Re: New York passes 88 new taxes and fees.

[Guest guest]

" The reason: to " share the pain of the Wall Street Fallout. " The only

people that need to feel pain are the elites who caused this problem

with their greed. "

I actually do not see much wrong with it. Basically everything except

motor vehicle licensing and registration, parks and auto insurance fees

are either a sin tax or a luxury tax.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

We've had tax cuts here (UK)

http://www.talkingretail.com/news/industry-news/11548-darling-set-to-

reveal-tax-cuts.html

sure there are other articles, wasn't sure which the best one was.

AAAAAgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh Christmas approaching too fast - could

anyone slow down it's approach please.

>

> There are a few problems with it.

>

> In the main, all taxes are an opportunity cost. By that I mean

every dollar

> that goes to taxes is a dollar less the person can spend on their

own. The

> result is that government ends up being favored over private

industry.

>

> Look at it this way: if the cost of a pair of pants goes up by 20%

under

> this tax, then fewer pants will be sold. Not only does that cancel

out the

> desired goal of higher tax revenue, but it also means fewer sales

at the stores

> and also for the clothing makers. Fewer sales puts those private

industries in

> danger of firing people or even closing down.

>

> These taxes on items like soda and clothing in particular are what

are

> called regressive taxes. Regressive taxes have a harder impact on

those with lower

> incomes or incomes otherwise stretched, than the wealthy. In other

words.

> paying an extra 20% for a pair of pants means a lot more to someone

earning

> $15,000 per year or someone with a few kids, than it would to

someone making

> $40,000 or $100,000.

>

> When the luxury taxes were imposed in the 1990's, it was supposed

to soak

> the rich. In reality, it resulted in tens of thousands of people

losing jobs as

> " the rich " stopped buying or found alternative suppliers, and

businesses

> folded.

>

> The other major problem is that the problems these states and the

Fedgov are

> having isn't one of taxes, it is one of spending. Taxes are already

very, in

> some places the combined Federal state and local taxes exceed 60%

of income.

> That is a tremendous opportunity cost and loss of person freedom.

Even with

> these high taxes, the government still spends more than it takes it

and has

> forwarded many of these costs decades into the future. Already the

current

> interest on the Federal Debt alone is over $400 billion per year

and rising.

> Total projected debt (including Social Security and Medicare) will

be in excess

> of $60 Trillion by 2040. The payments on that per person is

incredible.

>

> So, what these government need to do is to cut spending,

preferably

> targeting pork project, redundant social programs before targeting

police, fire,

> etc., and reducing taxes to the balance point, the point that

maximizes both tax

> revenues and economic growth. We are well above that level now yet

still they

> spend more and demand more taxes.

>

>

[Guest guest]

"In the main, all taxes are an opportunity cost. By that I mean every dollar that goes to taxes is a dollar less the person can spend on their own. The result is that government ends up being favored over private industry."

Let's keep in mind that the reason private industry has flourished up until now is that Americans buy more than they need to such an extent that they average $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 in credit card debt plus a mortgage and money owing on cars. And let's not forget the "buy now pay later" stuff people buy, such as furniture and high definition TVs. One also needs to keep in mind the non-tallied debt they hold, such as monthly phone and utility bills, cable, and satellite TV.

Once upon a time, in the days of my grandparents, if you couldn't pay cash for something you didn't buy it because you couldn't afford it. My father's parents never had a credit card or a Sears card or anything else in their entire lifetimes.

In light of the fact that most Americans spend money as though they believe there is an endless supply of it, I don't believe private industry is going to suffer under a few paltry taxes.

Cigarettes in Chicago cost $8.00 a pack, and while sales are down, people still buy them and vendors still sell them because they are still profitable to sell.

In short, what has happened here is that the government to a good look at all the people likely to be affected by these taxes and determined that they are precisely the sort of individuals who will spend almost as much as they always have despite the rise in taxes.

The government knows what we have been saying all along : The majority of the American public are fools, and a fool and his/her money are soon parted.

"Look at it this way: if the cost of a pair of pants goes up by 20% under this tax, then fewer pants will be sold. Not only does that cancel out the desired goal of higher tax revenue, but it also means fewer sales at the stores and also for the clothing makers. Fewer sales puts those private industries in danger of firing people or even closing down."

Yes, but check out the possessions the average American has and ask if they really need to buy everything they think they need to buy. There are storage buildings all across the country that rent out storage lockers to people who have so much stuff they don't know what to do with it. And take a look in the paper every week. You will see notices posted by these storage companies putting up the contents of the lockers for auction because the people storing all that junk haven't got the money to pay the rent to store it.

This is the type of society we are living in, and I don't think the taxes in question are going to compromise the demographics they are meant to tax - accept for those applying for vehicle registration and insurance and all of that.

"These taxes on items like soda and clothing in particular are what are called regressive taxes. Regressive taxes have a harder impact on those with lower incomes or incomes otherwise stretched, than the wealthy."

1) Soda is junk food. Poor people who are likely to have poor diets should not be drinking it.

2) Clothes can be gotten on sale anywhere. Buy out of season and you save up to 75% off. That more than makes up for any tax people are likely to pay.

"In other words. paying an extra 20% for a pair of pants means a lot more to someone earning $15,000 per year or someone with a few kids, than it would to someone making $40,000 or $100,000."

When Khols or Sears, or JC Penny or whatever dumps their jeans - that's when I buy enough to last two years. I usually save 40% that way.

Remember post 40900?

"I am one of these folks who seldom pays full price for anything. A down winter jacket selling for $180.00 I bought on clearance in the spring for $20.00. My leather jacket, originally selling for $245.00 I bought for $99.00 on sale (not on clearance)."

Canadians have a huge provincial tax and government tax, and many learn to shop this way to compensate for those taxes. Other's who can afford it, or who simply don;t care, pay full price.

"When the luxury taxes were imposed in the 1990's, it was supposed to soak the rich. In reality, it resulted in tens of thousands of people losing jobs as "the rich" stopped buying or found alternative suppliers, and businesses folded."

But those people found jobs elsewhere. It happens all the time for many reasons. Soon DVD manufacturers may find themselves closing down unless they produce Blue Ray.

"The other major problem is that the problems these states and the Fedgov are having isn't one of taxes, it is one of spending."

I agree.

"So, what these government need to do is to cut spending, preferably targeting pork project, redundant social programs before targeting police, fire, etc., and reducing taxes to the balance point, the point that maximizes both tax revenues and economic growth. We are well above that level now yet still they spend more and demand more taxes."

I agree with you, but none of that will happen until fools stop parting with their money, so the fools are to be blamed, not the government in my opinion.

And keep in mind that since the fools constitute the majority of American voters, they voted in the politicians that are taxing them. It must be what these fools want. Otherwise the fools would vote those mean old politicians out of office right?

One needs to keep in mind that the majority of the American populace wants people in government who are just like them: Foolish people who spend like crazy and rack up huge debts, and who can't stop spending if their lives depended on it.

You see, as long as the politicians deliver all the things Americans embrace with all their hearts, such as porn, abortion on demand, booze, and the promise of legalization of prostitiution and marijuana, Americans will keep electing people into office who are going to tax them into the poorhouse.

The smart people, like the rich and some elements from the rest of the classes, will compensate for these taxes by saving more, spending only during sales, buying in the off season, and using coupons and applying for rebates.

Administrator