PDA

View Full Version : US to become Europe's Mexico?



Soflasnapper
08-15-2011, 12:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Making Europe's Mexico

by digby

In case you were wondering why so many business elites are sitting on huge piles of cash while insisting on cutting government social spending, destroying unions, lowering living standards for the middle class and generally making average workers work harder for less, perhaps this will explain it:

Jokes about the U.S. becoming "Europe's Mexico" are commonplace, but now high-priced consultants are pushing the notion in all seriousness.

They're predicting that within five years certain Southern U.S. states will be among the cheapest manufacturing locations in the developed world -- and competitive with China.

For years advisers like the Boston Consulting Group got paid big bucks to tell their clients to produce in China. Now, they say, rising wages there, fueled by worker unrest, and low wages in Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina mean that soon it won't be worth the hassle of locating overseas.
[...]
BCG bluntly praises Mississippi's "flexible unions/workers, minimal wage growth, and high worker productivity," estimating that in four years, workers in China's fast-growing Yangtze River Delta will cost only 31 percent less than Mississippi workers.



Now it all makes sense, doesn't it?
</div></div>

Next low-wage haven: the US (http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/08/next-low-wage-haven-usa.html)

cushioncrawler
08-16-2011, 01:48 AM
By then China will own the south.
Frankly my expensive, me dont build u a dam.
mac.

LWW
08-16-2011, 02:34 AM
Why did you truncate the article where you did?

You left out the part about one of the worst abusers of the system being the UAW.

Now that they have theirs, and control of General Motors due to the thugocracy, they are protecting "FIRST TIER" older employees by abusing second and third tier employees.

Qtec
08-16-2011, 03:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why did you truncate the article where you did?

You left out the part about one of the worst abusers of the system being the UAW.

Now that they have theirs, and control of General Motors due to the thugocracy, they are protecting "FIRST TIER" older employees by abusing second and third tier employees. </div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ford's flagship Dearborn Truck plant outside Detroit, for example, contracts<span style='font-size: 14pt'> non-union workers </span>to do inspection and repairs -- long the coveted jobs, <u>that workers could get only with many years' seniority</u> -- <span style='font-size: 14pt'>at $10 an hour with no benefits.</span>

That's more than the Chinese average now, but less than what's projected for 2015.

Brad Duncan, who worked at the plant last year, said it seemed like dozens of small companies were involved. Many pay people as "independent contractors," he said, and are essentially fly-by-night operations.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>"I worked for 10 bucks an hour with <u>no overtime</u> for around <u>66 hours a week</u>," Duncan said. "Then I'd get laid off for a week or more at a time with no notice."</span> </div></div>

Q

LWW
08-16-2011, 03:07 AM
Thanks for having my back.

llotter
08-16-2011, 06:20 AM
The marketplace should determine wages. Now, if we could get rid of the Nanny State and lower the cost of living and doing business in America, we would raise the standard of living for everyone the most possible.

LWW
08-16-2011, 06:30 AM
The FAIRTAX would fix all of this.

llotter
08-16-2011, 06:42 AM
I have been in favor of a flat tax in the 6 or 7 percent range with no exceptions whatever. One page tax code and one page tax return. I would definitely reconsider if the 'Fairtax' would eliminate the Nanny State, including entitlements. Does it do that?

LWW
08-16-2011, 06:45 AM
With the FAIRTAX there would be no tax forms and no IRS.

Qtec
08-16-2011, 07:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With the FAIRTAX there would be no tax forms and no IRS. </div></div>

With the 'Fair tax', the burden would be shifted from those who can afford it, to those who can't.

Its a scam.

Right now you have a fair system based on ability to pay. The problem is its being abused. Why not just cut out the loopholes?

Q

Qtec
08-16-2011, 07:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now it all makes sense, doesn't it? </div></div>

How do you get Americans to work for 3rd world wages?
Answer: Force them to.

Cut unemployment benefits and the safety net.
Destroy the unions so they have no political power.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">August 14
Postal workers won't go quietly
Unions react furiously to a proposal to lay off 120,000 employees by breaking labor contracts.

By Meredith Goad mgoad@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer

Tom Rizzo, spokesman for the U.S. Postal Service in northern New England, said it is still too early to know exactly what kind of impact the layoff of <u>120,000 Postal Service workers</u> nationwide might have in Maine.

Rizzo said he thinks the cuts would likely affect northern New England proportionately to the rest of the country.

National and local unions reacted furiously Friday to a proposal by the Postal Service to lay off the workers by <span style='font-size: 14pt'>breaking labor contracts and shifting workers out of federal employee health and retirement plans into cheaper alternatives.</span>

John Riley, former president of the American Postal Workers Union in Portland, called the proposal "the fight to end all fights."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"This is part of a right wing push to manufacture 'crises' that are not real <u>to destroy unions and the middle class,</u>" Riley wrote in a mass email he sent Friday to postal employees in Maine. "Unfortunately, it is being enabled by weak Democrats and a President who barely seems to be aware there is a labor movement and working class. </span></div></div>

link (http://www.pressherald.com/news/postal-workers-wont-go-quietly_2011-08-14.html)


Q

eg8r
08-16-2011, 07:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They're predicting that within five years certain Southern U.S. states will be among the cheapest manufacturing locations in the developed world -- and competitive with China.
</div></div>Anybody think this is a bad thing? Which political party do you think would try to capitalize on this "should" it actually happen? And why?

eg8r

eg8r
08-16-2011, 07:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With the 'Fair tax', the burden would be shifted from those who can afford it, to those who can't.
</div></div>In your own words would you please explain this "burden" that you talk about?

There is no burden other than filing their income taxes every year and paying their sales tax and other various state and local taxes that everyone pays. The poor and middle class do not see any additional taxes but wait till 2014 when Obama places a heavy burden on $30 million Americans by forcing them to pay for HC.

The lion's share of all taxes paid in this country are done by the top 10% income earners and the poor have a free ride. This "burden" you lie about is a myth in your fantasy land.

eg8r

Qtec
08-16-2011, 08:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The lion's share of all taxes paid in this country are done by the top 10% income earners and the poor have a free ride. This "burden" you lie about is a myth in your fantasy land.

eg8r </div></div>

The POOR are really living it up these days.
Living in tents. Seeing their UE benefits stopped. Being thrown out of their houses. Being fired for no reason.

Yeah. Sounds like a free ride.


IDIOT.

Q

Qtec
08-16-2011, 08:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The lion's share of all taxes paid in this country are done by the top 10% income earners </div></div>

Their incomes have risen 25% in the last 30 years. They enjoy the lowest tax rates 50 years. The average guy has seen his wages stay the same when you account for inflation.. and the GOP and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>you</span> want Joe SixPack to work longer for less.

Q

LWW
08-16-2011, 08:41 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">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With the FAIRTAX there would be no tax forms and no IRS. </div></div>

With the 'Fair tax', the burden would be shifted from those who can afford it, to those who can't.

Q </div></div>

How?

LWW
08-16-2011, 08:42 AM
How could an employer fire someone for no reason?

eg8r
08-16-2011, 11:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Their incomes have risen 25% in the last 30 years. </div></div>Their income is the exact reason why they pay the lions share and the poor are able to take the free ride. The average workers wage staying the same has nothing to do with some ill-perceived increase in tax burden. The only time there is an increase in tax burden is when the tax rate is increased. As far as the wage staying the same that is incorrect also but it is simpletons like you that don't really understand reality. The company I work for as has merit increases every year for at least the past 30 years. Hard to have your pay stay the same and actually get paid more.

Also proof of your insanity is that those whom I call "old timers" were paid much less starting money than those coming out of college right now and even if you add in inflation the new comers are still out ahead making more money than their "older" counterparts. The "older" employees have actually enjoyed very nice increases in pay as the salaries for equal positions across the industry increase.

As far as the "working longer" statement, the 40 hour work week has been around quite a long time. Long before my foray into the corporate world and will probably stick around long after. We don't have to work any longer hours which also shoots bullet holes in your fantasy land ideas that the middle class carries any additional burden. Also the wealthiest group of individuals in this country work many more hours than the middle to poor classes. You will rarely ever see a lawyer work just a 40 hour work week. You will rarely find directors, VPs, Presidents, etc of large Corporations or small business owners only working a 40 hour work week.

Every time you open your mouth reality stuffs your foot right in.

eg8r

eg8r
08-16-2011, 11:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The POOR are really living it up these days.
</div></div>You are absolutely right. They are out there getting all their grocery necessities for free, they have flat panel tv's on the walls, they have cable/sattelite programming, two cars in the garage, access to free healthcare, etc. The poor in this country have a standard of life above any other country in the world. The ones living in tents (as you stupidly try to portray) are such a small/minute portion of the poor population that you are laughed out of the insane asylum.

You never give us reason to believe anyone surpasses you as the resident village idiot here at the CCB. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-16-2011, 12:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why did you truncate the article where you did?

You left out the part about one of the worst abusers of the system being the UAW.

Now that they have theirs, and control of General Motors due to the thugocracy, they are protecting "FIRST TIER" older employees by abusing second and third tier employees. </div></div>

I quoted Digby, as should have been clear. It was her truncation, which I cited in full. Then I copied the link she provided (but which didn't come through as a link in the copied text), to provide that full citation, just as she did.

This is how it is done on blogs. A new kind of thing. Look into it. The blogger puts up what they think is/are the key takeaway paragraph(s), and then links to the whole thing.

Soflasnapper
08-16-2011, 12:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The marketplace should determine wages. Now, if we could get rid of the Nanny State and lower the cost of living and doing business in America, we would raise the standard of living for everyone the most possible. </div></div>

The marketplace for labor is now global, or increasingly so.

The AVERAGE wage may indeed increase (globally), while decimating the average US wage (it's called 'harmonization').

There is no reason to think such a process and result will be favorable to US workers. There is every reason to think it will harm them, instead.

Soflasnapper
08-16-2011, 12:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How could an employer fire someone for no reason? </div></div>

It's called employment at will, and a very common situation. Unless somebody has a work contract as an individual, or a work contract through a union, firing at will (= employment at will) for whatever reason except those forbidden by Title IX is a very normal situation in many states.

Honestly, you didn't know such work arrangements exist? Really?

Soflasnapper
08-16-2011, 12:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With the 'Fair tax', the burden would be shifted from those who can afford it, to those who can't.
</div></div>In your own words would you please explain this "burden" that you talk about?

There is no burden other than filing their income taxes every year and paying their sales tax and other various state and local taxes that everyone pays. The poor and middle class do not see any additional taxes but wait till 2014 when Obama places a heavy burden on $30 million Americans by forcing them to pay for HC.

The lion's share of all taxes paid in this country are done by the top 10% income earners and the poor have a free ride. This "burden" you lie about is a myth in your fantasy land.

eg8r </div></div>

Well, you misunderstand most of this.

The claim is that under fair tax, the tax burden of everyone goes up, except for the top brackets, whose tax burden goes down.

I think it's probably a true claim, as the national sales tax would add an ADMITTED 23% (or more) to everything everyone purchases, and the median federal income tax rate is 5% or something (maybe less now), meaning half pay less than that, and half pay more. That's the mid-point of the rate as to the federal income tax.

Throw in the FICA/SS tax of 7.65%, and the median total federal tax burden is (no more than, disregarding excise taxes, etc.) 5 + 7.65 = 12.65%. Your questioning of Q amounts to a question of why does a nearly double the rate of 23% mean the burden of greater taxation would be shifted to the non-rich? Especially when the top bracket guys would go from a 35% rate to 23%?

Do you not see the shift of the burden under that proposal now?

LWW
08-16-2011, 04:07 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: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How could an employer fire someone for no reason? </div></div>

It's called employment at will, and a very common situation.</div></div>

I understand everything about at will ... sadly, you didn't answer the question.

LWW
08-16-2011, 04:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, you misunderstand most of this.

The claim is that under fair tax, the tax burden of everyone goes up, except for the top brackets, whose tax burden goes down.

I think it's probably a true claim, as the national sales tax would add an ADMITTED 23% (or more) to everything everyone purchases, and the median federal income tax rate is 5% or something (maybe less now), meaning half pay less than that, and half pay more. That's the mid-point of the rate as to the federal income tax.

Throw in the FICA/SS tax of 7.65%, and the median total federal tax burden is (no more than, disregarding excise taxes, etc.) 5 + 7.65 = 12.65%. Your questioning of Q amounts to a question of why does a nearly double the rate of 23% mean the burden of greater taxation would be shifted to the non-rich? Especially when the top bracket guys would go from a 35% rate to 23%?

Do you not see the shift of the burden under that proposal now? </div></div>

Here's your problem in a nutshell dude ... you delude yourself into believing that everyone else misunderstands everything while you have it all figured out, and in most cases you know next to nothing about the topic.

The FAIRTAX does not ... wrap your collectivist head around this ... DOES NOT add 23% to the price of anything.

What it does is strip out every tax that is embedded currently into our tax system.

When the trucker delivers the goods to the store as an example ... you, and other consumers, are paying the embedded fuel taxes. And excise taxes on tires ... and taxes on the steel, and aluminum, and everything which goes into the production of everything.

Under the FAIRTAX every federal tax is eliminated, other than it. No excise taxes. No income taxes. No FICA taxes. No MEDICARE taxes. No ticket taxes. No telephone taxes. No other federal tax of any kind on anything.

If you wish to discuss a topic ... save yourself some embarrassment and actually learn what you are talking about.

Soflasnapper
08-16-2011, 05:18 PM
Of course you don't see it. I was asking ed.

This is only the 3rd or 4th time this topic has been raised on this board, and I am quite familiar with it at this time. I knew of it at the time it was proposed, but hadn't looked at the details in a while. I reviewed those details back when this was first raised here.

Opinions on this vary strongly, but this proposal was analyzed by George W. Bush's Presidential Advisory panel, and what they reported out does not support your opinion on the effects.

See the Wiki page on the Fair Tax for citations of their findings.

eg8r
08-16-2011, 07:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, you misunderstand most of this.
</div></div>No, I have a firm grasp on it and there is no additional burden for the poor and middle classes. In actuality under the Fair Tax they get to continue to receive their handouts through monthly payments intended to cover all necessities. Outside of that the tax rate does not increase an additional 23% as you are implying, rather it just increase to that level. Meaning at this point I pay 6.5% so I would increase to 23 NOT increase to 29.5% as you implied.

Also all income taxes will be removed which covers some of that increase. On top of that, the expectation is that since the taxes on businesses will be removed then that same amount will be removed out of the cost of doing business thus lowering the cost of goods. By adding the 23% all it will do is lock the final "out the door" price in at the same price point it currently is. All consumer products have what is considered a break even point at which the vendor needs to make a certain amount to recoup costs and make some % or margin extra. By removing the taxes each step of the way the end product does not need a price point nearly as high as before to make the same profit margin and they price for the consumer will drop.

Now sure, some companies may choose not to reduce their prices and pocket the extra % but they will be few and far between because in a true capitalist economy the others will lower prices to gain the business and squeeze out the greedy guy. We already have laws in place to handle those that choose collusion as a means to increase costs so that is a non-argument.

The net difference is that in the end the out of pocket expense on goods will not change. General necessities will be free or deeply reduced (based on income) and there will be no more income taxes. This are all net gains for everyone including the poor and middle classes. This talk of burden is no more than the left tightening the noose around their constituents necks.

eg8r

eg8r
08-16-2011, 07:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Opinions on this vary strongly, but this proposal was analyzed by George W. Bush's Presidential Advisory panel, and what they reported out does not support your opinion on the effects.
</div></div>Surely you would expect our laughter at your use of W's advisory panel on this subject yet denounce everything they have ever done on any other subject.

Also, quit looking at Wiki as a source for research. I can go there right now and make changes that say you know nothing and it will stay there until they change it back.

eg8r

Qtec
08-16-2011, 08:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now sure, some companies may choose not to reduce their prices and pocket the extra % but they will be few and far between because in a true capitalist economy the others will lower prices to gain the business and squeeze out the greedy guy. </div></div>

That little fantasy has just been disproved.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Fliers irked as airlines pocket suspended FAA taxes </span>

Many fliers are outraged, but few are surprised, that most airlines have chosen to <span style='font-size: 14pt'>raise fares rather than cut ticket costs</span> to reflect a suspension of airline ticket taxes.
Several aviation taxes expired after midnight Friday when Congress failed to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, which collects the revenue. <u>The suspended taxes could save passengers 10% to 15% on their ticket prices,</u> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>but most U.S. carriers have boosted fares to the levels ticket prices would have been with the taxes still in place, allowing the airlines to take in roughly an extra $25 million a day,</span> says Rick Seaney of FareCompare.com. </div></div>

Q

LWW
08-17-2011, 03:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course you don't see it. I was asking ed.

This is only the 3rd or 4th time this topic has been raised on this board, and I am quite familiar with it at this time. I knew of it at the time it was proposed, but hadn't looked at the details in a while. I reviewed those details back when this was first raised here.

Opinions on this vary strongly, but this proposal was analyzed by George W. Bush's Presidential Advisory panel, and what they reported out does not support your opinion on the effects.

See the Wiki page on the Fair Tax for citations of their findings. </div></div>

Bush was a statist ... he was one of your own.

No statist will support the FAIRTAX for the same reason that no statist will support the tenth amendment.

And, if you are"quite familiar with it at this time" ... why do you keep bringing up the same falsehoods over and over?

eg8r
08-17-2011, 07:55 AM
Why didn't you post about those airlines that did drop their prices immediately? Is it because you have your head in the sand. I posted both sides in the quote you mentioned by saying "yes some may choose not to reduce". What did you stupidly do...you said I am wrong by PROVING I WAS RIGHT.

Way to go dillhole.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-17-2011, 12:03 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">Well, you misunderstand most of this.

The claim is that under fair tax, the tax burden of everyone goes up, except for the top brackets, whose tax burden goes down.

I think it's probably a true claim, as the national sales tax would add an ADMITTED 23% (or more) to everything everyone purchases, and the median federal income tax rate is 5% or something (maybe less now), meaning half pay less than that, and half pay more. That's the mid-point of the rate as to the federal income tax.

Throw in the FICA/SS tax of 7.65%, and the median total federal tax burden is (no more than, disregarding excise taxes, etc.) 5 + 7.65 = 12.65%. Your questioning of Q amounts to a question of why does a nearly double the rate of 23% mean the burden of greater taxation would be shifted to the non-rich? Especially when the top bracket guys would go from a 35% rate to 23%?

Do you not see the shift of the burden under that proposal now? </div></div>

Here's your problem in a nutshell dude ... you delude yourself into believing that everyone else misunderstands everything while you have it all figured out, and in most cases you know next to nothing about the topic.

The FAIRTAX does not ... wrap your collectivist head around this ... DOES NOT add 23% to the price of anything.

What it does is strip out every tax that is embedded currently into our tax system.

When the trucker delivers the goods to the store as an example ... you, and other consumers, are paying the embedded fuel taxes. And excise taxes on tires ... and taxes on the steel, and aluminum, and everything which goes into the production of everything.

Under the FAIRTAX every federal tax is eliminated, other than it. No excise taxes. No income taxes. No FICA taxes. No MEDICARE taxes. No ticket taxes. No telephone taxes. No other federal tax of any kind on anything.

If you wish to discuss a topic ... save yourself some embarrassment and actually learn what you are talking about. </div></div>

Show me how in the legislation proposed that what you say is true. It isn't.

Once it was implemented, for what you say to be true to be accurate, the entire amount would have be first wholly eaten by the retailer, who might then hope eventually the suppliers would voluntarily (or through competition forcing them) reduce THEIR costs to the retailer by the same amount. How long this might take is questionable, but surely, it will not happen on day one.

The retailers are NOT going to eat 23% inclusive on all sales-- that is absurd. They are ALL going to pass it on, and then perhaps, but only perhaps, IF and WHEN their own costs are diminished, they may reduce the retail price somewhat. Although even that dropping down the road of the retail price would be sticky.

Why? Because the retailers task, as it is for anyone in business, is to maximize profits for the business owners/shareholders. If a company gets a key concession from a provider, saving a lot of money, there is no reason they'd either immediately or ever return all that savings to the consumer, and thereby net out nothing from that savings. Some, or all, of it would instead be available to flow to the bottom line, as is their primary purpose for being in business.

The kind of instant savings immediately put into saving the same amount at the checkout stand, so as to make the retail prices identical to what they are now, is a fantasy that cannot take place under the legislation proposed, or any legislation that doesn't mandate it take place. If it ever occurred, it would be over a considerable amount of time, time during which the retail prices would be raised all or almost all of that tax increase.

Which is why some of the studies showed implementing a similar plan would cause a slump in retail sales volume that would last for years. Because of the sticker shock factor, working the supply/demand curve. A considerably higher price causes a considerably reduced demand.

Soflasnapper
08-17-2011, 12:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why didn't you post about those airlines that did drop their prices immediately? Is it because you have your head in the sand. I posted both sides in the quote you mentioned by saying "yes some may choose not to reduce". What did you stupidly do...you said I am wrong by PROVING I WAS RIGHT.

eg8r </div></div>

Actually, it was a disproof of your claim.

Your claim was that, although SOME might hold the same price and pocket the difference, MOST would not.

Here's an example showing the reverse-- MOST held the same price and pocketed the difference, while SOME did not.

The reverse of the situation you claimed. And if indeed MOST would hold the price and pocket the difference, then what you said would happen will not happen.

eg8r
08-17-2011, 12:15 PM
So the two of your are making the bold decision that what happened a couple days after lifting the taxes will be the final result for years to come? Seriously? Maybe you guys forgot about businesses such as Walmart, Best Buy, Home Depot, etc. They were not the largest businesses in days, it took time for the public to actually drive demand. You guys want to toss that all out to "try" and make a point when history proves you are wrong.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-17-2011, 12:16 PM
In actuality under the Fair Tax they get to continue to receive their handouts through monthly payments intended to cover all necessities.

If you understand that point correctly, you've misstated it here.

They would receive an amount equal to the TAX on poverty-level income as if it were all spent, per person in the family, which doesn't cover 'all necessities,' necessarily.

For example, say a family of 4's poverty level of income is $14k a year (purely guessing at that number; adjust as is correct). Using rough numbers, they'd get an annual rebate of 23% of $14k, = $3,220, cut into monthly stipends, $3,220/12 = $270 per month for the entire family. (As would Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, subject to a sliding scale proportional to the number of dependents in their family.)

Soflasnapper
08-17-2011, 12:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So the two of your are making the bold decision that what happened a couple days after lifting the taxes will be the final result for years to come? Seriously? Maybe you guys forgot about businesses such as Walmart, Best Buy, Home Depot, etc. They were not the largest businesses in days, it took time for the public to actually drive demand. You guys want to toss that all out to "try" and make a point when history proves you are wrong.

eg8r </div></div>

Speaking for myself, I've allowed that over time, there may be a price adjustment downwards at final sale time.

But the study that looked into this said there would be 8 years of down retail volume during the transition.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Opponents offer a study commissioned by the National Retail Federation in 2000 that found a national sales tax bill filed by Billy Tauzin, the Individual Tax Freedom Act (H.R. 2717 ), <span style='font-size: 14pt'>would bring a three-year decline in the economy, a four-year decline in employment and an eight-year decline in consumer spending.</span>[66] Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto states the FairTax is unsuited to take advantage of supply-side effects and would create a powerful disincentive to spend money.[54]</div></div>

Checking over to the bill in question, it is not much different from the FairTax. Apparently RETAILERS opposed that one.

Is there RETAILER support for the FairTax? Why would they oppose it, if they do, in your opinion? Is it because, in their view and by their analysis, it would TANK THEIR BUSINESS LEVELS?

eg8r
08-17-2011, 12:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Speaking for myself, I've allowed that over time, there may be a price adjustment downwards at final sale time.
</div></div>"May" be a price adjustment? Are you a politician? You are talking to normal people here who are not going to be voting for you for anything in the future.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is there RETAILER support for the FairTax? Why would they oppose it, if they do, in your opinion? Is it because, in their view and by their analysis, it would TANK THEIR BUSINESS LEVELS?
</div></div>I cannot answer the first one because I have no idea. The second question, I am sure they have good and bad reasons that may be correct or incorrect. Now tell me, since when did the Government start caring about what the retailers thought? They sure didn't when they started the smoking bans. The third question is bull. This is the same thing business owners said about the smoking bans and they were proved wrong. When all businesses are treated equally the impact is lessened.

What is interesting here is that we have been living with Dem control for a few years and the economy is only getting worse and we have Dems telling us why they think everyone else's ideas are wrong.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-17-2011, 02:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Speaking for myself, I've allowed that over time, there may be a price adjustment downwards at final sale time.
</div></div>"May" be a price adjustment? Are you a politician? You are talking to normal people here who are not going to be voting for you for anything in the future.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is there RETAILER support for the FairTax? Why would they oppose it, if they do, in your opinion? Is it because, in their view and by their analysis, it would TANK THEIR BUSINESS LEVELS?
</div></div>I cannot answer the first one because I have no idea. The second question, I am sure they have good and bad reasons that may be correct or incorrect. Now tell me, since when did the Government start caring about what the retailers thought? They sure didn't when they started the smoking bans. The third question is bull. This is the same thing business owners said about the smoking bans and they were proved wrong. When all businesses are treated equally the impact is lessened.

What is interesting here is that we have been living with Dem control for a few years and the economy is only getting worse and we have Dems telling us why they think everyone else's ideas are wrong.

eg8r </div></div>

I'm a lot older than you are, and I have seen many things to show how prices are sticky and do not go downwards as one might think they would.

How did Rolex watches get so expensive? It was when the price of gold shot up so high, and Rolexes contained a lot of gold. Then the price of gold collapsed, but the price of Rolexes stayed where they were, substantially.

Same with the cost of Mercedes automobiles. When the Deutsche-mark had a large rise compared to the USD, those prices rose proportionately. Then when the dollar rebounded in value vs. the DM, the price for the Mercedes was set in stone, and did not track downward.

Both Rolex and Mercedes had competitors, and yet they kept the difference in their cost basis to pad their own bottom-line, and didn't return the reduced costs to their end buyers.

Which is why I said 'may,' because I was signalling the equal possibility, 'may not,' or at least, certainly, may not fully decrease the whole way.

If it's true that an average consumer would have x amount more in spendable income, why would the retailers assume anything but more sales volume for themselves? Because of the extra price they probably rightly assume will soak up all or more than all of that extra expendable income, netting them out nothing more, and probably less, in terms of sales.

Whatever errors retailers may make, they are primarily driven by their profit motive, not liberal ideology, and certainly, no particular love for the current tax arrangement. If it could be clearly shown to them they'd have higher money in consumers' hands, and no price increases, thus higher sales and profits for their sector, they'd got for that out of self-interest. But they aren't buying that story, and instead project LOWER sales, LOWER profits, and LOWER economic activity in general.

Could they be wrong? Of course. Might those who say they're wrong, be wrong themselves?

eg8r
08-17-2011, 02:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Both Rolex and Mercedes had competitors, and yet they kept the difference in their cost basis to pad their own bottom-line, and didn't return the reduced costs to their end buyers.
</div></div>Which competitors where they? Would you be comparing the Honda Civic as a competitor because they both are cars?

Why are your two examples extreme luxury items which the poor in this country have no business possessing anyways?

eg8r

LWW
08-17-2011, 02:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Show me how in the legislation proposed that what you say is true. It isn't.</div></div>

If you insist upon making a fool of yourself ... again ... I'll play along:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is the FairTax plan?

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes</span> with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 13) is nonpartisan legislation.<span style='font-size: 11pt'> It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax</span> administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

The FairTax:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
Allows American products to compete fairly
Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
Abolishes the IRS</span>
We offer a library of information throughout this Web site about the features and benefits of the FairTax plan. Please explore! </div></div>

HERE (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.25:)

HERE (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main)

HERE (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_basics_thumbnail)

LWW
08-17-2011, 02:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Once it was implemented, for what you say to be true to be accurate, the entire amount would have be first wholly eaten by the retailer, who might then hope eventually the suppliers would voluntarily (or through competition forcing them) reduce THEIR costs to the retailer by the same amount. How long this might take is questionable, but surely, it will not happen on day one.</div></div>

Completely backwards.

What really happens is that all tax is collected as a national sale tax at point of sale.

No vendor eats any tax cost because no cost has been levied.

And, if you believe that no vendor would lower their wholesale selling price, to gain market share, once their own costs had been lowered ... you have no clue how capitalism and economic price elasticity work.

For what you claim to be true, we would all still be paying $4.00+ for gas since the nobody in the distribution chain would have ever lowered their price when petroleum costs dropped.

LWW
08-17-2011, 02:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The retailers are NOT going to eat 23% inclusive on all sales-- that is absurd. They are ALL going to pass it on, and then perhaps, but only perhaps, IF and WHEN their own costs are diminished, they may reduce the retail price somewhat. Although even that dropping down the road of the retail price would be sticky.</div></div>

What is absurd is your statement.

The tax would be collected at point of sale just as all sales taxes are now.

Again, they will eat nothing because there is nothing top eat as no tax is levied until point of sale.

Stop playing dumb.

LWW
08-17-2011, 02:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why? Because the retailers task, as it is for anyone in business, is to maximize profits for the business owners/shareholders. If a company gets a key concession from a provider, saving a lot of money, there is no reason they'd either immediately or ever return all that savings to the consumer, and thereby net out nothing from that savings. Some, or all, of it would instead be available to flow to the bottom line, as is their primary purpose for being in business.</div></div>

Why are you so thick headed on this?

The only difference is that pricing becomes honest.

LWW
08-17-2011, 02:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The kind of instant savings immediately put into saving the same amount at the checkout stand, so as to make the retail prices identical to what they are now, is a fantasy that cannot take place under the legislation proposed, or any legislation that doesn't mandate it take place. If it ever occurred, it would be over a considerable amount of time, time during which the retail prices would be raised all or almost all of that tax increase.</div></div>

And yet you have nothing but jibba jabba to back your point up?

LWW
08-17-2011, 03:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which is why some of the studies showed implementing a similar plan would cause a slump in retail sales volume that would last for years. Because of the sticker shock factor, working the supply/demand curve. A considerably higher price causes a considerably reduced demand. </div></div>

That is because they misrepresent the program in order to scare the knickers off of people like you, who will believe whatever those running the fascist economy tell them.

LWW
08-17-2011, 03:02 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: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why didn't you post about those airlines that did drop their prices immediately? Is it because you have your head in the sand. I posted both sides in the quote you mentioned by saying "yes some may choose not to reduce". What did you stupidly do...you said I am wrong by PROVING I WAS RIGHT.

eg8r </div></div>

Actually, it was a disproof of your claim.

Your claim was that, although SOME might hold the same price and pocket the difference, MOST would not.

Here's an example showing the reverse-- MOST held the same price and pocketed the difference, while SOME did not.

The reverse of the situation you claimed. And if indeed MOST would hold the price and pocket the difference, then what you said would happen will not happen. </div></div>

And that example is so wrongheaded as to be unimaginable how you would believe it.

The airlines holding the line on price. for a few days, were doing so on the bet that the gubmint would retroactively reinstate the fee and demand it from them.

LWW
08-17-2011, 03:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In actuality under the Fair Tax they get to continue to receive their handouts through monthly payments intended to cover all necessities.

If you understand that point correctly, you've misstated it here.

They would receive an amount equal to the TAX on poverty-level income as if it were all spent, per person in the family, which doesn't cover 'all necessities,' necessarily.

For example, say a family of 4's poverty level of income is $14k a year (purely guessing at that number; adjust as is correct). Using rough numbers, they'd get an annual rebate of 23% of $14k, = $3,220, cut into monthly stipends, $3,220/12 = $270 per month for the entire family. (As would Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, subject to a sliding scale proportional to the number of dependents in their family.)

</div></div>

That is correct ... and your point is what?

LWW
08-17-2011, 03:06 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: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So the two of your are making the bold decision that what happened a couple days after lifting the taxes will be the final result for years to come? Seriously? Maybe you guys forgot about businesses such as Walmart, Best Buy, Home Depot, etc. They were not the largest businesses in days, it took time for the public to actually drive demand. You guys want to toss that all out to "try" and make a point when history proves you are wrong.

eg8r </div></div>



Speaking for myself, I've allowed that over time, there may be a price adjustment downwards at final sale time.

But the study that looked into this said there would be 8 years of down retail volume during the transition.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Opponents offer a study commissioned by the National Retail Federation in 2000 that found a national sales tax bill filed by Billy Tauzin, the Individual Tax Freedom Act (H.R. 2717 ), <span style='font-size: 14pt'>would bring a three-year decline in the economy, a four-year decline in employment and an eight-year decline in consumer spending.</span>[66] Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto states the FairTax is unsuited to take advantage of supply-side effects and would create a powerful disincentive to spend money.[54]</div></div>

Checking over to the bill in question, it is not much different from the FairTax. Apparently RETAILERS opposed that one.

Is there RETAILER support for the FairTax? Why would they oppose it, if they do, in your opinion? Is it because, in their view and by their analysis, it would TANK THEIR BUSINESS LEVELS? </div></div>

Can you read?

The "FAIRTAX" and the "Individual Tax Freedom Act (H.R. 2717 )" are not the same thing.

LWW
08-17-2011, 03:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm a lot older than you are, and I have seen many things to show how prices are sticky and do not go downwards as one might think they would.

How did Rolex watches get so expensive? It was when the price of gold shot up so high, and Rolexes contained a lot of gold. Then the price of gold collapsed, but the price of Rolexes stayed where they were, substantially.</div></div>

I own 2 Rolex watches. First ... like a Benz, only a sucker buys one new. That being said ... 3 things impact their cost. The first is precious metals, the second is production costs, and the third is their status appeal.

When precious metals are soft along with the economy ... they can be picked up for a song.

Rolex watches, new and used, are being severely discounted in this economy.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All of the Rolex Watches shown on the following page(s) are Certified Pre-Owned and are restored to Like-New Condition. Most of the watches shown are available new, however our Certified Pre-Owned watches will afford the buyer a great savings over purchasing new, and our sales consultants will be more than happy to discuss the differences between buying new and pre-owned. New watch prices fluctuate continually, thus call to get the lastest price quote. </div></div>

And you try so hard. (http://www.capetownstore.com/consignment_rolex.html)

LWW
08-17-2011, 03:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Same with the cost of Mercedes automobiles. When the Deutsche-mark had a large rise compared to the USD, those prices rose proportionately. Then when the dollar rebounded in value vs. the DM, the price for the Mercedes was set in stone, and did not track downward.</div></div>

True ... kind of.

M-B and BMW both protect the perceived value of their product line. When the Deutschemark tanked the sticker didn't drop ... but the end price to the consumer did.

M-B took the difference and placed it into several things, including:

1 - Ridiculously cheap incentivized leases through their captive finance armes,

2 - Dirt cheap APR's through the same captives.

3 - Rebates to dealers, known in the industry as "CASH IN THE TRUNK" ... rather than diminish the perceived value by offering rebates, the money was used by dealers to offer end lower selling prices and/or higher trade allowances.

4 - Subsidizing their "CERTIFIED USED" lineups, which also supported their brands perceived value.

5 - Gave financial assistance to their dealer network to upgrade showrooms and facilities.

LWW
08-17-2011, 03:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If it's true that an average consumer would have x amount more in spendable income, why would the retailers assume anything but more sales volume for themselves? Because of the extra price they probably rightly assume will soak up all or more than all of that extra expendable income, netting them out nothing more, and probably less, in terms of sales.</div></div>

Your conclusion is fatally flawed because you insist on believing the myth that the vendor would absorb something.

Actually, the opposite is true because they are currently absorbing all of the imbedded taxes and then passing it on to the end consumer.

This would give vendors more cash flow, not less.

LWW
08-17-2011, 03:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whatever errors retailers may make, they are primarily driven by their profit motive, not liberal ideology, and certainly, no particular love for the current tax arrangement. If it could be clearly shown to them they'd have higher money in consumers' hands, and no price increases, thus higher sales and profits for their sector, they'd got for that out of self-interest. But they aren't buying that story, and instead project LOWER sales, LOWER profits, and LOWER economic activity in general.</div></div>

Incorrect.

LWW
08-17-2011, 03:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Both Rolex and Mercedes had competitors, and yet they kept the difference in their cost basis to pad their own bottom-line, and didn't return the reduced costs to their end buyers.
</div></div>Which competitors where they? Would you be comparing the Honda Civic as a competitor because they both are cars?

Why are your two examples extreme luxury items which the poor in this country have no business possessing anyways?

eg8r </div></div>

Because he thinks that nobody here could afford them is my guess, in any event ... as shown above, both of his examples are epic fails.

eg8r
08-17-2011, 03:39 PM
Wow, that extreme example does show the fairtax in a bad light but then again the dire situation would not change for the better or worse if the fairtax was passed or not. Any family making only $14k with two children just is not asserting themselves enough to dig out of the hole anyways.

What is with your jumping to extremes in all your examples? Is it because if you chose a normal family in poverty your negativity just would not have as strong a foothold?

eg8r

eg8r
08-17-2011, 03:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lww</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you read?

The "FAIRTAX" and the "Individual Tax Freedom Act (H.R. 2717 )" are not the same thing. </div></div>
Well in all fairness he did address your issue in this comment...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Checking over to the bill in question, it is not much different from the FairTax. Apparently RETAILERS opposed that one.
</div></div>

eg8r

LWW
08-17-2011, 03:47 PM
I saw that ... but what he seems to be saying is that this looks like what he's been led to believe the FAIRTAX was all about.

llotter
08-18-2011, 08:45 AM
<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: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The marketplace should determine wages. Now, if we could get rid of the Nanny State and lower the cost of living and doing business in America, we would raise the standard of living for everyone the most possible. </div></div>

The marketplace for labor is now global, or increasingly so.

The AVERAGE wage may indeed increase (globally), while decimating the average US wage (it's called 'harmonization').

There is no reason to think such a process and result will be favorable to US workers. There is every reason to think it will harm them, instead. </div></div>

You are only fooling yourself if you believe that there is a viable alternative toe marketplace that is as efficient. The only way to compete and win is to be the most efficient and happily, the market coincides with our founding principle of liberty.

Gayle in MD
08-18-2011, 03:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</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: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The marketplace should determine wages. Now, if we could get rid of the Nanny State and lower the cost of living and doing business in America, we would raise the standard of living for everyone the most possible. </div></div>

The marketplace for labor is now global, or increasingly so.

The AVERAGE wage may indeed increase (globally), while decimating the average US wage (it's called 'harmonization').

There is no reason to think such a process and result will be favorable to US workers. There is every reason to think it will harm them, instead. </div></div>

You are only fooling yourself if you believe that there is a viable alternative toe marketplace that is as efficient. The only way to compete and win is to be the most efficient and happily, the market coincides with our founding principle of liberty. </div></div>

BWA HA HA HA.

So you think the founding Fathers could foresee a computerized corrupted Global market, and Bush's deregulated overrsight of Wall Street?
You think the Founding Fathers had a clue about Wall St. Ponzi Schemes, and corrupted ratings agencies, and the deaths ad destruction caused by a polluted world?

You think they could anticipate the gross greed and corruption that robbed Americans of their investmets, and socialized the losses of the greedy pigs on Wall St.?

You think they could anticipate people like you whho think you have a right to dictate to others according to your religious beliefs?

Nope!!!!

Too funny.

As in everything else, you are a Knuckle Dragging Neanderthal.

You think you have the right to dictate to all others according to your personal opinions, regardless of the findings of the Supreme Court, the settled law on Abortion, yet you constantly yap about Freedom, and praise murderers?

BWA HA HA HA HA....talk about hypocrisy!

G.

llotter
08-18-2011, 04:29 PM
The Founders understood freedom and limited government and that is what we are in desperate need of today to undo the damage perpetrated by the educated idiots of the ruling class. Of course the Founders understood greed and corruption and the also understood that which is done by the private sector and that by the public. The greed and corruption done by the public sector is 'legal' and enforced by police power and therefore many times more damaging than that done by the citizens.

Yes, the Left always can conjure up some reason why free people cannot be trusted to take care of their own interests and need the really smart people to rest control from them. It is this stupidity of the 'educated class' that have gotten us into the colossal mess we are in.

llotter
08-18-2011, 04:31 PM
The Founders understood freedom and limited government and that is what we are in desperate need of today to undo the damage perpetrated by the educated idiots of the ruling class. Of course the Founders understood greed and corruption and the also understood that which is done by the private sector and that by the public. The greed and corruption done by the public sector assumes the color of law and enforced by police power and therefore many times more damaging than that done by the citizens.

Yes, the Left always can conjure up some reason why free people cannot be trusted to take care of their own interests and need the really smart people to rest control from them. It is this stupidity of the 'educated class' that have gotten us into the colossal mess we are in.

Soflasnapper
08-18-2011, 05:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Both Rolex and Mercedes had competitors, and yet they kept the difference in their cost basis to pad their own bottom-line, and didn't return the reduced costs to their end buyers.
</div></div>Which competitors where they? Would you be comparing the Honda Civic as a competitor because they both are cars?

Why are your two examples extreme luxury items which the poor in this country have no business possessing anyways?

eg8r </div></div>

I picked them because my father had just discussed both examples with me earlier that day. He reminded me of something I knew at the time but had forgotten.

Their competitors? Same as now. Patek-Philipe, Breitling, Piaget, Omega, etc., for watches. Jaguar, BMW, Alpha-Romeo, Masserati, etc., for the autos.

Why do I mention them? Because they are sold in an open market to consumers with other choices, and they provided the example of two cases where the market price fully incorporated increases in costs, but then did not reflect fully DECREASES in costs.

Which I thought was pertinent to this discussion. Is it not?

Soflasnapper
08-18-2011, 05:46 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">Show me how in the legislation proposed that what you say is true. It isn't.</div></div>

If you insist upon making a fool of yourself ... again ... I'll play along:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is the FairTax plan?

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes</span> with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 13) is nonpartisan legislation.<span style='font-size: 11pt'> It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax</span> administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

The FairTax:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
Allows American products to compete fairly
Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
Abolishes the IRS</span>
We offer a library of information throughout this Web site about the features and benefits of the FairTax plan. Please explore! </div></div>

HERE (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.25:)

HERE (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main)

HERE (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_basics_thumbnail)

</div></div>

Showing nowhere that the prices would immediately drop by all those factors, nor how they could, really.

I note also that the 16th amendment cannot be repealed by legislation, companion or otherwise, but only through a Constitutional amendment (to repeal that amendment). Such a process would take considerable time to reach ratification by enough states, so for some period of time, the public would be subject to the risk of reinstating the income tax on top of the fair tax.

Soflasnapper
08-18-2011, 05:57 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">Once it was implemented, for what you say to be true to be accurate, the entire amount would have be first wholly eaten by the retailer, who might then hope eventually the suppliers would voluntarily (or through competition forcing them) reduce THEIR costs to the retailer by the same amount. How long this might take is questionable, but surely, it will not happen on day one.</div></div>

Completely backwards.

What really happens is that all tax is collected as a national sale tax at point of sale.

No vendor eats any tax cost because no cost has been levied.

And, if you believe that no vendor would lower their wholesale selling price, to gain market share, once their own costs had been lowered ... you have no clue how capitalism and economic price elasticity work.

For what you claim to be true, we would all still be paying $4.00+ for gas since the nobody in the distribution chain would have ever lowered their price when petroleum costs dropped. </div></div>

It is a well known fact that decreases of the world oil price do not immediately show up as decreases at the gas station. Do you disagree with that claim? Yes, they do come down eventually, but in sticky fashion, haltingly, and far more slowly than the ratchet up when world oil prices suddenly rise.

If there are to be no increases at the checkout line for retail prices, there would be no need to subsidize the poor people by paying the equivalent of the poverty level of spending taxation to them.

They'd simply be happy with their own extra money (no income tax or payroll tax), and be delighted to pay exactly the same thing (OR LESS!) for the same goods with their extra after-tax money (after that tax is zero).

The very fact that the FAIR TAX includes this pre-bate is an indicator that the prices will be going up, and that it would therefore hurt the poorer households in this country if they were NOT subsidized by this tax rebate amount.

If you want to find the flaws or loopholes in a plan, you do not read only the boosters of the plan, you find you some devil's advocate critic (or real critic). So I guess you took the boosters' word for it, in their book, when you should have looked at the retailers attitudes, and also the design of the plan.

The design of the plan indicates poor households would have to pay more of their meager incomes, and that is why the pre-bate is included, to take away the necessarily increased price of goods at the checkout that most definitely would occur.

Or why, in your opinion, would anyone need to be subsidized, if the prices all stayed the same, and their own income was plumped up by having no tax deducted from their paychecks? Wouldn't you just say, hey, you all have more money and the prices won't go up a nickel, guaranteed, so no pre-bates are necessary and none will be offered?

Soflasnapper
08-18-2011, 06:05 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">Why? Because the retailers task, as it is for anyone in business, is to maximize profits for the business owners/shareholders. If a company gets a key concession from a provider, saving a lot of money, there is no reason they'd either immediately or ever return all that savings to the consumer, and thereby net out nothing from that savings. Some, or all, of it would instead be available to flow to the bottom line, as is their primary purpose for being in business.</div></div>

Why are you so thick headed on this?

The only difference is that pricing becomes honest. </div></div>

Because I've been in business myself for over 30 years.

It is my experience that when we get substantial reduced costs for things we sell, we do NOT share our good results from our business savvy with the end buyers at all. We keep the prices the same (as people expect-- who's prices go down and down, after all?-- mainly as we all know, prices stay the same until they go up!), and MAKE A HIGHER PROFIT by doing so.

As higher profit is desirable for anyone in business, this exact thing will be very tempting to EVERYONE in business. They will only drop prices when FORCED to. I admit competition may EVENTUALLY cause this to come about, but the idea that on day 1, week 1, month 1, it will all have happened is not sensible in my view.

Soflasnapper
08-18-2011, 06:18 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'm a lot older than you are, and I have seen many things to show how prices are sticky and do not go downwards as one might think they would.

How did Rolex watches get so expensive? It was when the price of gold shot up so high, and Rolexes contained a lot of gold. Then the price of gold collapsed, but the price of Rolexes stayed where they were, substantially.</div></div>

I own 2 Rolex watches. First ... like a Benz, only a sucker buys one new. That being said ... 3 things impact their cost. The first is precious metals, the second is production costs, and the third is their status appeal.

When precious metals are soft along with the economy ... they can be picked up for a song.

Rolex watches, new and used, are being severely discounted in this economy.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All of the Rolex Watches shown on the following page(s) are Certified Pre-Owned and are restored to Like-New Condition. Most of the watches shown are available new, however our Certified Pre-Owned watches will afford the buyer a great savings over purchasing new, and our sales consultants will be more than happy to discuss the differences between buying new and pre-owned. New watch prices fluctuate continually, thus call to get the lastest price quote. </div></div>

And you try so hard. (http://www.capetownstore.com/consignment_rolex.html)
</div></div>

Sure, since the era I was discussing (the '80s, when the price of gold reached 850/oz as a record), Rolex watches have become de rigueur, a whole lot of people have them, and in hard times, a whole lot of people dump them. Supply and demand makes for cheap used Rolex watches. Amazing!

And as for ROLEX themselves? Their authorized dealers? Discounting? Your link tells the story. This discounter admits it. Rolex hasn't cut their MSRP, and the authorized dealers don't sell below it. Except under the table, not in the store, sort of in the gray market. According to your discount seller.

Soflasnapper
08-18-2011, 07:08 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">In actuality under the Fair Tax they get to continue to receive their handouts through monthly payments intended to cover all necessities.

If you understand that point correctly, you've misstated it here.

They would receive an amount equal to the TAX on poverty-level income as if it were all spent, per person in the family, which doesn't cover 'all necessities,' necessarily.

For example, say a family of 4's poverty level of income is $14k a year (purely guessing at that number; adjust as is correct). Using rough numbers, they'd get an annual rebate of 23% of $14k, = $3,220, cut into monthly stipends, $3,220/12 = $270 per month for the entire family. (As would Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, subject to a sliding scale proportional to the number of dependents in their family.)

</div></div>

That is correct ... and your point is what? </div></div>

My point was to show eg8r that these monthly payments were not intended to cover all necessities.

Rather, they are to cover the TAX on what would be spent if a family had a poverty level of income and spent it all, incurring the tax on the entire amount.

This is not very much money, and certainly would not 'cover all necessities,' as perhaps eg8r may have mistakenly thought he heard.

It may or may not pay all the taxes that will be due on 'necessities.'

BTW, if there is no extra tax amount on any goods, what is this prebate paying for?

Soflasnapper
08-18-2011, 07:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow, that extreme example does show the fairtax in a bad light but then again the dire situation would not change for the better or worse if the fairtax was passed or not. Any family making only $14k with two children just is not asserting themselves enough to dig out of the hole anyways.

What is with your jumping to extremes in all your examples? Is it because if you chose a normal family in poverty your negativity just would not have as strong a foothold?

eg8r </div></div>

This is the way the prebate is calculated, and approximately what its value would be. I have chosen no example, but have explained this feature of the FAIR TAX's pre-bate, so-called, by telling you how much money it is. Not just for poor people, btw, but everyone, based on the size of the household and the government-set poverty level for that number of persons.

eg8r
08-18-2011, 09:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have chosen no example</div></div>Now don't start acting like you did not post what you posted. You chose an example of a family of 4 making $14k. That family has no chance under the current tax rate and the they have no chance under any other tax rate. Their best bet isn't Government it is going out and getting a second job. Just think, if one parent got another part time job (in addition to what they are already working) they would make more money (income tax free) and bring home a higher prebate.

eg8r

eg8r

eg8r
08-18-2011, 09:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do I mention them? Because they are sold in an open market to consumers with other choices, and they provided the example of two cases where the market price fully incorporated increases in costs, but then did not reflect fully DECREASES in costs.
</div></div>But you are absolutely ignoring the reason why? It is not solely on the fact that they are stubborn and just want to force people to pay those extra prices. The big driver is the clientele they appeal to. Those companies know that the people who can afford them rarely "shop" for them. The book "The Millionaire Next Door" researched this pretty well. The millionaires who could afford but were millionaires because of their good business sense ignored this stuff and on purpose picked cheaper vehicles. The ones that bought these types of items did not shop around for them. They drove to their favorite dealership and bought what they wanted. By "shop" I am referring to looking for bargains and the people who regularly buy the examples you have chosen do not "shop".

If you want a serious discussion quit looking for extreme examples that generally would be considered an outlier given the population as a whole.

eg8r

Qtec
08-19-2011, 03:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have chosen no example</div></div>Now don't start acting like you did not post what you posted. You chose an example of a family of 4 making $14k. That family has no chance under the current tax rate and the they have no chance under any other tax rate. Their best bet isn't Government <span style='font-size: 17pt'>it is going out and getting a second job.</span> Just think, if one parent got another part time job (in addition to what they are already working) they would make more money (income tax free) and bring home a higher prebate.

eg8r

eg8r </div></div>

Haven't you heard? There are no jobs. Even if you get lucky and get one, its low pay and no benefits.

Here's another example of American exeptionalism.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/vacation3.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Real Vacation Outrage: The U.S. Is The Only Developed Country Where Citizens Arenít Guaranteed Paid Vacation

...In fact, the United States is alone among the developed world in not providing its citizens with guaranteed vacation days (paid or unpaid) as a right of employment, </div></div>

Q

LWW
08-19-2011, 04:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Showing nowhere that the prices would immediately drop by all those factors, nor how they could, really.</div></div>

Your argument is like arguing that there is no proof that someone will breathe once they have held their breath for 2 minutes underwater and now have their head in clean air.

Technically, it cannot be proven until it happens.

What are the odds that it won't, being that all history dictates that they will.

All history dictates that when 3 or more competitors are in the marketplace, any reduction in costs will lead to one of them dropping price to gain market share ... followed by the other 2 deciding to follow suit or die.

LWW
08-19-2011, 04:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is a well known fact that decreases of the world oil price do not immediately show up as decreases at the gas station. </div></div>

Then you should have no problem showing this to be true.

In reality ... pump prices change several times per wekk, sometimes per day.

LWW
08-19-2011, 05:00 AM
<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: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why? Because the retailers task, as it is for anyone in business, is to maximize profits for the business owners/shareholders. If a company gets a key concession from a provider, saving a lot of money, there is no reason they'd either immediately or ever return all that savings to the consumer, and thereby net out nothing from that savings. Some, or all, of it would instead be available to flow to the bottom line, as is their primary purpose for being in business.</div></div>

Why are you so thick headed on this?

The only difference is that pricing becomes honest. </div></div>

Because I've been in business myself for over 30 years.

It is my experience that when we get substantial reduced costs for things we sell, we do NOT share our good results from our business savvy with the end buyers at all. We keep the prices the same (as people expect-- who's prices go down and down, after all?-- mainly as we all know, prices stay the same until they go up!), and MAKE A HIGHER PROFIT by doing so.

As higher profit is desirable for anyone in business, this exact thing will be very tempting to EVERYONE in business. They will only drop prices when FORCED to. I admit competition may EVENTUALLY cause this to come about, but the idea that on day 1, week 1, month 1, it will all have happened is not sensible in my view.

</div></div>

If this is true I can only assume that you are in a business where the market price is rigged by gubmint intervention.

eg8r
08-19-2011, 08:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Haven't you heard? There are no jobs. Even if you get lucky and get one, its low pay and no benefits.
</div></div>And that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. There are millions of jobs. Nearly all the fast food restaurants, grocery stores, etc are hiring right now. I did mention a part time job so they would fall into that category where there are plenty of jobs. I did not recommend getting a software development contracting position where the jobs are shrinking I mentioned a category of jobs where they are hiring right now.

If you are going to join the discussion at least wake up first.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-19-2011, 08:48 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">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have chosen no example</div></div>Now don't start acting like you did not post what you posted. You chose an example of a family of 4 making $14k. That family has no chance under the current tax rate and the they have no chance under any other tax rate. Their best bet isn't Government <span style='font-size: 17pt'>it is going out and getting a second job.</span> Just think, if one parent got another part time job (in addition to what they are already working) they would make more money (income tax free) and bring home a higher prebate.

eg8r

eg8r </div></div>

Haven't you heard? There are no jobs. Even if you get lucky and get one, its low pay and no benefits.

Here's another example of American exeptionalism.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/vacation3.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Real Vacation Outrage: The U.S. Is The Only Developed Country Where Citizens Arenít Guaranteed Paid Vacation

...In fact, the United States is alone among the developed world in not providing its citizens with guaranteed vacation days (paid or unpaid) as a right of employment, </div></div>

Q


</div></div>

Welcome to Bush's Repiglican world. The shock Doctrine!

Run the poor and the Middle Class into the ground until they're too weak to fight for their rights.

It's a Repiglican thing.

By destroying the economy, and redistributing most of the wealthy upwards to the wealthiest, and using business interests to buy seats for the fascists, the majority lost their faith in the American Dream.

Repigs have crippled the Government, so that they can continue to run all but the wealthy, into the ground.

Destroying the Unions, is all part of the Friedman "Shock Doctrine" and will be the end of American exceptionalism.

Friedman, Reagan, and thatcher, all did the same thing.

Fascists.

G.

LWW
08-19-2011, 09:04 AM
<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: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In actuality under the Fair Tax they get to continue to receive their handouts through monthly payments intended to cover all necessities.

If you understand that point correctly, you've misstated it here.

They would receive an amount equal to the TAX on poverty-level income as if it were all spent, per person in the family, which doesn't cover 'all necessities,' necessarily.

For example, say a family of 4's poverty level of income is $14k a year (purely guessing at that number; adjust as is correct). Using rough numbers, they'd get an annual rebate of 23% of $14k, = $3,220, cut into monthly stipends, $3,220/12 = $270 per month for the entire family. (As would Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, subject to a sliding scale proportional to the number of dependents in their family.)

</div></div>

That is correct ... and your point is what? </div></div>

My point was to show eg8r that these monthly payments were not intended to cover all necessities.

Rather, they are to cover the TAX on what would be spent if a family had a poverty level of income and spent it all, incurring the tax on the entire amount.</div></div>

That is all that the FAIRTAX has ever claimed the prebate was for, other welfare programs would be unaffected.

So, in the end, all you had was ... again ... the Alinsky tactic of attempting to make FAIRTAX supporters defend a position the FAIRTAX doesn't make.