Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Dauphin]

DeityDude:

When a sales tax is added to the cost of a good, the cost of the good never increases by as much as the tax. This implies that the cost of the tax is being paid, to an extent, by the retailer. The reason the sales price does not increase by as much as the tax is simply supply and demand economics, it is not a choice of the retailer to absorb the cost - it is an action forced upon it, to absorb the cost is the only way to remain competitive.

It therefore follows that sales taxes reduce the profit margin of the retailer. As a profit margin for a retailer (e.g a personal business) is identical to income, sales tax is affecting the income of the retailer in much the same way as an income tax as the payment of such a tax is entirely unavoidable and involuntary.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

Customer: "How much will that cost?"

Me: "424.00 including tax"

OUTCOME A:

Customer: "Nah $424.00 is too expensive I think I'll pass"

And suppose customer A had considered $400 a fair price? In effect the tax has lost you a customer. The cost of a tax has directly reduced your income.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


I was giving a quick example and the number were meant to be illustrative not necessarily accurate.

I own my own business in Michigan. We have a 6% sales tax in Michigan. You want a real example:

My cost of product 260.00
Shipping 10.60
---------
My Cost 270.60

My price for product 400.00
Sales Tax 24.00
----------
Amount consumer
must pay 424.00

Customer: "How much will that cost?"

Me: "424.00 including tax"

OUTCOME A:

Customer: "Nah $424.00 is too expensive I think I'll pass"

OUTCOME B:

Customer: "Thanks, I'll buy it"

Whether A or B the consumer decides what to do with his property. No one has forced him to pay for anything he doesn't want to. Tax, like profit and shipping and cost of goods is just another element making up the price.

So when you sell your product for $424.00, do you have a choice whether you give the government $24? Or perhaps the government came to you beforehand and asked you if it which particular products, if any, you wished to be subject to tax?

Alternate way of looking at your scenario:
OUTCOME A:
"No, $424.00 is too much." Customer doesn't want to pay your price, so you could either lower your profit margin or not make a sale

OUTCOME B:
"Thanks, I'll buy it." Customer obviously is willing to pay $424.00, which means that the government screwed you out of $24.00 which could have been added to your profit instead of sent back to the government.

It's an endless loop - the customer is willing to pay X price - if you don't get to keep the full amount over your cost of goods sold, the government is "stealing" some of your would-be profit. So you adjust your prices whereby you will still sell the goods.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Slavery isn't analogus because slaves were actively stopped, caught and punished for leaving. No one would try and stop you if you left, because you were unhappy about paying taxes.

A person breaks the slavery law when he tries to leave. That is the point where the government enforces the law.

A citizen breaks the income tax law when he fails to pay the taxes. That is the point when the law is enforced.

If a person avoids the tax situation by either never entering the country or leaving before he has earned any money he has broke no law and no one will pursue him. If he attempts to leave the country after breaking the law he will be actively stopped, caught and punished.

If a person avoids the slave situation he breaks no law. If he attempts to leave after breaking the law (i.e. escaping) he is breaking a law and will be pursued.

They are analogous. The government defines something immoral as legal. It uses its own laws and definitions to support its case. Then uses it power to enforce it rules

You keep on saying that taking property is wrong... that very well may be... but its not your property to begin with.

You may own some Federal Reserve notes, but the value that they have, and their taxable state is determined by congress, as per the Coinage Act.

The Government can't steal what was theirs in the first place.

Very little of my taxable income is in federal reserve notes. Most of it is in credit card transactions and checks. Those represent transaction between 2 individuals. But even if they were all in federal reserve notes it doesn't matter. A debt guaranteed by a third party owed to you is yours until you voluntarily give/exchange it with someone else.

In the past they said blacks ahd no rights because they were property. Just because the law defined it that way didn't mean it was right.

You are saying the fruits of my labor aren't mine because they are represented in currency and therefore they are the government's. Just because you say that doesn't mean it is right.

The fruits of my labor and my property are mine, no matter how you or the state define. Just as a person is not property, no matter how many laws, court cases and examples of convoluted logic you want to present.

[MrBaggins]

Non-federal banks hold the same liens as Federal Reserve notes, to the government, and the currency therein is subject to the same taxation in the Coinage Act.

The actual value isn't "owned" by you since it couldn't be instantly collected (by the bank), even if it was desired, since the monetary system has massive multipliers.

The fruits of your labor are liens to the government... which you do, in fact own, but those liens are always subject to taxation, as defined by congress... as has been mentioned.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

"The taxation system is the worst insult ever... I hate it, but there's nothing I can do about it."

because there IS something you can do about it... leave...

"the special interest strangelhold is the worst insult ever. . . ihate it, but there's nothing I can do about it."

because there IS something you can do about it... leave...

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
If a person avoids the slave situation he breaks no law. If he attempts to leave after breaking the law (i.e. escaping) he is breaking a law and will be pursued.

They are analogous. The government defines something immoral as legal. It uses its own laws and definitions to support its case. Then uses it power to enforce it rules

Absolutely not... a slave was either captured and forced into slavery or born into slavery. You weren't forced into taxation... you could leave.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


"the special interest strangelhold is the worst insult ever. . . ihate it, but there's nothing I can do about it."

because there IS something you can do about it... leave...

Sure... freedom to leave applies to most things.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


And suppose customer A had considered $400 a fair price? In effect the tax has lost you a customer. The cost of a tax has directly reduced your income.

OK, I am really enjoying this debate but I don't think anyone is changing anyones mind here so this will be my last post on the subject, at least in this thread. (Unless, of course, I just can't help myself.)

What if the customer thought $413.60 ($424.00 price minus $10.60 shipping expense) was a fair price. Does that mean the shipper has lost me a customer?

No it means my final price to the consumer was more then he voluntarily wanted to pay, or perhaps he could get it somewhere else cheaper.

No one ever said business was easy. No one ever said earning a living was easy. The only thing I said was that no one should be allowed to take your property against your will. The above example was a voluntary transaction that still raised revenue for the government. No one was forced to do anything.

Now at the end of the quarter I will be forced to file my quarterly income tax return and will be forced to give a portion of MY money against my will or face the consequencecs. I will also file my sales tax return. Here I will be forced to give the government ITS money that I collected on its behalf thru voluntary transactions.

I hope someone here can see the difference between the 2.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


OK, I am really enjoying this debate but I don't think anyone is changing anyones mind here so this will be my last post on the subject, at least in this thread. (Unless, of course, I just can't help myself.)

What if the customer thought $413.60 ($424.00 price minus $10.60 shipping expense) was a fair price. Does that mean the shipper has lost me a customer?

No it means my final price to the consumer was more then he voluntarily wanted to pay, or perhaps he could get it somewhere else cheaper.

No one ever said business was easy. No one ever said earning a living was easy. The only thing I said was that no one should be allowed to take your property against your will. The above example was a voluntary transaction that still raised revenue for the government. No one was forced to do anything.

Now at the end of the quarter I will be forced to file my quarterly income tax return and will be forced to give a portion of MY money against my will or face the consequencecs. I will also file my sales tax return. Here I will be forced to give the government ITS money that I collected on its behalf thru voluntary transactions.

I hope someone here can see the difference between the 2.

How can you not see this?

Of course there is a difference between the manner in which income tax and sales tax is collected. But at the end of the day, you had NO CHOICE but to collect tax for the government on products that IT DEEMED taxable (and before you go down the road of "I don't have to sell those products", hopefully common sense will tell you that if the government wants to raise money, it's going to tax items bought in reasonably large quantities). Further, since the market will obviously tollerate a price of $424 for your product, the government is A) interferring in the free market and B) causing you to lose an additional $24 you could otherwise have.

Do a little simple extrapolating: let's say you could sell 100 units of your $424 item a year. By your scenario, you're making 100x129.40=$12,940 a year in profits when you could be making 100x153.40=$15,340 a year in profits with the same volume of sales, advertising, etc. Where do you think you are drawing your income from, if not your profits? You put $2000 less in your pocket simply because the government decided that you owed them 6% of your sales. Does your arguement rest on which form you fill out in giving the government money?

The customer is simply a superfulous character in your scenario. The government is still collecting income tax - it's taking away your income as the merchant. Or perhaps you are really just upset over the double taxation. Ok, so let's do away with income tax, but now in order to fund its coffers, the government says that instead of 6% of each sale you make, they now want 35%, but of course the market will still only tollerate a price of $424 per item. Do you see how much your income is being affected yet?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

What if the customer thought $413.60 ($424.00 price minus $10.60 shipping expense) was a fair price. Does that mean the shipper has lost me a customer?

Just wanted to address this point more directly. If the customer thought $413.60 was a fair price, you could either eat the shipping cost or not sell to him. If every customer thought this, then you wouldn't make any sales. So what would you do? Tell the shipper that he can no longer charge you the $10.60 because it's erroding your profit margin? Do you have a choice but to pay the shipping cost? Or, put another way, how much more money would you make if you didn't have to pay shipping costs?

[Berzerker]

Claiming that a sales tax is akin to the price we pay for a product ignores a couple relevant points.

1) The price I pay for a product includes the manufacturer's cost and profit, and the retailer's cost and profit if a retailer is involved.

2) A sales tax is a 3rd party intruding upon that exchange with their demand for my money.

Who would argue that it is moral for a Mafioso to walk up to 2 people exchanging goods/money and demand a "sales tax"?

But some here have bought into the lie that the government has this moral authority because it's "legal" or that this "tax" is the cost for living here. But who set this cost? Other citizens who, like the Mafioso, lack the moral authority to demand a "sales tax" on the commercial activities of others. This is their argument - it isn't moral for a Mafioso to demand a "tax" on my exchange, but it is moral for that Mafioso to demand a "tax" on my exchange if they hire a politician to make the demand on his behalf. And that brings us back to the fallacy that making an immoral act legal makes it moral...

And to add to the in(s)anity (Sava ), some say the victims can leave if they don't like it. Fine, tell the victims of the Mafia they can leave if they don't like it. I can just see Sava telling Native Americans they can simply leave if they don't want to give up their land and live on a reservation. And if Bush wins re-election, Sava et al can leave too if they don't like it. Hell, the fact they are still here after Bush won the first time shows they don't practice what they preach... In other words, that "response" is hypocritical...

[Kontiki]

Wow, Berz and I see eye-to-eye (well, sort of ) on a libertarian issue. Who'd a thunk it?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Berzerker

But some here have bought into the lie that the government has this moral authority because it's "legal" or that this "tax" is the cost for living here. But who set this cost? Other citizens who, like the Mafioso, lack the moral authority to demand a "sales tax" on the commercial activities of others. This is their argument - it isn't moral for a Mafioso to demand a "tax" on my exchange, but it is moral for that Mafioso to demand a "tax" on my exchange if they hire a politician to make the demand on his behalf. And that brings us back to the fallacy that making an immoral act legal makes it moral...

"legal" and "tax" need no quotes... they are real enough terms for the discussion at hand.

As for who set these terms? That would be the States, who did and do have the moral authority to demand a sales tax (notice the lack of quotes) for the commercial activities of others... in their state, because those businesses and their patrons utilize the amenities, facilities and roads of that state. A simple quid pro quo.

[Berzerker]