Mathematics is not my strongest of skills, but adding my tax (8.25%) is not difficult. I dont need the government in any more things than they already are. Including adding a law that the tax must be included in any products' or services' price. I dont need to pay for that convenience.
Stay away from real estate then. You will be dealing with doc stamps on the deed, millage rates, impact fees, etc.(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
Mathematics is not my strongest of skills, but adding my tax (8.25%) is not difficult. I dont need the government in any more things than they already are. Including adding a law that the tax must be included in any products' or services' price. I dont need to pay for that convenience.
A real shocker when you make net sheets. Fun stuff.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Only in UK large warehouses / wholesale stores is VAT (ie Sales Tax) not listed in the price. For pretty much everywhere the price you see is the price you pay, unless they haven't updated it. Although 8.25%? VAT (equiv) is 17.5% in the UK.
i can concur, the last time i was in north dakota, i payed 15 bucks for a jug, not a bottle but of jug of canadian whiskey, ur looking atleast 60 bucks for that in canada. And you won't see them in costcos here either, only in a provincal run liqour mart.ebug9 wrote:
Tax in Canada is disgusting. 14% at the moment The prices are no hell to begin with either. I went on vacation in Myrtle Beach last year and a bottle of Bacardi Rum at Costco was $15. Here in Canada, it's roughly $52.
I manage a restaurant here, and (tips) or gratuity is not manditory there, but it has become a trend here, if u don't wanna tip and be cheap, fine, but my servers work their asses off, and my customers always tell me how well the servers are here, how quick and kind they are. And that right there decides what they leave as a tip, seeing 10 bucks left on a 40 dollar bill is not uncommon. Hell i was was left 100 dollar tip for bartending at an open bar function for 2 hours. Here, it goes by how well your service is.
It fucking pisses me off when i I have a dollar and i buy a 99c thing and its 1.07
i mean come on
im taxed when i make money
im taxed when i spend money
im taxed when i invest
im taxed on my home
god the list goes on and on
i mean come on
im taxed when i make money
im taxed when i spend money
im taxed when i invest
im taxed on my home
god the list goes on and on
You work more than half the time for the government... at least.SealXo wrote:
It fucking pisses me off when i I have a dollar and i buy a 99c thing and its 1.07
i mean come on
im taxed when i make money
im taxed when i spend money
im taxed when i invest
im taxed on my home
god the list goes on and on
Xbone Stormsurgezz
i agree that the price on the sticker would be convenient if it just had the tax included.
one difficulty with this is that alot of times, the prices are on the printed material from the distributor so it's the manufacturer's suggested retail price. so since that is uniform, then each point of sale would have to put a new sticker indicating the MSRP + local/county/state tax. this becomes a labor intensive deal in supermarkets as you can imagine. also in the convenience stores, etc. So my guess is that they can save labor costs by not putting these stickers. What about having the distributor change the price based on destination's tax? again, they'd have to change the printing which may be non-trivial to do. plus, then it also hampers the logistical dance companies may play when they have shortages in one area - they can easily ship more from a central warehouse without having to worry about the price thing.
but i agree, it would certainly be convenient
one difficulty with this is that alot of times, the prices are on the printed material from the distributor so it's the manufacturer's suggested retail price. so since that is uniform, then each point of sale would have to put a new sticker indicating the MSRP + local/county/state tax. this becomes a labor intensive deal in supermarkets as you can imagine. also in the convenience stores, etc. So my guess is that they can save labor costs by not putting these stickers. What about having the distributor change the price based on destination's tax? again, they'd have to change the printing which may be non-trivial to do. plus, then it also hampers the logistical dance companies may play when they have shortages in one area - they can easily ship more from a central warehouse without having to worry about the price thing.
but i agree, it would certainly be convenient
So you'd be happy if you had $1 and couldn't buy the $1.07 item? (with tax already included)SealXo wrote:
It fucking pisses me off when i I have a dollar and i buy a 99c thing and its 1.07
i mean come on
im taxed when i make money
im taxed when i spend money
im taxed when i invest
im taxed on my home
god the list goes on and on
I don't see the big deal about it, how hard is it really to figure out what you are really spending when you know that tax isn't included?
Boo hoo, calculate it yourself. It's not that hard. Only an idiot would bring $1.25 for a coke advertised at $1.25.
My friend a while back was talking shit about Arby's because he brought in $5 for that combo (4 sammiches for $5) and didn't know about tax. I was like, pfft, stfu noob.
My friend a while back was talking shit about Arby's because he brought in $5 for that combo (4 sammiches for $5) and didn't know about tax. I was like, pfft, stfu noob.
Last edited by too_money2007 (2008-06-18 13:02:58)
It's not so much a problem if you never carry cash.
I hate roadsSealXo wrote:
It fucking pisses me off when i I have a dollar and i buy a 99c thing and its 1.07
i mean come on
im taxed when i make money
im taxed when i spend money
im taxed when i invest
im taxed on my home
god the list goes on and on
I hate firetrucks putting my house out when it catches on fire
I hate running water
I hate trash pickup
I hate using money, barter system FTW
I hate laws, shooting people is better
I'd rather be taxed on my consumption than on my income.
examples please...help us learn from youpierro wrote:
But if you have a sales tax...it ends up being regressive, there are plenty of other ways to design a tax system to encourage savings at the expense of spending that are progressive.
True... there are also property taxes that can be progressive.pierro wrote:
Sorry, One example would be a progressive income taxation system...but one where there was deductions for savingsCaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
examples please...help us learn from you
I just prefer to move away from income taxes. I don't really think it's fair for the government to take my money before I even spend it (payroll tax).
Well, if the Fair Tax is passed in its current form, then prices will fall as well. Logically speaking, if a company wants to keep the demand for its product strong, it will keep prices stable. So, by no longer having to pay federal income taxes, a company could drop the base price of a good enough so that the new federal sales tax still results in the same total price as before.pierro wrote:
I can easily sympathize with your position...I was extremely supportive of the fairtax (until I heard Huckabee supported it) and dislike income taxes as much as anyone but it just seems to me that practically it will shift the tax burden even more away from the rich and will be an enormous shock to the economy if its enacted as consumption will diminish overnightTurquoise wrote:
I just prefer to move away from income taxes. I don't really think it's fair for the government to take my money before I even spend it (payroll tax).
I used to be against the Fair Tax until I started doing the math and I realized it's one of the few ways we can get past this illegal immigration impasse.
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-06-18 16:28:12)
Your explanation is correct until you take into account the decreased costs of operation due to the elimination of the income tax. Most companies could afford to lower base prices without cutting wages if they don't have to pay federal income tax anymore.pierro wrote:
- While it is true that this will sometimes occur (if it does the workers will be paid less, there will be less money to put into research etc…) it usually won’t, if a good is elastic (where it is profitable to reduce the price), then the suppliers would already have reduced the price to the manufacturing cost and they wouldn’t be able to internalize anymore costs to decrease the price. Conversely, if a good is inelastic it wouldn’t be profitable to forward increased costs so they wouldn’t (i.e. Gasiline).Turquoise wrote:
Well, if the Fair Tax is passed in its current form, then prices will fall as well. Logically speaking, if a company wants to keep the demand for its product strong, it will keep prices stable. So, by no longer having to pay federal income taxes, a company could drop the base price of a good enough so that the new federal sales tax still results in the same total price as before.
I used to be against the Fair Tax until I started doing the math and I realized it's one of the few ways we can get past this illegal immigration impasse.
-Also, Illegal immigration only costs the country a 10 billion a year…I’d say the greater argument for the Fairtax would be in administration costs and compliance costs which are in the hundreds of billions with the IRS (granted thousands would be fired in this savings).
This is true. But oil is a different animal unto itself. If we properly regulate speculative markets, then oil prices will fall and then stabilize. That's another issue altogether.pierro wrote:
-Right, I did forget to take that into account…but there is also the enormous amount of money from personal income taxes and taxes that don’t directly affect a company’s operating costs that should be accounted. I don’t know what the personal income tax and other non-corporate taxes are as a percent of the whole, but if they accounted for 66% of tax revenue that means decreased operating costs will cover 1/3 of the increase in prices etc… and that will not be internalized in inelastic industries such as the oil industryTurquoise wrote:
Your explanation is correct until you take into account the decreased costs of operation due to the elimination of the income tax. Most companies could afford to lower base prices without cutting wages if they don't have to pay federal income tax anymore.
In many cases, inelastic goods are commodities heavily affected by speculation. This is why closing the Enron loophole should help stabilize several important goods.pierro wrote:
Fair enough, oil was a bad example for a generic inelastic goodTurquoise wrote:
This is true. But oil is a different animal unto itself. If we properly regulate speculative markets, then oil prices will fall and then stabilize. That's another issue altogether.
However, you are correct that there are other inelastic goods where speculation doesn't play much of a part and where prices wouldn't necessarily fall with the Fair Tax.
It is by no means a flawless plan.
One thing I'd like to see is more decentralization of government. The federal government often bites off more than it can chew, and it shows this through its deficit spending.pierro wrote:
-I do recognize that it isn’t flawless…but neither is income taxes and in the end we need public money for roads, schools, healthcare etc… I guess choosing government policy especially taxation is picking the best of several bad options and especially in fiscal policy (which has a reputation for having the best argued ideas instead of the best ideas implemented) there’s a lot of gray areaTurquoise wrote:
In many cases, inelastic goods are commodities heavily affected by speculation. This is why closing the Enron loophole should help stabilize several important goods.
However, you are correct that there are other inelastic goods where speculation doesn't play much of a part and where prices wouldn't necessarily fall with the Fair Tax.
It is by no means a flawless plan.
Whatever the case, one of the few areas where I'd like to see more centralization and socialization is healthcare. We could replace welfare and Social Security with socialized medicine purely through the Fair Tax as long as we end corporate welfare, cut the military budget by a third and practice more restrained foreign policy.
We have socialized medicine now.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Technically... Some states are better at it than others.Kmarion wrote:
We have socialized medicine now.