PDA

View Full Version : $2.5 trillion in spending cuts over ten years.?



Qtec
01-21-2011, 07:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Republican Study Committee Member Can’t Explain How His Spending Cut Plan Adds Up…Because It Doesn’t

The Republican Study Committee (RSC) today released a plan that supposedly outlines $2.5 trillion in spending cuts over ten years. But as The Wonk Room pointed out, only $330 billion of the $2.5 trillion is specified, while the rest is simply hand-waving about keeping non-defense discretionary spending at the 2006 level for a decade. As TPM’s Brian Buetler put it, “In other words, it punts the question of what to cut to future Congresses, which could just as easily bust the cap.”

Today, Rep. John Campbell (R-CA), an RSC member, appeared on Fox News with Neil Cavuto, and Cavuto also evidently noticed that the vast bulk of the RSC’s savings come from unspecified cuts. When he asked Campbell explain how the RSC magically turned $330 billion into $2.5 trillion, Campbell dropped the ball:

CAVUTO: I don’t want to pick it apart too much, because you always appreciate the efforts at spending cuts, but a lot of these eliminations and reductions, Congressman, realistically come to $330 billion of the $2.5 trillion of proposed cuts. So, in other words, the real meat, up-front cuts, while still substantial, about $330 billion, ain’t the $2.5 trillion. So what is the more realistic figure?

CAMPBELL: The more realistic figure than the two, oh, you mean other than what’s listed on here?

Campbell then proceeded to incorrectly claim that the $2.5 trillion in savings is a result of multiplying the $330 billion in specific cuts out over a ten year budget window, which would actually amount to more than $2.5 trillion in savings.

It’s not surprising, of course, that the RSC would be hesitant to place on paper the practical implications of its plan. Returning non-defense discretionary spending to the 2006 level — and then keeping it there — would result in billions of dollars in cuts to vital and popular programs and agencies like Pell Grants, the FBI, the Coast Guard, the National Institutes of Health and the federal prison system.

As Steve Benen pointed out, the RSC’s plan would also be “devastating” for the labor market. “Indeed, if lawmakers were to get together to plot how Congress could deliberately increase unemployment, their plan would look an awful lot like this one,” he wrote. “The RSC proposal would deliberately fire thousands of civilian workers, force states to make sweeping job cuts, and lay off thousands more who work in transportation and infrastructure.” Here is the Center for American Progress’ plan for meaningful deficit reduction by 2015. </div></div>

watch it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8fuO_07xT4&feature=player_embedded)

Q

Sev
01-21-2011, 07:50 AM
Eliminating both farm and foreign subsidies will save almost 600 billion a year. That has been proposed by sevarl congressman. It may prove to be a good move.

llotter
01-21-2011, 07:59 AM
Plus eliminating the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Labor would also be very helpful

Sev
01-21-2011, 08:04 AM
Indeed it would.
Followed by the war on drugs, War on poverty and the Great Society.

Gayle in MD
01-21-2011, 09:07 AM
This fiasco to repeal the health Reform, is absurd, and a waste of time.

More Republican Bravado. So far, their new Congressional Majority, has been nothing but yet another colossal, grandiose Republican waste of time and money.

Just as Americans eventually saw through all of the illegalities, and the Gingrich/Delay/Bush/Cheney/Rove lies, slander, abuse of power and waste of treasure, gross incompetence, Americans then had to bear the resulting damages to our democracy, yet we will once again, have a much needed review of what happens to our country when power falls into the hands of Conservatives Without Conscience.

When a political party, cowtows to their own radical, uneducated, misguided fringe element, by practicing unethical, un-American activities, which only hold the country back, while claiming to be led by God, as their only justification, it can only further damage the future, for all.

What else can we expect from the Party of demonizing, drama junkies!

But then, these are the same people who were quite able and willing, to remain silent, or even defend, a Republoican president who has shamed the nation forever, by endorsing an unprecedented and unnecessary use of torture against our enemies, and against some, who were merely innocent by-standers. Against our Treaty Agreements, against our Constitution, and against American principles.

Neo-Republicans, do not unite, rather, their usual slander, lies, approval of such things as torture, wars for profit, vicious and dangerous tactics using divisive political discourse of personal destruction, all, without conscience, and all from the historic so called, "Conservative" Republican Modus Operandi of delegitimising any President who is not a Republican President, and hence, ONLY more damage, results, which we can ill afford, at this time.

They have proven, once again, that regardless of the State of our Union, or our current, urgent need to recover from their own disastrous legacy, still, they miss, and seek what is not a teaching moment, as they now revert right back to the same petty and ineffective tactics of their past, replete with the same divisive obstructionism, deceit and faux moral authority, of the Gingrich/Delay/Rove/Bush/Cheney styled, deceit and destruction, and as pawns, for Corporate Interests. Still, piercing the sensibilities of educated people, with call for the Free but UNREGULATED Market, to solve everything. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

They will give "Haircuts" to only those who can ill afford them, as they arrange to continue to redistribute American wealth, to ONLY the wealthy, the core crux of our economic problems in the first place.

This is a reminder of their irresponsible approach, to governing. A reminder of how when they lose, they attack, and reminicent of what they wrought upon our nation, when they set out to delegitimize President Clinton, fought and insisted on TRYING to impeach, for unimpeachable acts, as they tore the country apart, wasted billions, and all in spite of the fact that even their own numbers at the time, showed that over 60% of Republicans, were against impeachment, yet they decided to fulfill the wishes of their radical, unthinking, fringe element, and paid a very high price, for that, afterward. They are making the same mistake, right now.

Even before our current President was sworn in, they had hammered the public, with ridiculous lies and disgraceful accusations, the usual Republican backlash, when they lose, and the usual delegitimizing process, aimed at their fearful and ignorant radical fringe, as they capitalized on ignorance, in order to build power, even using shameful threats of violence, to their imagined advantage.

They have now painted themselves into a very dirty corner, and that is precisely where they belong.

They are hanging themselves, AGAIN! And they are hanging all of us in the process. Hubris! It's ugly head, once again.

G.

Sev
01-21-2011, 09:39 AM
You know if you changed the names you would just as easily be describing the democrats.

pooltchr
01-21-2011, 11:52 AM
In her little world, only Republicans can be responsible for anything bad. Democrats are never responsible.

Steve

Soflasnapper
01-21-2011, 12:17 PM
The pitifully small GOP plans (relative to the job that they claim needs to be done) show how even they cannot find cuts in spending sufficient to get the job of reducing the deficit to zero without using tax hikes as part of the equation, at least within the parameters of their own political viability.

Posters like Sev can call for the elimination of the Great Society programs. GOP Congressional leaders know that all that remains of those programs is Medicare and Medicaid (the CETA program was its other last remnant, and Reagan saw it canceled early on). While it's absolutely true that if you leave the payroll tax in place, while canceling the benefits they are supposed to pay for, you'd save a ton of money. But you'd also throw 40 million plus retirees under the bus, into dire poverty. Any such proposal would see the defeat of its supporters.

Let's give them the full credit for $330 billion cut this (well, next) year. That's only a quarter of the way, leaving 3/4rs of the deficit still there.

It's pretty simple math. Under the Bush tax programs that we've now continued, the federal government receipts amount to about 17% of gdp as an equivalent number. That is about 2 percentage points below the average through the '80s and '90s. How much less, then, is 2% of gdp, which is a structural deficit built into having such lowered tax rates overall (the American people are now at the lowest aggregate tax bite since 50 years ago).

The gdp is about $14.5 trillion. 2% of that figure is $290 billion a year

pooltchr
01-21-2011, 12:38 PM
I hate to break the news, but even if they raised the tax rate to 100% for everybody, it wouldn't cover our debt.

It's going to take real cuts in spending...and it may already be too late for that to do any good.

Steve

Soflasnapper
01-21-2011, 01:14 PM
Let us set the parameters of the size of the problem.

The deficit is about $1.2 trillion, give or take.

That is 1,200 billion dollars.

Any cut of $1 billion is 1 out of more than 1,000 to be cut, which is .1% of the total. Any cut of $1 million is 1/1000 of that tiny amount.

Therefore, cuts in the amounts of single digit billions do not get you very far (since you'd need 1,000 of them), and cuts in the millions are vanishingly small by comparison.

Even at double digit billions, $10 billion, you'd need 100 of them at that size.

So what you need may be effectively impossible on the spending cut size alone, unless you can get several $200 billion sized cuts a year. Including these million dollar cuts is really conning the rubes. "hey, a million, it's a lot of money!" Not in the context of 1,200,000 millions, which is the size of the deficit.

eg8r
01-21-2011, 01:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The pitifully small GOP plans (relative to the job that they claim needs to be done) show how even they cannot find cuts in spending sufficient to get the job of reducing the deficit to zero without using tax hikes as part of the equation</div></div>If you are going to raise taxes then make the percentages equal across the board. Just because you neighbor makes more money doesn't mean he is any more responsible than you in helping pay down this debt.

eg8r

eg8r
01-21-2011, 01:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let us set the parameters of the size of the problem.

The deficit is about $1.2 trillion, give or take.

That is 1,200 billion dollars.

Any cut of $1 billion is 1 out of more than 1,000 to be cut, which is .1% of the total. Any cut of $1 million is 1/1000 of that tiny amount.

Therefore, cuts in the amounts of single digit billions do not get you very far (since you'd need 1,000 of them), and cuts in the millions are vanishingly small by comparison.
</div></div>It seems like you propose doing nothing unless the impact is greater than lets say 50%. There is a saying that creditors nickle and dime you to death. Or banks, or stores, etc will nickle and dime you to death. You don't lose all your money on big ticket items rather it is on a bunch of small ticket items. The way to get out of debt is to reverse that same logic. You don't just go sell your house and car to get out of debt. You start by dropping your cable bill, your long distance fees on the phone, quit going out to eat, quit smoking/drinking etc.

eg8r

sack316
01-21-2011, 04:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let us set the parameters of the size of the problem.

The deficit is about $1.2 trillion, give or take.

That is 1,200 billion dollars.

Any cut of $1 billion is 1 out of more than 1,000 to be cut, which is .1% of the total. Any cut of $1 million is 1/1000 of that tiny amount.

Therefore, cuts in the amounts of single digit billions do not get you very far (since you'd need 1,000 of them), and cuts in the millions are vanishingly small by comparison.

Even at double digit billions, $10 billion, you'd need 100 of them at that size.

So what you need may be effectively impossible on the spending cut size alone, unless you can get several $200 billion sized cuts a year. Including these million dollar cuts is really conning the rubes. "hey, a million, it's a lot of money!" Not in the context of 1,200,000 millions, which is the size of the deficit. </div></div>

While this is sadly true, NOT making even a small cut is even less effective than making a seemingly insignificant one.

Sack

Sev
01-21-2011, 04:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let us set the parameters of the size of the problem.

The deficit is about $1.2 trillion, give or take.

That is 1,200 billion dollars.

Any cut of $1 billion is 1 out of more than 1,000 to be cut, which is .1% of the total. Any cut of $1 million is 1/1000 of that tiny amount.

Therefore, cuts in the amounts of single digit billions do not get you very far (since you'd need 1,000 of them), and cuts in the millions are vanishingly small by comparison.

Even at double digit billions, $10 billion, you'd need 100 of them at that size.

So what you need may be effectively impossible on the spending cut size alone, unless you can get several $200 billion sized cuts a year. Including these million dollar cuts is really conning the rubes. "hey, a million, it's a lot of money!" Not in the context of 1,200,000 millions, which is the size of the deficit. </div></div>

Reduce the civilian population form the government to under 500,000 individuals and the make the maximum wage and benefits match those of our enlisted men and woman and you can save trillions right there.

If you want to be an elected official in the US Government you should not receive a salary. They should donate their time.

Government employees and elected officials are a deficit to the nation.

Sev
01-21-2011, 05:04 PM
Oh and by the way Snapper who do you think is going to be thrown under the bus when the states default on the 2.5 trillion dollars they are behind in pension funds??

Baby boomers are now going to be retiring to the tune of 10,000 people a week and expecting to be receiving their benefits. This will continue for the next 19 years.
The current work force will not be able to support the money needed. All those trillions of dollars that were supposed to be put aside for soc sec are gone. The system is going to collapse.
Its going to be fun to watch.

pooltchr
01-21-2011, 07:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Its going to be fun to watch.

</div></div>

I disagree. Watching the USA turn into a third world nation is not going to be fun at all. It's going to be devistating.

Steve

Soflasnapper
01-21-2011, 07:39 PM
Reduce the civilian population form the government to under 500,000 individuals and the make the maximum wage and benefits match those of our enlisted men and woman and you can save trillions right there.

If you want to be an elected official in the US Government you should not receive a salary. They should donate their time.

Government employees and elected officials are a deficit to the nation.

Interesting but insane idea, really, IMO.

Do you know of anyone else who agrees with this theory?

Soflasnapper
01-21-2011, 07:53 PM
It seems like you propose doing nothing unless the impact is greater than lets say 50%. There is a saying that creditors nickle and dime you to death. Or banks, or stores, etc will nickle and dime you to death. You don't lose all your money on big ticket items rather it is on a bunch of small ticket items. The way to get out of debt is to reverse that same logic. You don't just go sell your house and car to get out of debt. You start by dropping your cable bill, your long distance fees on the phone, quit going out to eat, quit smoking/drinking etc.

I don't blame you for getting that impression, eg8r, but that wasn't my intent.

Of course, we need to economize, and across the board would be a good step.

But we cannot get there from here using that alone. This is my point, which is aimed against those who say there is no revenue problem, only a spending problem, which can be wholly solved on the spending side. That is not true, and these numbers show the problem with that theory.

It isn't brain surgery, since we already have a RECENT example of how to do it, called the Clinton budget plan. The pay-go concept kept any new programs from being created unless they were deficit neutral (either other programs had to be cut or eliminated to the same dollar figure, or revenues raised equivalently, by new taxes or dropping old tax preferences (cuts). That relatively mild fiscal discipline combined with a modest increase in tax rates only for the top bracket, took the deficit down each year, to zero, and then to a very large surplus (pace LWW, who regrettably simply doesn't know what that term means).

Look, the American people have been sold on the idea that government can be bought on sale forever, and that they never have to pay full price, and there will be no consequences. As when Cheney claimed, 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter.'

No he didn't, and yes they do.

We are told the poor hedge fund managers raking in $1 billion a year or several times that amount MUST have their tax rate limited to 15%, or else they won't do their oh-so-important work (in destroying the country, evidently). That is a complete lie, and if all they were raised to was the current top rate of 35%, that alone would raise billions in tax revenue from less than 100 people. Would they be 'poorer'? In one sense, yes. Their after-tax take would decline from $850 million a year to $650 million a year. I'm sure it would be difficult to cope, and maybe they'd have to tighten their belts and cancel their cable tv service also.

Sev
01-21-2011, 10:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reduce the civilian population form the government to under 500,000 individuals and the make the maximum wage and benefits match those of our enlisted men and woman and you can save trillions right there.

If you want to be an elected official in the US Government you should not receive a salary. They should donate their time.

Government employees and elected officials are a deficit to the nation.

Interesting but insane idea, really, IMO.

Do you know of anyone else who agrees with this theory?
</div></div>

Why?
Elected officials used to donate their time to serve the nation. Since most of the our senators and congressman are millionaires it should not be a problem.

Is there a reason with all the advancements in technology that we need over 2,000,000 employee's in the government??
Thats 1 government employee for ever 155 people in this country.
Why shouldn't these people be working in the private sector?

Every individual that is employed by the government is a deficit, produces nothing and takes away from the GDP.
Have you looked at the numbers of the average income and benefits for a government employee vs those of the average citizen?

Why should government employees be paid more than those that serve on the front lines to defend out freedom? If anything the soldiers should get a raise in pay scale and government employees should have theirs cut.

I sense like most people you talk about cuts and controlling government but in actuality balk when ideas that would be effective if painful are presented.

The root of the problem is the size and the scope of the federal government. Its far to large, over reaching and intrusive. It needs to have its wings clipped and what better place to start than with the number of employees, pay scale and benefits.

You dont even have to tough those oh so important social programs and entitlements to achieve this.

Then you pass a balanced budget amendment and an amendment that requires the federal budget to stay below 1/8 of GDP.

Sev
01-21-2011, 11:00 PM
Paygo huh? I seem to remember Pelosi spouting off about that. To bad she abandoned the idea as soon as the cameras were off.

LWW
01-22-2011, 03:55 AM
Did you bother to read the list?

We both know you didn't.

LWW

eg8r
01-22-2011, 11:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But we cannot get there from here using that alone. This is my point, which is aimed against those who say there is no revenue problem, only a spending problem, which can be wholly solved on the spending side. That is not true, and these numbers show the problem with that theory.

It isn't brain surgery, since we already have a RECENT example of how to do it, called the Clinton budget plan. The pay-go concept kept any new programs from being created unless they were deficit neutral (either other programs had to be cut or eliminated to the same dollar figure, or revenues raised equivalently, by new taxes or dropping old tax preferences (cuts). That relatively mild fiscal discipline combined with a modest increase in tax rates only for the top bracket, took the deficit down each year, to zero, and then to a very large surplus (pace LWW, who regrettably simply doesn't know what that term means).
</div></div>While I disagree that we cannot get there by just limiting spending I do agree that would be the toughest approach. I am not completely against increasing taxes however I have a few stipulations. First, document all spending cuts first before any talk of tax increase. If those spending cuts are acceptable, then we can talk of tax increases. Now the tax increase, all US taxpayers get increased at exactly the same %. I consider this fair and the rich will still be paying more money but at least it is fair considering the %. This increased revenue through taxes should also be equaled by another round of spending cuts.

By doing this it keeps the politicians honest (to a point) as far as making an effort to cut spending. Then when they come to the taxpayers for more money they will meet this additional hardship on taxpayers with an additional hardship on themselves. Show us that Congress is willing to bear the brunt with the rest of us.

The mention of paygo is a great idea and I feel it should be a requirement and not just some bill that congress passes only to ignore in the very next bill that gets passed.

eg8r

Sev
01-23-2011, 09:49 AM
Passage of the Fair Tax would go a long way to keeping the accounting honest. It would also end tax class warfare.

Soflasnapper
01-23-2011, 03:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Passage of the Fair Tax would go a long way to keeping the accounting honest. It would also end tax class warfare.

</div></div>

It would massively increase the effective tax rate on everybody lower than the top brackets, and foster the tax class warfare you think it will end.

Sev
01-23-2011, 03:43 PM
Have you read Neil Bortz's "Fair Tax"?

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 02:45 AM
Not specifically, but he didn't invent the fair tax idea, and I have read about it apart from his work.

It's completely unfair to lower income families who need to spend everything they make.

Higher income families would spend more money, and pay more money in taxation for consumption. But they would have a lot left over, extra money they didn't need to spend on things which is surplus to expenses, that would escape any taxation.

This is backwards. It is the people who don't need all the money they earn for necessary expenses who can and should be taxed at a higher rate, especially when it's money earning money instead of the sweat of the brow through one's own earnings by dint of personal effort.

Because the higher income parties would be getting what is in essence a tremendous break on taxation, the rate for everyone would have to be much higher than is reasonable to be sold to the general public. I believe the national sales tax that would be required weighs in at 23% (compared to a median federal income tax rate of 6%, and compared now to the still reduced top bracket for income tax at 35%).

Sev
01-24-2011, 06:48 AM
I see you have been reading the detractors articles.

Pass the Fair Tax. Pass Balanced Budget Amendment. Pass an amendment that requires the federal governments budget to remain under 1/8 of GDP and many problems would be solved.
The nice thing about the Fair Tax is that as government spending declines so can the amount of the Fair Tax.
Also the passing of the above would force the government spending and debt decrease so can the the percentage of the Fair Tax.

The Fair Tax would be between 17 and 21%.
However it removes all multiple taxation at all levels of manufacturing. It also removes the Soc Sec, FICA and matching from employers. It also removes all fees and excise taxes on products.
It captures 100% of the population and does not play favorites.
Remember we are nearing 50% of the population not paying any taxes no except incidental ones at retail stores.
Further it removes all the loopholes in the tax structure as well as all the deductions and credits.

It would also allow the dissolving of the IRS.


Products and material across the board would be substantially cheaper and would leave employers more in their coffers to either expand and hire more people, give raises or both.
If you make over 10.00 an hour in NY you pay 30% total taxes out of your paycheck. Then add the incidental taxes on products when it is all said and done you near 60% taxation in NY.

Please keep you mind open to the possibility and perhaps do a little more research in the matter.

Qtec
01-24-2011, 07:27 AM
You ignored this fact.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's completely unfair to lower income families who need to spend everything they make. </div></div>

Q

Qtec
01-24-2011, 07:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It captures 100% of the population and does not play favorites.
Remember we are nearing 50% of the population not paying any taxes no <u>except incidental ones at retail stores.</u> </div></div>

So what happens when the Govt needs to raise money? A tax hike on all basic products?

For the majority of Americans on fixed incomes this would be a disaster.
The guys on Wall St who now <span style='font-size: 14pt'>don't have to pay any tax on their 10 million bonus's, not so much.</span>


Your claim,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It captures 100% of the population and does not play favorites. </div></div>

..is totally false.

Q

Sev
01-24-2011, 07:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You ignored this fact.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's completely unfair to lower income families who need to spend everything they make. </div></div>

Q </div></div>

Lets see.
You get to keep 100% of your income. Less state income tax if your state happens to have that.
There is a net lowering of taxes and prices even when adding the fair tax in and it is unfair to the lower income families???

Sev
01-24-2011, 07:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It captures 100% of the population and does not play favorites.
Remember we are nearing 50% of the population not paying any taxes no <u>except incidental ones at retail stores.</u> </div></div>

So what happens when the Govt needs to raise money? A tax hike on all basic products?

For the majority of Americans on fixed incomes this would be a disaster.
The guys on Wall St who now <span style='font-size: 14pt'>don't have to pay any tax on their 10 million bonus's, not so much.</span>


Your claim,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It captures 100% of the population and does not play favorites. </div></div>

..is totally false.

Q </div></div>

False???
Really??
Are stores giving out products for free these days???

Sev
01-24-2011, 08:03 AM
You either add or decrease the % of taxes as needed.
Far better than playing games and causing the price or products to increase through the use of regulation so as to collect a higher percentage of taxes through higher price rather than tax increases.

Keep an eye on the price of gas. It spiking will be a boon to the government and a disaster for people at more than just the lower income.

All necessities are going to spike in price. This combined with movement of inflation combined with the devaluation of the US dollar is going to be quite interesting to watch.

Keep an eye on the grocers. Prices are already climbing. Also the south freezing this winter is going to drive many perishables through the roof.

pooltchr
01-24-2011, 08:48 AM
I suspect that Q has not read the book, and thus has no idea what he is commenting on. You read Boortz book and like it, so he must automatically disagree.

Anyone who has read the book and understood the concept would immediately see the benefits.

Some people prefer to remain ignorant of anything that goes against their preconceived notions.

Steve

LWW
01-24-2011, 10:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not specifically, but he didn't invent the fair tax idea, and I have read about it apart from his work.

It's completely unfair to lower income families who need to spend everything they make.

Higher income families would spend more money, and pay more money in taxation for consumption. But they would have a lot left over, extra money they didn't need to spend on things which is surplus to expenses, that would escape any taxation.

This is backwards. It is the people who don't need all the money they earn for necessary expenses who can and should be taxed at a higher rate, especially when it's money earning money instead of the sweat of the brow through one's own earnings by dint of personal effort.

Because the higher income parties would be getting what is in essence a tremendous break on taxation, the rate for everyone would have to be much higher than is reasonable to be sold to the general public. I believe the national sales tax that would be required weighs in at 23% (compared to a median federal income tax rate of 6%, and compared now to the still reduced top bracket for income tax at 35%).

</div></div>

Thanks for verifying that you have never read the fair tax.

LWW

LWW
01-24-2011, 10:57 AM
Actually Boortz co-authored the book with John Linder who had introduced the fair tax into congress.

The left lies, either from ideology or ignorance, at the very mention of the words "FAIR TAX" as the bill would empower citizens and promote liberty and an involved electorate.

LWW

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 11:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually Boortz co-authored the book with John Linder who had introduced the fair tax into congress.

The left lies, either from ideology or ignorance, at the very mention of the words "FAIR TAX" as the bill would empower citizens and promote liberty and an involved electorate.

LWW </div></div>

The book came out in 2005. The Congress saw Fair Tax proposals brought up as bills in the Senate and the House in 1999.

Clearly, this notion did NOT originate in that later book (which instead further explained and pushed the concept), and you do not need to read the book to know what the Fair Tax proposes.

I know so little of it, that I nailed its 23% number from memory. I forgot, however, that this 23% number is itself a scam and spin, based on a new definition of a tax rate that is designed to hide the real tax figure of **30%**.

How so? Well, they have this 'inclusive of' definition, wherein of any given $100 spent, $23 dollars (or 23%) would be the tax. But we do not count tax rates, or do math, that way. This is a trick.

What this means is that of every $100 spent, $77 is the amount on which the $23 is taxed. To everyone else in the universe, anyone who knows how to back out a tax rate from a gross figure, this means the tax rate is $23/$77, which is 29.9% or just about 30%.

When a new tax idea contains in its very proposal a lie of this nature, forgive me if I suspect the rest of it is a scam of some sort as well.

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 11:40 AM
The left lies, either from ideology or ignorance, at the very mention of the words "FAIR TAX" as the bill would empower citizens and promote liberty and an involved electorate.

The clear fact is that this tax would hit everyone from the upper middle class downwards (i.e., 80% of the people) with a 30% extra cost on everything they buy, and for most of these people, unable to save much, on their total income equivalent. This is a huge and unacceptable new burden, which is why they immediately lie that it is 'really' a 23% rate.

Someone like myself, with a large income and modest spending, might spend 20% to 30% of my income buying things, and bank the rest. Such a person would see most of their income escape this tax, and therefore an effective tax rate from this of between 6% to 9%.

So the rich would escape any higher marginal rate, and get a vastly LOWER marginal rate, while a truly ruinous level of taxation was put on everyone else as the tradeoff for letting the top earners off so lightly (even though they are the ones with disposable income left over after paying necessary living expenses).

And this is fair, how?

Note, if they fixed it, so at least a poverty level of spending is allowed tax free from this tax (rebated upon filing), then the numbers don't work, and this actual 30% tax, sold falsely as a 23% tax, would need to be higher still to make up that difference.

Scam.

eg8r
01-24-2011, 02:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It would massively increase the effective tax rate on everybody lower than the top brackets, and foster the tax class warfare you think it will end. </div></div>How do you figure?

eg8r

eg8r
01-24-2011, 02:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not specifically, but he didn't invent the fair tax idea, and I have read about it apart from his work.

It's completely unfair to lower income families who need to spend everything they make.
</div></div>You probably should make the effort and read it. It is too hard to discuss it if you don't know the facts. Read up on the monthly prebate. There would no longer be any income taxes and people would actually keep all the money they earn. The only time they would be taxed is when they purchase something. Since business taxes are lower the cost of goods will dramatically decrease so the increase in sales tax would be nullified or reduced.

eg8r

LWW
01-24-2011, 04:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The left lies, either from ideology or ignorance, at the very mention of the words "FAIR TAX" as the bill would empower citizens and promote liberty and an involved electorate.

The clear fact is that this tax would hit everyone from the upper middle class downwards (i.e., 80% of the people) with a 30% extra cost on everything they buy, and for most of these people, unable to save much, on their total income equivalent. This is a huge and unacceptable new burden, which is why they immediately lie that it is 'really' a 23% rate.
</div></div>

Lie #1.

The 23% tax is figured like this ... if you spend $1.00, $0.23 is tax. That means that you bought $0.77 in goods. $0.23 is roughly 30% of $0.77 ... 29.87012987% to be exact. Now ... if the 30% is the metric used, and if one wishes to be ideologically honest, then one must apply it to the current system as well.

Now, to do that ... if I pay 20% in federal tax, 5.85% (I think, maybe more ... and the 5.85% my employer pays.) plus 1.75% Medicare tax (Or thereabouts.) then to get $105.85 in earnings ... my $100.00 plus the $5.85 my employer pays ... then I get $72.40 in my wallet for every $105.85 I earn. So, I know have an effective tax rate of $46.2% on top of what I receive.

Lie #2.

The fair tax will reduce the pre tax cost of everything, and here's why. The vendor/mfr/distributor is no longer a de facto tax collector, slicing a piece got Uncle Sam at each step. With all the hidden taxes removed and business relieved of the bureaucracy involved in collecting and distributing the money ... prices would fall. Far. And fast.

LWW

LWW
01-24-2011, 04:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lie #3

Someone like myself, with a large income and modest spending, might spend 20% to 30% of my income buying things, and bank the rest. Such a person would see most of their income escape this tax, and therefore an effective tax rate from this of between 6% to 9%.
Scam.

</div></div>

No matter how much you save, the money will be spent. You may save it to buy a car ... or a home ... and pay cash, but it will be spent. In addition, even if you don't spend it ... your heirs will. The money will be spent.

LWW

LWW
01-24-2011, 04:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lie #4.

So the rich would escape any higher marginal rate, and get a vastly LOWER marginal rate, while a truly ruinous level of taxation was put on everyone else as the tradeoff for letting the top earners off so lightly (even though they are the ones with disposable income left over after paying necessary living expenses).</div></div>

That is merely a summation of the prior untruths.

LWW

LWW
01-24-2011, 04:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And this is fair, how?</div></div>

It wouldn't be ... that's why it's not the plan.

LWW

LWW
01-24-2011, 04:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Note, if they fixed it, so at least a poverty level of spending is allowed tax free from this tax (rebated upon filing), then the numbers don't work, and this actual 30% tax, sold falsely as a 23% tax, would need to be higher still to make up that difference.

Scam.

</div></div>

Incorrect for several reasons.

The main one being that you fall into the same mental trap of all leftists when it comes to economics ... you assume the economy to be static and that you can redistribute the economic output without having any effect on the end total output. This is like believing that I will live to the same age whether I stay fit and trim or whether I smoke 3 packs a day and live on a beer and pizza diet.

More money in the consumer's pocket increases GDP. Increasing GDP can grow gubmint revenue even though it is now taxed at a lower rate. The Bush/Reagan/JFK era cuts have proved this.

Further, a fully paid employee now must pay their tax ... which will cause the citizenry to be far more aware of their earnings and tax load. The average US blue collar worker doesn't even know what they actually earn. Those that do realize in an abstract form.

Lastly, reducing the gubmint bureaucracy that manages our Rube Goldberg tax system would save tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars per year.

Now ... when I say "LIES" I'm not attempting to insult you.

I've read those exact same boiler plate rebuttals countless times ... they don't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

LWW

Qtec
01-24-2011, 08:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only time they would be taxed is when they purchase something. </div></div>

ie the tax burden will be shifted onto the MC and the working class. For the very rich its means winning the lottery..<u>every year.</u>

Also, people like yourself who hate paying tax will spend as little as possible. Sounds good for the economy.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since business taxes are lower the <u>cost of goods will dramatically decrease</u> so the increase in sales tax would be nullified or reduced.

eg8r </div></div>

You really think so? Sounds to me like more profit for the shareholders. eg, The banks made record profits this year, <u>did you see them reduce interest rates on mortgages or did they foreclose on a million homes?</u>

Did the public benefit in any way?

Its a scam. There's nothing fair about it.

Q

Qtec
01-24-2011, 08:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More money in the consumer's pocket increases GDP. </div></div>

Only if they spend it.

Q

Sev
01-24-2011, 09:30 PM
People seem to be good at spending money. They are always broke.

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 10:09 PM
LWW, thank you for changing my mind on the 23% vs. 30% thing. There is a point you have there, as to how to compare that rate to how we count the taxation rate currently. It is pretty much how we treat the income tax rate and quantify it, so that even though considering it as a sales tax I'm right, there is wiggle room enough that the 'inclusive' way to quantify it is reasonable. Score one for LWW in that regard.

But that is not to let you off the hook or agree that this tax is fair, ultimately.

There continue to be grave objections to this idea that are entirely valid.

Consider that the tax is designed to be revenue neutral compared to the current total income and payroll taxation. First, since the wealthy will be spared their so-called death taxes under this plan (worth about $40 billion to $60 billion in annual tax revenues), and spared their taxes on all interest, dividends and capital gains (even at the reduced preferred rates of 15%, that raises a ton of money as well), and the MOST they'd incur is a 30% (sorry, 23%, old habits die hard) rate, assuming they spent EVERYTHING THEY MADE (and likely wouldn't) compared to their 35% marginal rate now, that means they will be taxed LESS than now. Since the poor will be prebated back and pay net nothing, that inevitably means the difference will be charged to the non-poor, non-rich (i.e., the middle class). That is to say, there would be a massive tax increased burden on the working class, and in fact, the retirees as well (who already paid their payroll taxes, and now will have another 23% due and owing on all their income AND savings that they spend for consumption).

Cribbing from some anti-Fair Tax commentary I found, here are another 15 objections (enjoy!):

15 Count Indictment of the Fairtax

(1) HR25 proposes that the federal government tax State and Local purchases of new goods, and tax all State and Local employee payrolls as representative of services provided. This would be unconstitutional under our federal form of government. However, if allowed by the Courts, 12% of the revenue raised by the Fairtax would then be hidden in higher State/Local taxes. That is hardly the transparent tax that Fairtaxers claim.

(2) The AFFT rationale for treating governments as consumers is that it would prevent unfair government competition with the private sector. But that issue was dealt with in Section 704 of HR25. Any government agency that sells $2500 or more per quarter would be considered a Government Enterprise, and would have to collect and remit the 23% sales tax. There was no need to tax all government consumption. The playing field was already level.

(3) By including payroll contributions (FICA, the 3rd rail of politics) on the list of taxes to be replaced, retirees would be forced to resume paying for their hard earned pension and health care benefits with their sales tax dollars. Hardly fair! [I already referenced this one]

(4) Everyone’s after tax savings accumulated under current law would be double taxed when spent under the Fairtax. Is that fair?

(5) Although Fairtaxers claim that the Family Consumption Allowance (FCA) or “prebate” is similar to a tax refund, it is not! The FCA is an income supplement that can be spent (and taxed), or saved as financial circumstances allow. The FCA would be scored by CBO/OMB as a cash grant entitlement costing $600 billion annually at a time when other entitlements are squeezing out discretionary spending, including Defense discretionary. Where is it written that no one should pay taxes on essentials?

(6) One of the most egregious Fairtax claims is that retail prices would remain about the same. More than half of the Jorgenson 22% “embedded taxes” consists of employee tax withholding and payroll contributions. Unless you choose to believe that everyone’s current net pay after federal withholding would become your future gross under the Fairtax, nominal retail prices have to rise substantially. And, a reduction in gross pay isn’t going to happen for legal, fairness and contractual reasons. The AFFT Director of Research and other expert economists have written that the most likely scenario would be that everyone would get 100% of their gross pay and retail prices would rise. A best estimate, based on 2007 actual revenue data, is that business tax costs of 9.2% of sales could be removed and retail prices would rise by 18% on average after adding the 30% sales tax. There is no free lunch!

(7) Despite repeated claims by Fairtaxers that investments wouldn’t be taxed, Section 801-806 of HR25 lays a large implicit tax on both interest bearing investments, and debt instruments such as mortgages and credit cards.

(8) HR25 provides for an inventory tax credit which would add about $600 billion to the federal budget deficit with no offsets in the first year of implementation.

(9) HR25 proposes to implement the national sales tax “cold turkey”, despite the fact that no other country has successfully funded their central government with a sales tax. According to a former Ranking Member of the Joint Economic Committee, “Congress is institutionally conservative and much prefers evolutionary change to revolutions” — such as the Fairtax.

(10) There is no data supporting the claim that there is $13 trillion in US owned wealth located offshore to avoid US taxes. According to the Tax Justice Network, an international organization which tracks offshore wealth, there was $1.6 trillion in offshore wealth owned by North Americans in 2005. There are 23 sovereign nations in North America, so the best estimate for US owned wealth offshore is $700-800 billion. And, lacking some sort of amnesty provision from IRS penalties in HR25, why would any of that wealth come “rushing home”?

(11) No list of Fairtax issues would be complete without including the disingenuous claim that the revenue neutral Fairtax rate would be 23%. In terms all Americans understand, the rate is actually 30%. Retail merchants will have to add a 30% sales tax to their costs in order to arrive at the 23% tax inclusive price. Yet, nowhere on your sales receipt will a 30% tax be found? Is that transparency?

(12) Fairtax claims that the US would become the world’s finest tax haven, and droves of foreign owned corporations would relocate here, overlooks the fact that Section 905 of HR25 lays a 23% tax on all income generated in the US by foreign owned individuals or companies. Hardly a tax incentive to relocate business operations!

(13) All fifty Governors, through the National Governors Association, oppose any type of national sales tax. Repealing the 16th Amendment would be difficult if not impossible with that sort of headwind!

(14) Fairtax savings from buying “used”, (tax previously paid), are highly overstated. There are no used services, which make up half of the typical family budget. No used groceries, no used restaurant meals, no used heating oil, no used gas for the family auto, nothing used at Wal-Mart, etc. etc. The opportunities to buy used would be limited to infrequent purchases of houses, cars, boats, etc. And, after a short transition period, supply and demand will restore the current new/used price relationship. There will be no windfall price savings by buying used. Think about it as the embedded cost of the Fairtax!

(15) Due to the prebate, approximately 30 million working family units could pay no net federal tax annually under HR25, but will still qualify for all Social Security pension and medical care benefits when eligible. Compare that to the less than 1 million workers under current law that can use refundable tax credits to totally offset the 7.65% payroll tax. Is it a good thing to have 30 million workers disconnected from the cost of the federal government?

pooltchr
01-25-2011, 07:44 AM
Let's take it down to a very simple level and see how it works.
John makes $30k a year and buys a $20k Toyota.
Fred makes $90K a year and buys a $60k Lexus.
John and Fred both pay the same percentage of their income in taxes. But Fred pays far more than John...fair because Fred has a higher income.
John now has $10k left to spend on rent, groceries, and a big screen tv.
Fred has $30k left to spend on rent, groceries, a big screen tv, a boat, and a vacation in Hawaii.

Fred makes more money than John, so he can afford to buy more than John, but he also pays more in taxes. Both end up paying about the same percentage of their total income in taxes.

How is that not fair?

Steve

Qtec
01-25-2011, 07:58 AM
They don't buy the same car.

Q

Sev
01-25-2011, 08:08 AM
People should not be punished for their productivity.
The current system of taxation and government spending is broken. Tweaking it is not going to make it better make it fair.
It needs to be replaced.

Unfortunately the only change we may see is a VAT tax on top of everything else. Which not only punishes the productive but the poor as well.
While the Fair Tax gets condemned the VAT tax gets strong support in many sectors. Which is odd as the Value Added Tax is a form of flat tax that is lauded to be able to generate large amounts of tax revenue for the federal government.

The federal government needs to be eviscerated. Responsibilities need to be returned to the states.

eg8r
01-25-2011, 12:34 PM
So?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-25-2011, 04:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's take it down to a very simple level and see how it works.
John makes $30k a year and buys a $20k Toyota.
Fred makes $90K a year and buys a $60k Lexus.
John and Fred both pay the same percentage of their income in taxes. But Fred pays far more than John...fair because Fred has a higher income.
John now has $10k left to spend on rent, groceries, and a big screen tv.
Fred has $30k left to spend on rent, groceries, a big screen tv, a boat, and a vacation in Hawaii.

Fred makes more money than John, so he can afford to buy more than John, but he also pays more in taxes. Both end up paying about the same percentage of their total income in taxes.

How is that not fair?

Steve </div></div>

Is either one of those people RICH? Of course not (at least not by those income figures they're not), and that area is where the fairness breaks down.

Try to work the examples comparable to those two guys with LWW making $250,000, and Sev making $2,500,000, and behold the amount of money the middle is going to pick up from the savings of the higher income duo. Round numbers, LWW before Fair Tax would owe some $80,000 + $7,650 on payroll taxes = $87,650, and lucky Sev would owe $875,000 + $7,650 on payroll = $882,650. If the Fair Tax substantially underbills these guys compared to those amounts, then the balance of what they've saved is picked up by John and Fred.

pooltchr
01-25-2011, 04:40 PM
So what happens to the numbers when Larry decides to buy a Beechcraft King Air, and Sev decides to buy a Gulfstream?

Steve

LWW
01-26-2011, 11:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More money in the consumer's pocket increases GDP. </div></div>

Only if they spend it.

Q </div></div>

Trust me ... they spend it.

LWW

Soflasnapper
01-26-2011, 05:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what happens to the numbers when Larry decides to buy a Beechcraft King Air, and Sev decides to buy a Gulfstream?

Steve </div></div>

Back in the day, the yacht tax was avoided by the rich people who could simply buy one out of the country. That will remain a viable option. I think leasing such a plane would also avoid such a tax, or if not, certainly the vast majority of the cost (and therefore tax) of outright purchase.

Then, there is the fact that buying USED yachts and planes will not be Fair Taxed at all. There will be a booming cottage industry in 'pre-using' large ticket price items so that they can then be sold as used, and I daresay, some considerable fraud as well.

Soflasnapper
01-26-2011, 05:30 PM
Prices are already set at a profit maximizing level by corporations and the market.

That is, if they'd charge more, they'd lose sales and have a lower net profit.

I believe that hiking the prices of goods and services by the equivalent of 30% sales tax across the board (23% inclusive, of course!), would cause a general decrease in consumer activity and sales levels. Given that consumer spending is what, 70% of gdp, drastically dropping that level by artificially hiking all prices would likely cause recession or depression.

eg8r
01-26-2011, 09:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Back in the day, the yacht tax was avoided by the rich people who could simply buy one out of the country.</div></div>There is a senator right now that is avoiding paying his yacht tax in his own state by keeping his yacht in a Marina one state away. The senator was a Democrat but I cannot remember his name right now. I think I posted it here a little while ago.

eg8r

eg8r
01-26-2011, 09:19 PM
Why would the prices be hiked? If the Fair Tax was implemented it is implied the final price of goods will drop considerably because the businesses will be paying considerably less for the raw goods (no more taxes). Right now, all taxes incurred along the way from raw material to widget is passed on to each buyer and ultimately you have the consumer covering all those taxes. The expectation is that competition will drive those prices down to where they should be once the prices start dropping.

eg8r

LWW
01-27-2011, 04:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe that hiking the prices of goods and services by the equivalent of 30% sales tax across the board (23% inclusive, of course!), would cause a general decrease in consumer activity and sales levels. Given that consumer spending is what, 70% of gdp, drastically dropping that level by artificially hiking all prices would likely cause recession or depression. </div></div>

I agree.

Of course, the FairTax removes all the hidden taxes that are buried into the final price, so the pre tax price of items would fall precipitously.

Next misunderstanding?

LWW

Stretch
01-27-2011, 05:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe that hiking the prices of goods and services by the equivalent of 30% sales tax across the board (23% inclusive, of course!), would cause a general decrease in consumer activity and sales levels. Given that consumer spending is what, 70% of gdp, drastically dropping that level by artificially hiking all prices would likely cause recession or depression. </div></div>

I agree.

Of course, the FairTax removes all the hidden taxes that are buried into the final price, so the pre tax price of items would fall precipitously.

Next misunderstanding?

LWW </div></div>

The pre tax price of items would fall? and you beleive that?? lol there's a sucker born every day. Happy Birthday. St.

LWW
01-27-2011, 05:43 AM
Every law of economics demands it ... and your comment shows that you have no clue of how economics work.

With 1 or 2 vendors a monopoly can be maintained. When a third enters the fray it will always resort to price in an effort, usually successful, to gain market share.

The first two will always, sometimes successfully, lower prices in an effort to run the heretic out of business.

As a perfect example ... why does Apple get away with charging a large premium for their machines? Because if you want their OS you have to buy their machine which gives them a monopoly on machines running Mac OS.

Now ... why are Windows machines a dime a dozen? Because the OS will run on anything ... including a Mac ... and therefor price competition is fierce.

Any business which has a cost reduction ... as a reduction in hidden taxes would be ... would be a fool to not use that cost reduction to build market share.

Once one does it ... everyone's hand is forced.

Your hatred of all things capitalist is, again, clouding your ability to think rationally.

LWW

Qtec
01-27-2011, 06:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The <u>expectation is </u>that competition will drive those prices down to where they should be once the prices start dropping.

eg8r </div></div>

...and if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale.

This 'Fair Tax' idea is an attempt to redistribute wealth and responsibility.

Joe pays $10,000 in tax, with fair tax he now gets this back. Joe is $10,000 up.
Wall St Fred now doesn't have to pay tax on his huge bonus and salary is now $3.500,000 ahead.


The difference is $3,490,000 and how does the Fair Tax intend to recoup this money? Make Joe and all the other Joe's pay for it.

Q..I don't buy it.

LWW
01-27-2011, 06:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The <u>expectation is </u>that competition will drive those prices down to where they should be once the prices start dropping.

eg8r </div></div>

...and if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale.


Q..I don't buy it. </div></div>

What reason do you have, fact based, that makes you not buy it?

LWW

LWW
01-27-2011, 06:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> This 'Fair Tax' idea is an attempt to redistribute wealth and responsibility.

Q..I don't buy it. </div></div>

1 - No it isn't.

2 - Obamanomics is actually doing exactly that.

3 - I thought you favored redistribution?

LWW

LWW
01-27-2011, 06:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The difference is $3,490,000 and how does the Fair Tax intend to recoup this money?

Q..I don't buy it. </div></div>

Really?

What did he do with it?

Did he eat it?

LWW

pooltchr
01-27-2011, 07:42 AM
That is where they fail to understand the basic concept of the fair tax.
Why do we work? To make money.
Why do we need money? To purchase the things we want and need.
Those who have more money tend to spend more money.
Under the fair tax, those who spend more money will pay more tax.

So unless those evil rich people are just stuffing money into their mattress, there will be taxes paid on that money at some point.

It's not really rocket science.

Steve

eg8r
01-27-2011, 11:10 AM
You are the last person on this planet I would even consider as someone with a clear understanding of what is going on.

Before you open you mouth again it might behoove you to figure out what redistribution actually means. You look like an idiot when you try to define it as allowing people to keep the money they earned.

eg8r

LWW
01-27-2011, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is where they fail to understand the basic concept of the fair tax.
Why do we work? To make money.
Why do we need money? To purchase the things we want and need.
Those who have more money tend to spend more money.
Under the fair tax, those who spend more money will pay more tax.

So unless those evil rich people are just stuffing money into their mattress, there will be taxes paid on that money at some point.

It's not really rocket science.

Steve </div></div>

You wouldn't think ... but they like to believe the myth that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs never spend a dime and live in a trailer park.

LWW

eg8r
01-27-2011, 11:24 AM
You know what is funny about Steve Jobs is that the state of California has wasted tons of money in taxes by refusing to allow Jobs to tear down the old mansion on his property and build a new one. All those jobs he would create for tearing down a mansion and building a new one.

eg8r

LWW
01-27-2011, 11:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You know what is funny about Steve Jobs is that the state of California has wasted tons of money in taxes by refusing to allow Jobs to tear down the old mansion on his property and build a new one. All those jobs he would create for tearing down a mansion and building a new one.

eg8r </div></div>

How true.

LWW

Stretch
01-27-2011, 05:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Every law of economics demands it ... and your comment shows that you have no clue of how economics work.

With 1 or 2 vendors a monopoly can be maintained. When a third enters the fray it will always resort to price in an effort, usually successful, to gain market share.

The first two will always, sometimes successfully, lower prices in an effort to run the heretic out of business.

As a perfect example ... why does Apple get away with charging a large premium for their machines? Because if you want their OS you have to buy their machine which gives them a monopoly on machines running Mac OS.

Now ... why are Windows machines a dime a dozen? Because the OS will run on anything ... including a Mac ... and therefor price competition is fierce.

Any business which has a cost reduction ... as a reduction in hidden taxes would be ... would be a fool to not use that cost reduction to build market share.

Once one does it ... everyone's hand is forced.

Your hatred of all things capitalist is, again, clouding your ability to think rationally.

LWW </div></div>

Capitalism is what buryed you in debt. You are now wards of the miltitary industrial complex and big buisness.

I know you don't want to here this but the Capitalist system has FAILED. The existing economic system has nothing to offer the working class but exploitation, poverty, repression and war. St.

Soflasnapper
01-27-2011, 10:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe that hiking the prices of goods and services by the equivalent of 30% sales tax across the board (23% inclusive, of course!), would cause a general decrease in consumer activity and sales levels. Given that consumer spending is what, 70% of gdp, drastically dropping that level by artificially hiking all prices would likely cause recession or depression. </div></div>

I agree.

Of course, the FairTax removes all the hidden taxes that are buried into the final price, so the pre tax price of items would fall precipitously.

Next misunderstanding?

LWW </div></div>

Perhaps you have never been in business?

When businesses get reduced costs, they get enhanced profits. Businesses are all about maximizing profits.

In fact, business in this country is enjoying record profit levels, because of the savings they have now in their employee costs. This has translated in lower prices, where?

They will keep those profits unless forced to disgorge them. Your notion that they will altruistically share back those reduced costs as lowered prices is touchingly naive.

sack316
01-28-2011, 12:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Perhaps you have never been in business?

When businesses get reduced costs, they get enhanced profits. Businesses are all about maximizing profits.

In fact, business in this country is enjoying record profit levels, because of the savings they have now in their employee costs. This has translated in lower prices, where?

They will keep those profits unless forced to disgorge them. Your notion that they will altruistically share back those reduced costs as lowered prices is touchingly naive. </div></div>

Agreed with ya there sofla. Businesses won't reduce prices unless another competitor enters the market and is a viable threat (one reason why we have monopoly laws). In the mean time, they'll grind it on out for all it's worth for as long as possible.

Sack

LWW
01-28-2011, 04:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps you have never been in business?

When businesses get reduced costs, they get enhanced profits. Businesses are all about maximizing profits.</div></div>

I am in business, and business is all about outdoing your competition.

If it was all about maximizing profit ... why doesn't a gallon of gasoline cost $100.00?

Answer ... two stations could work in a monopoly and get away with that, for a bit.

Eventually ... assuming we don't have the state erecting walls to new gas station construction ... a third station will set up shop at $99.00 a gallon which will gain them market share and a huge profit. This will undoubtedly be followed by a spiral to $98 ... all the way down to where we are today.

In fact, most stations don't make anything on gasoline in major US markets.

The gasoline is merely a lure to get you to come into their overpriced convenience store where their monopoly is now reinstituted as essentially nobody will fill up at Speedway and walk across the street to the BP store to price compare their Ho-Ho's.

LWW &lt;---Amazed at how little most leftists know about real world economics.

eg8r
01-28-2011, 09:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps you have never been in business?

When businesses get reduced costs, they get enhanced profits. Businesses are all about maximizing profits.
</div></div>I had my own business for 5 years and my family has been in business for nearly 45 years. What you are forgetting is competition. When 2 business in the same industry get reduced costs and one decides to lower his price to increase sales the other business is forced to lower theirs or go out of business. Walmart is a perfect example of this.

eg8r

Sev
01-28-2011, 09:29 AM
Bet they have a hard time explaining why Flat screens and Blueray players have drop dramatically in price as well.

Sev
01-28-2011, 09:30 AM
News Flash!!!

They are proposing a new electric tax for all you folks considering buying an electric car.

Got to make up for the loss of taxes on gasoline some how.

I guess thats a fair tax huh???

LWW
01-28-2011, 03:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Every law of economics demands it ... and your comment shows that you have no clue of how economics work.

With 1 or 2 vendors a monopoly can be maintained. When a third enters the fray it will always resort to price in an effort, usually successful, to gain market share.

The first two will always, sometimes successfully, lower prices in an effort to run the heretic out of business.

As a perfect example ... why does Apple get away with charging a large premium for their machines? Because if you want their OS you have to buy their machine which gives them a monopoly on machines running Mac OS.

Now ... why are Windows machines a dime a dozen? Because the OS will run on anything ... including a Mac ... and therefor price competition is fierce.

Any business which has a cost reduction ... as a reduction in hidden taxes would be ... would be a fool to not use that cost reduction to build market share.

Once one does it ... everyone's hand is forced.

Your hatred of all things capitalist is, again, clouding your ability to think rationally.

LWW </div></div>

Capitalism is what buryed you in debt. You are now wards of the miltitary industrial complex and big buisness.

I know you don't want to here this but the Capitalist system has FAILED. The existing economic system has nothing to offer the working class but exploitation, poverty, repression and war. St. </div></div>

Talk about believing in mythology.

LWW

LWW
01-28-2011, 04:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bet they have a hard time explaining why Flat screens and Blueray players have drop dramatically in price as well. </div></div>

The belief in the myth of a static economy is the #1 logic failure of leftist economics.

LWW

pooltchr
01-28-2011, 04:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Capitalism is what buryed you in debt. You are now wards of the miltitary industrial complex and big buisness.

I know you don't want to here this but the Capitalist system has FAILED. The existing economic system has nothing to offer the working class but exploitation, poverty, repression and war. St. </div></div>

Spoken like a true socialist/marxist/communist.

I haven't heard that kind of talk since Kruschev was leading the Soviets!

Steve

Soflasnapper
01-28-2011, 04:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps you have never been in business?

When businesses get reduced costs, they get enhanced profits. Businesses are all about maximizing profits.</div></div>

I am in business, and business is all about outdoing your competition.

If it was all about maximizing profit ... why doesn't a gallon of gasoline cost $100.00?

Answer ... two stations could work in a monopoly and get away with that, for a bit.

Eventually ... assuming we don't have the state erecting walls to new gas station construction ... a third station will set up shop at $99.00 a gallon which will gain them market share and a huge profit. This will undoubtedly be followed by a spiral to $98 ... all the way down to where we are today.

In fact, most stations don't make anything on gasoline in major US markets.

The gasoline is merely a lure to get you to come into their overpriced convenience store where their monopoly is now reinstituted as essentially nobody will fill up at Speedway and walk across the street to the BP store to price compare their Ho-Ho's.

LWW &lt;---Amazed at how little most leftists know about real world economics.

</div></div>

If it was all about maximizing profit ... why doesn't a gallon of gasoline cost $100.00?

Because that wouldn't maximize profits, or it would be the case (and don't think it won't be, eventually).

You have some basics there, but careful, all that goes out the window when the market is reduced to a handful of players who can collude to price fix. It's happened too many times to discount the fact that in a semi-monopoly or cartelized situation, there is no competition on pricing.

Even with competition to cable from first satellites, and now the telcos, and sorta with streaming video sources on the i-net, has anyone seen his cable bill going down?

When OPEC sets their target price, are they forced down off it by other countries undercutting that price? I've never seen that happen either.

If you are unaware of this phenomenon, start back again at the beginning, because Adam Smith figured it out the year of our Declaration of Independence.

Sev
01-28-2011, 05:00 PM
Cable an satellite are basically monopolies. Various components of old Ma Bell own all the phone lines. Fiber optic is still limited.

Now if you want to talk phones. Straight talk gives me everything I need for 30 a month. Versus 90.00 a month

And Skype gives me all I need for under 15.00 a month. Versus 60 a month.

Soflasnapper
01-28-2011, 05:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cable an satellite are basically monopolies. Various components of old Ma Bell own all the phone lines. Fiber optic is still limited.

Now if you want to talk phones. Straight talk gives me everything I need for 30 a month. Versus 90.00 a month

And Skype gives me all I need for under 15.00 a month. Versus 60 a month. </div></div>

Yes, and have the land-line prices come down as a result?

Soflasnapper
01-28-2011, 06:09 PM
Back in JFK's day, the steel companies used to follow each other UP on pricing. First one, then the rest. They called it price leadership. JFK called it illegal collusion, and jaw-boned the price back down via threat of legal action from the AG.

In the '80s, free market advocate (and idol) Reagan put quotas on Japanese car imports. The Japanese used the limitation on units to load most of them up with every optional accessory to pad their profit margin (given the demand, which couldn't be entirely filled under the quota).

US automakers had a golden opportunity to better compete on price, and take away market share. They decided to take the higher profit margin instead of competing on price, to their future detriment as it turned out.

Not only is profit the goal, but short-term profit, as in the next quarterly earnings report, to please the market and boost the value of shares or options or warrants on shares for the management team.

And I repeat my question: since the big companies in this country have large and even record profits (from reducing their workforce costs by laying off 10+ million people), where do we see any sector of the business in this country reducing prices to gain market share? Fact is, nearly any sector you can name has an oligarchical market structure with only a handful of players holding over 80% of the market, and so they have pricing power.

Qtec
01-28-2011, 06:15 PM
The Fair tax doesn't have to work, they just want to pass it into law. Then it would be almost impossible to go back to progressive income taxation.
Look what happened to the Bush tax cuts that were supposed to expire?

Q

Qtec
01-28-2011, 06:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> (from reducing their workforce costs by laying off 10+ million people)</div></div>

Good for the CEO and the shareholders, bad for the country.

Q

Soflasnapper
01-28-2011, 06:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Capitalism is what buryed you in debt. You are now wards of the miltitary industrial complex and big buisness.

I know you don't want to here this but the Capitalist system has FAILED. The existing economic system has nothing to offer the working class but exploitation, poverty, repression and war. St. </div></div>

Spoken like a true socialist/marxist/communist.

I haven't heard that kind of talk since Kruschev was leading the Soviets!

Steve </div></div>

Stretch is more right than wrong here.

With the caveat that in our current case it is late stage financialist capitalism, or as I like to call it, vampiric capitalism.

Its whole model is debt-based. When they took companies private, they loaded them up with debt to pay the purchase price plus the huge legal and brokerage commissions. Unsustainable debt that typically doomed the company within a few years, because the debt service required the companies do better and better than ever to afford it, or to sell off, spin off (and lay off workers).

Once capitalism devolved to no production, and only pushing around paper and calling it economic activity, this was the only way to continue to make money. (We were all going to get rich flipping speculatively bought houses.)

You can see the same thing in almost every other world capital center or empire. Eventually, they stopped what had made them powerful in favor of doing financial tricks, and substantially collapsed their economies and vastly reduced their peoples' standard of living as an inevitable result.

It is widely agreed that capitalism and classical economics failed as of the Great Depression (market forces were supposed to automatically bounce back the economy quickly through international capital flows and currency valuation rebalancing, and didn't). In the wake of the failure of the market and capitalism, we saw the rise in influence of competitive economic and social constructs, in fascism and communism. To save what was left of capitalism, and fight off the the lure of those other systems' promises (however false they were, really, they had wide popular appeal, even in this country, and especially in Europe), we got the post-war regimes which were socialism-lite. To keep the people from going to the socialist/communist alternative, the democratic west co-opted many of its platforms, and created safety nets against the depredations of the marketplace.

Those lessons were lost some generations later in our time, to our great societal damage now. Cleverly, the PTB point not financialist capitalism run amok, but to the same societal programs that saved their bacon in the '30s and '40s.

Qtec
01-28-2011, 06:42 PM
Now that the country is 14 T in debt, they want to change the tax system.
The elite want pass that debt on to the masses and at the same time enjoy massive tax cuts at the same time.

They have no shame.

Q

Sev
01-28-2011, 07:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cable an satellite are basically monopolies. Various components of old Ma Bell own all the phone lines. Fiber optic is still limited.

Now if you want to talk phones. Straight talk gives me everything I need for 30 a month. Versus 90.00 a month

And Skype gives me all I need for under 15.00 a month. Versus 60 a month. </div></div>



Yes, and have the land-line prices come down as a result? </div></div>

Why would they? I just said they were monopolies.

Sev
01-28-2011, 07:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Fair tax doesn't have to work, they just want to pass it into law. Then it would be almost impossible to go back to progressive income taxation.
Look what happened to the Bush tax cuts that were supposed to expire?

Q </div></div>

Deem and pass might just work.

LWW
01-29-2011, 07:33 AM
So you admit that our current tax system helped bring the mess into being? Kudos.

Now, would you like me to explain ... again ... the primary benefit of the FairTax?

First we must work you through the vast number of myths you believe in?

|Have you any more mythology, or are you ready to move to the next level?

LWW

Sev
01-29-2011, 07:51 AM
The patience of a saint.

Soflasnapper
01-29-2011, 04:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cable an satellite are basically monopolies. Various components of old Ma Bell own all the phone lines. Fiber optic is still limited.

Now if you want to talk phones. Straight talk gives me everything I need for 30 a month. Versus 90.00 a month

And Skype gives me all I need for under 15.00 a month. Versus 60 a month. </div></div>



Yes, and have the land-line prices come down as a result? </div></div>

Why would they? I just said they were monopolies. </div></div>

EVERYTHING of importance in commerce is a cartelized oligopoly, if it's not a monopoly.

Take credit card rates. Are there lower charging companies? Yes. Has that forced the largest providers to reduce their rates to be competitive? Not that I've seen.

Which is why the promise of reduced prices from elimination of hidden taxes in the Fair Tax will probably not occur.

Sev
01-29-2011, 05:13 PM
I'm not that cynical.

Higher volume at lower prices produces more wealth over the long term and gives access to a broader market share.

LWW
01-29-2011, 05:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Take credit card rates. Are there lower charging companies? Yes. Has that forced the largest providers to reduce their rates to be competitive? Not that I've seen.</div></div>

Complete misunderstanding of how consumer finance and business risk operates.

Here's what you are missing.

Cards with the lower rates offer the lower rates because their credit criteria is stronger and their collection departments are better financed.

IOW, COMPANY A might charge 9.99%, of which they have loses of 3% and marketing/collection/admin/processing/perqs costs of 7%. Their bottom line is that they live off the 1.5% +/- vendor fee.

COMPANY Z might accept credit risks that COMPANY A would laugh at. They generally also spend far more on marketing. If they charge 17.99% and have loses of 7.5% and marketing/collection/admin/processing/perqs costs of 10.5%, guess what. Their bottom line is that they live off the 1.5% +/- vendor fee.

Neither business model is neccessarily "RIGHT" or not ... in fact both are equally valid. Most banks have a high risk and a low risk card available.

What drives the rate of both are:

- Admin costs, which are essentially identical and are market driven.

- Perq costs ... getting 1% cash back costs pretty much 1% plus the additional admin and marketing costs and are market driven.

- Collection costs, which are market driven.

- Cost of funds, which is market driven.

- Vendor fees, which are market driven.

Because two cards have different rates doesn't mean they are the same thing anymore than assuming a Ferrari and a Corvette are the same even though they do essentially the same thing.

LWW

Qtec
01-29-2011, 05:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, would you like me to explain </div></div>

Yes, in four sentences please.

Q

LWW
01-29-2011, 05:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, would you like me to explain </div></div>

Yes, in four sentences please.

Q </div></div>

For one to explain to you requires that you are willing to understand the explanation ... something you very seldom seem to be able to do.

LWW

sack316
01-29-2011, 05:44 PM
Good explanation on the credit cards there LWW.

One can't cite those as an example the way sofla did because company with high APR and company with low APR are not actually in direct competition with each other... each has a different target market and/or niche it is filling. Company Z in your example is after persons like myself, whom company A wouldn't even touch. Whereas if I had excellent credit, company A is looking for me whereas company Z knows I'm not looking for something such as themselves.

Sack

Qtec
01-29-2011, 05:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For one to explain to you requires that you are willing to understand the explanation ... something you very seldom seem to be able to do.

LWW </div></div>

Just as I thought,....you can't.


Q.....apparently, you should be able to explain anything in four sentences.

Soflasnapper
01-29-2011, 06:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Take credit card rates. Are there lower charging companies? Yes. Has that forced the largest providers to reduce their rates to be competitive? Not that I've seen.</div></div>

Complete misunderstanding of how consumer finance and business risk operates.

Here's what you are missing.

Cards with the lower rates offer the lower rates because their credit criteria is stronger and their collection departments are better financed.

IOW, COMPANY A might charge 9.99%, of which they have loses of 3% and marketing/collection/admin/processing/perqs costs of 7%. Their bottom line is that they live off the 1.5% +/- vendor fee.

COMPANY Z might accept credit risks that COMPANY A would laugh at. They generally also spend far more on marketing. If they charge 17.99% and have loses of 7.5% and marketing/collection/admin/processing/perqs costs of 10.5%, guess what. Their bottom line is that they live off the 1.5% +/- vendor fee.

Neither business model is neccessarily "RIGHT" or not ... in fact both are equally valid. Most banks have a high risk and a low risk card available.

What drives the rate of both are:

- Admin costs, which are essentially identical and are market driven.

- Perq costs ... getting 1% cash back costs pretty much 1% plus the additional admin and marketing costs and are market driven.

- Collection costs, which are market driven.

- Cost of funds, which is market driven.

- Vendor fees, which are market driven.

Because two cards have different rates doesn't mean they are the same thing anymore than assuming a Ferrari and a Corvette are the same even though they do essentially the same thing.

LWW </div></div>

Ok, let's say all that's correct, and I have no reason to doubt it is substantially true.

So, in the category of higher risk and higher APRs, wouldn't there STILL be some company or other that will take the high risks which require the higher rates at a LOWER high rate, and thereby force the general reduction I'm asking about?

Are there any such examples? Of somebody having a lower profit margin in mind, taking a lower rate at whatever risk tier we're talking about than the industry average, and everybody else being forced to drop to that lower rate?

Or merchant rates from various banks to merchants to allow their customers the use of credit cards?

pooltchr
01-29-2011, 09:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not that cynical.

Higher volume at lower prices produces more wealth over the long term and gives access to a broader market share.

</div></div>

Another reason to hate Wal Mart...they don't fit into their mold!

Steve

LWW
01-30-2011, 01:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, let's say all that's correct, and I have no reason to doubt it is substantially true.

So, in the category of higher risk and higher APRs, wouldn't there STILL be some company or other that will take the high risks which require the higher rates at a LOWER high rate, and thereby force the general reduction I'm asking about?

Are there any such examples? Of somebody having a lower profit margin in mind, taking a lower rate at whatever risk tier we're talking about than the industry average, and everybody else being forced to drop to that lower rate?

Or merchant rates from various banks to merchants to allow their customers the use of credit cards?

</div></div>

Of course there would be.

Those are the ones that are insolvent.

LWW

JohnnyD
01-31-2011, 01:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, let's say all that's correct, and I have no reason to doubt it is substantially true.

So, in the category of higher risk and higher APRs, wouldn't there STILL be some company or other that will take the high risks which require the higher rates at a LOWER high rate, and thereby force the general reduction I'm asking about?

Are there any such examples? Of somebody having a lower profit margin in mind, taking a lower rate at whatever risk tier we're talking about than the industry average, and everybody else being forced to drop to that lower rate?

Or merchant rates from various banks to merchants to allow their customers the use of credit cards?

</div></div>

Of course there would be.

Those are the ones that are insolvent.

LWW </div></div>Outstanding post.

LWW
01-31-2011, 05:36 AM
The truth seems to cause them great pain JohnnyD.

LWW