What is your view on the National Retail Tax?
- Thread starter UrbanPancake
- Start date
I didn't know Bush was for it. I *am* for it IF it means the additional abolition of income tax. It virtually eliminates ALL taxes (except state and local taxes); it probably saves Social Security; the versions I've seen eliminate taxes on the poor (because there's no payroll taxes); the costs of goods actually shrink prior to the final tax; all taxes are rolled into the price of items; and in prosperous times it virtually explodes federal revenues. Frankly, I only see three bad things - and one is just logistics (changing the Constitution for the income tax). Another is the phase-in, and the subsequent disruption of the economy. And finally, the amount of fiscal restraint that needs to be built-in - because a tax like this is too easily exploited by money hungry Congress.UrbanPancake said:
It also invites investment from other countries, who can set up shop here - BRING JOBS - and they won't be taxed.
Frankly, it's a great idea.
UrbanPancake
Right=Wrong/Left=Right
ylexot said:So, US companies don't want to gain a competative edge over foreign competition now?
Companies lower prices when they a) are financially solid enough to do so and b) there is competition. The competition is there already, so the driver would have to be a company's financial stability (they can afford the revenue intake hit to gain market share). If this tax idea reduces a company's taxes (it won't be a massive reduction), then I can see prices coming down, but I think DeMint's 22% is waaaaay optimistic.
Companies can charge whatever they want for a product. That's their prerogative and the Justice Dept can't do anything about it. Price-fixing is an issue when multiple companies conspire to raise prices of the entire market.
Well said.
Some time ago I posted a Neal Boortz article describing many of the consequences. One of which, surprisingly, was that many things might actually go DOWN in price, because they are already heavily taxed all through the manufacturing process. Much of that cost will be eliminated.
But that doesn't make sense to me. If the new tax is built into the cost of everything, doesn't that mean that making something will cost a LOT more? Because every purchase along the way will reflect a 23% increase in cost?
On the other hand, I think no matter HOW expensive things get, I wouldn't mind bringing my entire paycheck home - my mortgage and car payment wouldn't change.
But that doesn't make sense to me. If the new tax is built into the cost of everything, doesn't that mean that making something will cost a LOT more? Because every purchase along the way will reflect a 23% increase in cost?
On the other hand, I think no matter HOW expensive things get, I wouldn't mind bringing my entire paycheck home - my mortgage and car payment wouldn't change.
UrbanPancake
Right=Wrong/Left=Right
itsbob said:
I think your mistaken. It is the conservative republicans that like to spend. They have created a deficit, and now they want to reform SS, Bush hasn't vetoed any spending bills in congress. Bush is also preparing to ask for 75 billion dollars more for Iraq. So can we all agree that it doesn't matter if your a republican or a democrat, its just that if your a politician you just want to spend the peoples tax dollars? Am I wrong?
UrbanPancake
Right=Wrong/Left=Right
SamSpade said:
Well, if you bought a car under the new tax system, your car would be taxed under the new system. It would reflect a 15-20% increase. But the price of the car may go down. I don't know if a company will really reduce their prices by that much or not, they could become greedy, and see the potential for price gouging.
sleuth
Livin' Like Thanksgivin'
Price gouging is illegal.UrbanPancake said:
Obviously the administration would have to be aggressive at enforcing the laws.
My guess is that it wouldn't happen all at once. I think they'll do a phase-in process, over 2-4 years, with a national sales tax gradually going up, and income taxes gradually being abolished.
A radical change in the tax system overnight would confuse many businesses who have made plans based on the current tax system. There's too many unknowns as to how it will affect businesses to do it all at once.
Not to mention, government can't change that fast. Where are all those IRS workers gonna go if we're switching the tax code overnight. :shrug:
I coulda predicted that answer.
You're basing your analysis on a mere four years of Bush - most of us are basing it on forty or more years of Democrats actually *embracing* the idea and declaring *themselves* as "tax and spend" liberals.UrbanPancake said:
But a few things:
1).There's always been a deficit. (There's also always been a DEBT, which is a separate thing).The surpluses you heard about were budgetary tricks. If it were true, we'd have paid down some of the debt. We didn't. It got spent. The closest we came to a surplus was one year late in Clinton's administration, where the on-budget numbers seemed to be on the plus-side. But no true surpluses ever materialized.
2). Until the Republicans had their shutdown/showdown with Clinton in '95, the Democrats were out and out *against* any kind of balancing the budget. That's WHY the government shut down - Clinton wouldn't agree to it. One of the planks in the Contract with America was the balanced budget amendment. Killed by Democrats.
3). Democrats have long been on board the premise that deficit spending is *preferable* - because paying back yesteday's debt with future dollars is wise policy (since they're worth less money in a growing economy). Also, because the economy grows, a deficit of twenty years ago of some 100 billion dollars is easily recouped with today's revenues (because there's a LOT more of it).
4). It took a maverick like Ross Perot to get on the national scene and show everyone that THAT kind of thinking just digs you in deeper and forever. Democrats LOVED to make fun of this guy.
5). Democrats in their decades of rule of Congress were never distinguished by fiscal restraint. Unless it was a military program, you didn't see Democrats *cutting* budgets. That is and will be the traditional role of Republicans. I find it ironic that Democrats built up so much clout spending and giving money away, and Republicans have for decades chastised them on it - and now that the tables are turned, it's suddenly a BAD thing to spend money.
6). Social Security is a pathetic Ponzi scheme that has grown far beyond its intent as a marginal and *voluntary* tax. And the pattern cannot work - right now, we pay money IN one year, and payouts go out the same year - and Congress spends the leftovers. NO MONEY accumulates or makes any kind of earnings. Frankly, you'd be better off just buying *bonds*. At least, they pay off in the long run. Since inception, SS is a zero-interest loan you give to Uncle Sam, and it earns no interest.
Oddly enough, virtually eveyone I know INVESTS their money in antipation of retirement - because they want SOME money to be there. But for some crazy reason, some of them are AGAINST the same money in SS being invested. Think about it. Why do you invest your money? Because you want it to grow until you retire. SS doesn't grow at all - why is it wrong to invest ANY part of it? (Current Republican plans are for incoming workers to have the OPTION of investing a PORTION of SS). Why is this BAD? Because a Republican wants it?
7). While I think SOME of it is BS, Bush says the primary reason he hasn't vetoed any spending bills is because the White House carefully works with Congress before the bills are completed. Not sure I believe it; there needs to be some fear of the White House in Congress.
8). You can't raise taxes during a recession and hope for it to end; I don't fault Bush for cutting taxes and spending as he did in the deepest part of the recession - doing otherwise just deepends it. He does need to exercise a little more restraint.
9). Spending people's tax dollars is what the Government DOES. It doesn't operate on anything else. If you're against the Government frivolously frittering away your money, you're halfway to becoming a Republican. Bush's spending hasn't just irritated Democrats (well - Democrats NOT in Congress; they're not bellyaching).
UrbanPancake
Right=Wrong/Left=Right
Sure. I guess Republicans are answer to all your prayers.
-I think you forget that each Republican is a person and they have different agendas based on the regions they represent. They will pass spending bills if it means their region gets a slice of the money cake. And that's regardless of what their political party is. And who declared themselves tax and spend? That was something that was thrown around during the 80's by republicans.
-I think you forget that each Republican is a person and they have different agendas based on the regions they represent. They will pass spending bills if it means their region gets a slice of the money cake. And that's regardless of what their political party is. And who declared themselves tax and spend? That was something that was thrown around during the 80's by republicans.
UrbanPancake
Right=Wrong/Left=Right
SamSpade said:
What I was saying is, if big corps don't reduce the prices to reflect the change in taxes. They may figure that the public is used to spending 250 on television sets, and they may not reduce the price to reflect the savings they will receive in taxes. Companies usually don't have the public in mind. They care about profits, I'm not saying they will reduce prices, or not. I'm just giving you a what if situation.
It's not unusual for someone to take a derisive label and make it their own. Everything from "Christian" to "Yankee" was originally meant as a slur. I've heard several refer to themselves as such, usually followed by a phrase like "money is meant to be spent; what are supposed to do with it? Save it?".UrbanPancake said:
It's said many times in Washington there are not two parties, but 535. In that respect, you're right. Similarly, while representatives more or less come from "the people", the Senate tends to regard itself with substantially more snobbery and elitism, and long-time Senators consider their status in Washington to be EQUAL with the White House - as *individuals* (not as a body). As such, they all have their agendas, and as a party, they're often obsessed with their side being proven "right" than what they were sent there to do. I think everyone does that eventually, in politics.
Yes, some have their own pork-barrel projects, and that's not strictly Republicans by a long shot (what ever happened to Proxmire?) - ask Robert Byrd, the ringleader of such projects. And Republicans do this too - we've certainly spend an enormous amount of money on military projects we don't need, and I don't need to remind anyone down here in St. Mary's about THAT. But usually they are not just trying to secure votes as much as JOBS.
UrbanPancake
Right=Wrong/Left=Right
SamSpade said:
That is all I was trying to say. I just don't like it when everyone comes down on Democrats as tax and spend, when Republicans do the same thing. Taxing and spending crosses party lines. Money has no party. Anyway I'm glad we agree on this small issue.
Sure they care about profits. Would YOU start a company, work 90 hours a week, just so you can give away the fruit of your labor, and go bankrupt? As much as corporations are vilified, that's why they exist.UrbanPancake said:
But suppose the prices DIDN'T go down? You're still getting your whole paycheck. Relatively speaking, it's still cheaper for you, because now you have about 40% more money.
Secondly - suppose RCA decides its TV's will cost 250 still. What's to keep SONY or Sharp from saying "screw RCA, WE'RE selling ours for 100 AND we'll still make a profit". Like I said, gouging only succeeds with monopolies and collusion among competitors. If the whole world WANTS a Mazda Miata, and you're the only one who makes it, you can charge whatever price the market will demand, and you'll price it optimally (since there's a limit to what people will pay with respect to volume - there's an optimum price). BUT if someone ELSE makes a Mazda Miata (legally), they can beat you by selling for less, and your optimum price goes down. Competition and free enterprise are what keeps prices reasonable with respect to demand.
Last edited:
Just to a point; if you hear a political commercial where someone says "Joe Jones wants to CUT spending on the xxxx program; limit spending on the xxxxx project, and wants to eliminate the xxxxxx program", it wouldn't be hard to guess he's a Republican. (This would be a commerical *criticizing* Joe Jones). Cutting taxes, reducing spending and balancing budgets have been the staple of Republican platforms for decades. It IS true in the big picture, over the long haul. No Democrat has run for President on the issue of fiscal restraint (well, Kerry did, but he was reaching, at best).UrbanPancake said:That is all I was trying to say. I just don't like it when everyone comes down on Democrats as tax and spend, when Republicans do the same thing. Taxing and spending crosses party lines. Money has no party. Anyway I'm glad we agree on this small issue.
UrbanPancake
Right=Wrong/Left=Right
That's true. (Like I said in an earlier post, I really haven't studied the Sales Tax and researched it to have a clear position on the issue)
I would still like to see some numbers crunched to see if this system could really support our current government spending, and the military. I'm very skeptical of this. It sounds like a good, simple plan, but politicians can make any simple plan very complex and complicated.
I would still like to see some numbers crunched to see if this system could really support our current government spending, and the military. I'm very skeptical of this. It sounds like a good, simple plan, but politicians can make any simple plan very complex and complicated.
UrbanPancake
Right=Wrong/Left=Right
SamSpade said:
But if he wants to cut off spending on one program it's because he wants to spend more on another. The military comes to mind. Or faith based initiatives.
Bush never suggested SPENDING money on faith-based initiatives; only that faith-based organizations could participate and/or compete with non-religious organizations for federal funds.UrbanPancake said:But if he wants to cut off spending on one program it's because he wants to spend more on another. The military comes to mind. Or faith based initiatives.
It just meant that the Salvation Army or the Christian Children's Fund could compete fairly with Habitat for Humanity or Amnesty International for federal assistance. They shouldn't be locked out on the basis of religion if the work they are doing is not religious, but charitable.