04-12T08:12:42.372-05:00What I find interesting is how blithely people ign...What I find interesting is how blithely people ignore the fact that there is a hidden tax of 23% on everything they buy today, because everybody's taxes are added to the price charged the next consumer in the supply chain. <br /><br />We don't know what the impact on the supply chain might be. Presumably everything everybody buys along the way will be subject to the tax, or is that another exemption to be carved out of a supposedly universal tax? Lawyers would have a lot of fun with that.<br /><br />More generally, taxes like a lot of other things a cost of doing businesses, and like all costs, if businesses can pocket a reduction rather than passing it along to their customers, they will.<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-51115962878325788802014-04-12T07:36:28.719-05:002014-04-12T07:36:28.719-05:00"What I find interesting is how blithely it i..."What I find interesting is how blithely it is assumed that a 23% tax won't affect prices."<br /><br />What I find interesting is how blithely people ignore the fact that there is a hidden tax of 23% on everything they buy today, because everybody's taxes are added to the price charged the next consumer in the supply chain. If all of those taxes are removed, as they MUST be before the FAIR tax becomes effective (it's written into the legislation), then prices drop 23% before the new sales tax is added. PRICE NEUTRAL.jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-19676665661384303392014-04-12T06:58:29.286-05:002014-04-12T06:58:29.286-05:00It's a completely different animal. Battles wi...It's a completely different animal. Battles will have to be fought over everything. What I find interesting is how blithely it is assumed that a 23% tax won't affect prices. It will, for reasons that are pretty obvious. If you have a product for which there is an inelastic demand, like a life saving drug, You will simply mark the price up 23 percent. Prices for stuff, gas for one, are often determined in global market places. It too will simply be marked up 23 percent. These kinds of interactions will occur everywhere, often with less visible results. It will be very difficult in just about every case to determine where the tax burden lies.<br /><br />A friend of mine, a conservative economist, is very critical of centralized planning. I am not actually sure what bothers him more the planning or the centralizing of the planning. In any case, whatever the virtues of decentralized planning, it does, like the fair tax, aid in the shifting away responsibility for unpopular things from politicians, something all politicians really like.<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-48611738356916617642014-04-11T14:01:51.131-05:002014-04-11T14:01:51.131-05:00"The Fair Tax would be enormously complex to ..."The Fair Tax would be enormously complex to implement, and no one has any idea of what the impact on the economy might be...."<br /><br />You're talking through your hat. It would not be complex at all. 45 states already impose a sales tax, so the mechanism is already there. We would go from having 100 million individual income tax returns filed down to 1 million sales tax returns, from only the retail outlets. And the filings would be vastly more simple compared to current corporate tax forms that deal with all of the exceptions, exclusions, etc. The impact of the FAIR tax has been thoroughly studied and the proposed rate is both revenue-neutral to the government and price-neutral to consumers. The other economic effects are to eliminate the roughly $300 billion in compliance costs with the current system, improved compliance with the new system (even drug dealers buy things), new incentives for savings and investment that will grow the economy, automatic reform of the Social Security system, and dropping the cost of our exports by 23%, making us newly competitive in the world markets.<br /><br />As for consumption being adversely affected, you're still thinking like a Democrat. There is no increase in the total cost of goods! The sales tax applies only after all other taxes have been removed from the supply chain, so this new tax is price-neutral. And with people taking home the full value of their paycheck, there will likely be an incentive to buy MORE. Why anyone would want to continue to object to a reform they don't understand just to defend the current system is simply beyond me.jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-17363342843328688032014-04-11T06:04:15.668-05:002014-04-11T06:04:15.668-05:00That's why it makes some sense not to make fro...That's why it makes some sense not to make from whence the dollars come, nor to whom, the basis for the tax system. Taxing them when they are spent on consumption is vastly less complex all the way around.<br /><br />The whence they come from is the whom. The Fair Tax would be enormously complex to implement, and no one has any idea of what the impact on the economy might be. We do note that our current economics struggles are the result of insufficient demand. People aren't buying enough stuff. Consumption is depressed. How would adding a huge tax to what we consume help with that?<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-2443335111985145262014-04-10T17:54:50.498-05:002014-04-10T17:54:50.498-05:00That's why it makes some sense not to make fro...That's why it makes some sense not to make from whence the dollars come, nor to whom, the basis for the tax system. Taxing them when they are spent on consumption is vastly less complex all the way around. Having just filed, I can attest that our current system is incomprehensible, and if I never had to file again, it would be a boon. jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-10171137242983040222014-04-10T09:33:06.373-05:002014-04-10T09:33:06.373-05:00That still assumes that every dollar is taxed at t...That still assumes that every dollar is taxed at that "nominal" rate, though, which as we all know and have complained about,<br /><br />yes that's very much of an assumption. The fact is we tax dollars in wildly inconsistent ways. The problem is that it's really hard to tax dollars uniformly, when they are received in uniform ways, often not even in the form of dollars.<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-75472879060338373372014-04-10T08:41:30.276-05:002014-04-10T08:41:30.276-05:00Dang, you are correct! I should have checked the ...Dang, you are correct! I should have checked the math. That still assumes that every dollar is taxed at that "nominal" rate, though, which as we all know and have complained about, is not the least bit true, and not the least bit fair. My other complaint is that, if it WERE true, it would be hugely unfair to rich and poor alike. The rich should pay more actual taxes, but not at a higher nominal RATE, which is now the case. And the poor should not be paying at the lower nominal rate, because they (at least supposedly) have no "disposable income" and need every penny just to keep food on the table. The FAIR tax solves both problems handily. jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-32186721975746556032014-04-10T05:21:40.870-05:002014-04-10T05:21:40.870-05:00But that is "stepwise progressive," not ...But that is "stepwise progressive," not "perfectly progressive."<br /><br />Although the tax code has brackets, as it applied the rate of taxation in the highest bracket does increase slightly with each dollar earned.<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-29834149327969369282014-04-09T18:37:06.289-05:002014-04-09T18:37:06.289-05:00But that is "stepwise progressive," not ...But that is "stepwise progressive," not "perfectly progressive." And as you point out, NOBODY pays the nominal tax rate, FAR from it. jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-28915817604029826832014-04-09T10:56:17.255-05:002014-04-09T10:56:17.255-05:00What I mean by a progressive tax code is that each...What I mean by a progressive tax code is that each successive dollar is taxed at a slightly higher rate than the previous. <br /><br />Interesting definition. Actually, if it did work, That's what our bracketed system would do. I don't have the exact numbers before me but let's say the second highest bracket is 35 percent topping out at 4000,000, and the highest tax bracket is 39 percent is applied to income above that. I am roughing the numbers here, but basically what that means is that with every dollar the earner makes over 400,000, which is taxed at the higher rate his effective tax rate moves but never quite reaches 39 percent. For whatever that's worth.<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-69993883947255642742014-04-09T10:49:35.581-05:002014-04-09T10:49:35.581-05:00Not according to Democrats in Congress. They think...Not according to Democrats in Congress. They think they can spend whatever they want because they've got your grandkids' credit card.<br /><br />It's our credit cards. They have just been borrowing it to pay for stuff.<br /><br />We all know stuff isn't it free. It's just that Republicans have convinced themselves that Democrats under the illusion that things are free, and it literally freaks them out. I was struck by Annette Meeks' column in the Strib on Monday. She feels that the way we tax ourselves to pay for roads is insufficiently transparent. Her belief is that if we actually knew how much we paid for roads we would, well I don't know what we would do. It's not as if road repair can go unpaid for. With my belief with Annette is that the reason she thinks there is a problem with transparency is because she happens to be wearing blinders.<br /><br />By the way, I do understand the other side of the argument that taxes should be paid once a year and not pay check by paycheck. If my employer had to pay me once a year, I have no doubt at all that the number on the check would send him to sticker shock.<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-18712340269150939892014-04-09T10:42:01.719-05:002014-04-09T10:42:01.719-05:00Prices will drop by 23% because, at every step of ...<br />Prices will drop by 23% because, at every step of the production, NOBODY pays out any taxes.<br /><br />Again, costs aren't necessarily linked to price. For example, a seller of a life saving drug will simply allow the price to increase 23 percent because his customer must buy his drug.<br /><br />I have a list out there, of things that baffle me, and one of those things is how people who proclaim the virtues of markets have so little understanding of how markets work and the different ways they work. People who will explain to you the wonders of the laws of supply and demand, will almost in the next sentence tell you that prices are determined on a cost plus basis.<br /><br />Cognitive dissonance anyone?<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-76088050891130902472014-04-09T09:19:25.567-05:002014-04-09T09:19:25.567-05:00Mr. Bartlett obviously doesn't understand the ...Mr. Bartlett obviously doesn't understand the FAIR tax. While he has some valid concerns, he completely overlooks price neutrality, and insists mightily that Congress will never allow it to be passed as intended. The first is a common criticism but completely irrelevant and unworthy of a man of his learning. The second is a very big concern, but, after all, that is why the concept is so attractive, because Congress CAN'T "tinker" with it to claw out millions of little exceptions for their friends and campaign donors. One estimate is that 70% of the lobbyists in D.C. would be eliminated, because without these tax code "favors" they have nothing to work for. jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-14667825233198926542014-04-09T09:01:28.427-05:002014-04-09T09:01:28.427-05:00"Is this the way we should think of it [payro..."Is this the way we should think of it [payroll withholding]? Do we receive governmental services one day a year?" -- Hiram<br /><br />OK, then let us each write a check once a month. Most of us don't care about money we never see, but make it "real" like this, where you have it in your hands and have to write the check, and you DO care. That's the point. I'm reminded of the young man who came home from work with his first paycheck, and angrily asked his father, "Who is this FICA guy and why is he getting all my money?"jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-34947274414553421132014-04-09T08:54:48.681-05:002014-04-09T08:54:48.681-05:00"FairTax folks also forget that by applying t..."FairTax folks also forget that by applying the tax to government purchases, they're actually implicitly raising spending... " -- Sean<br /><br />Since the tax is set so as to be price neutral, it would do no such thing. Of course, the federal government would be paying taxes to itself on any goods and services it purchased at "retail," but my guess is that is a small fraction of total federal spending. jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-24860191372099929602014-04-09T08:47:09.474-05:002014-04-09T08:47:09.474-05:00"Sure the CEOs deserve more than their worker..."Sure the CEOs deserve more than their workers, for me it is a matter of how much more." -- Laurie<br /><br />You are free to base your shopping decisions on anything you like, I hope. But the one thing I refuse to do is to allow the notion that somehow GOVERNMENT is the one who decides how much money anyone is "allowed" to make. Government already thinks they can set a minimum wage without consequences like lost jobs and higher prices. How would you feel if the minwage were $9.50 and government set a max wage of $10? Would that be fair enough to suit you? jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-47456469169528336522014-04-09T08:40:10.506-05:002014-04-09T08:40:10.506-05:00"Stuff must be paid for." -- Hiram
Not ..."Stuff must be paid for." -- Hiram<br /><br />Not according to Democrats in Congress. They think they can spend whatever they want because they've got your grandkids' credit card.<br /><br />And it wouldn't be bad except that we don't NEED all that "stuff," and we ought to be buying it on sale, not at Neiman Marcus markups.jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.com