GOP Texas Gov Hates America, Talks Seceding

[Cats Cats Cats]

Does that $458 billion deficit or whatever it is include the supplemental appropriations bills, or is it just the deficit resulting from the "real" budget?

I thought TARP was $700 billion?  Bush was +300 billion when they passed that?

[nathanm]

I thought TARP was $700 billion?  Bush was +300 billion when they passed that?

I was using the first number I could find for the '08 deficit.

TARP went into effect October 3rd, just after the end of fiscal 08.

[we vs us]

Those "have nots" out there, apparently such as yourself, have no clue as to the tax increases on business and certain sectors of our economy which will most certainly be passed down to all of us (rich or not) in the form of higher prices.

That's just silly right there.  There's simply no proof that taxes are always and immediately passed on to consumers.  There's a whole range of mitigating factors in between the levying of a tax on a business and the business pricing its goods/services.

[guido911]

That's just silly right there.  There's simply no proof that taxes are always and immediately passed on to consumers.  There's a whole range of mitigating factors in between the levying of a tax on a business and the business pricing its goods/services.

Let me think, who once said that the cap and trade/energy tax on utility companies would result in skyrocketing energy rates for consumers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZxnT5tHVIo

[TeeDub]

That's just silly right there.  There's simply no proof that taxes are always and immediately passed on to consumers.  There's a whole range of mitigating factors in between the levying of a tax on a business and the business pricing its goods/services.

Businesses are beholden to the stockholder.   You honestly think that I will buy a $10 stock and watch it go to $5 rather than pass through the tax burden onto the consumer?   Keep dreaming.

I can see it now, Coke suddenly gets taxed a billion dollars (hypothetically) and they decide rather than raise the prices by $0.25, they will lay off workers and stop paying dividends...     Riiiiight.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Businesses are beholden to the stockholder.   You honestly think that I will buy a $10 stock and watch it go to $5 rather than pass through the tax burden onto the consumer?   Keep dreaming.

I can see it now, Coke suddenly gets taxed a billion dollars (hypothetically) and they decide rather than raise the prices by $0.25, they will lay off workers and stop paying dividends...     Riiiiight.

I still don't get why nobody understands supply demand and the effect of cost.

[Conan71]

I still don't get why nobody understands supply demand and the effect of cost.

Supply and demand has nothing remotely to do with corporate taxes nor imbedded taxes paid by consumers as it relates to the discussion at hand.  Compliance costs with government regs are also passed along to consumers as essentially another tax.

[we vs us]

Businesses are beholden to the stockholder.   You honestly think that I will buy a $10 stock and watch it go to $5 rather than pass through the tax burden onto the consumer?   Keep dreaming.

I can see it now, Coke suddenly gets taxed a billion dollars (hypothetically) and they decide rather than raise the prices by $0.25, they will lay off workers and stop paying dividends...     Riiiiight.

Do you think we're anywhere near -- no really, anywhere NEAR -- the kind of tax structure that would either leave Coke with a billion dollar liability or to drive your stock that strongly into the dirt?  Quick answer:  no, we're not anywhere close to that.  And before you got all slippery-slope on me, no, there's very little chance that we could see something like that in our lifetime.  Let me put it another way:  if we see tax rates like that, dollars to donuts our problems aren't with the tax rates.

[FOTD]

Supply and demand has nothing remotely to do with corporate taxes nor imbedded taxes paid by consumers as it relates to the discussion at hand.  Compliance costs with government regs are also passed along to consumers as essentially another tax.

Let's move our tax code back to where it was in the early 1960's!

Bring on new tax shelters(The treasury should have figured out a way for individuals to write off over several years monies forwarded to fund the bailout).

[Cats Cats Cats]

Supply and demand has nothing remotely to do with corporate taxes nor imbedded taxes paid by consumers as it relates to the discussion at hand.  Compliance costs with government regs are also passed along to consumers as essentially another tax.

Instead of supply and demand I should have just said demand.  Coke will meet the demand and vary their plants accordingly.  Everybody acts like if taxes go up you just raise your price.  Like they aren't charging what they believe to be their optimal pricing point in the first place.

[nadine]

Answering for Gov. Rick Perry-he is not anti-american-and not narrow in his view. If his script is read  or videos viewed this is evident. He does not promote Texas' seceding from the USA, but rather voices what the non-partisans across the nation are saying about taxastion. There is extreme bias in feelings expressed with only a few getting press. Unfair coverage is a problem we, as a nation, face. Don't let others think for you but examine the facts. Thanks for listening.
Nadine Bell {Proud Texan}

[Cats Cats Cats]

Answering for Gov. Rick Perry-he is not anti-american-and not narrow in his view. If his script is read  or videos viewed this is evident. He does not promote Texas' seceding from the USA, but rather voices what the non-partisans across the nation are saying about taxastion. There is extreme bias in feelings expressed with only a few getting press. Unfair coverage is a problem we, as a nation, face. Don't let others think for you but examine the facts. Thanks for listening.
Nadine Bell {Proud Texan}

I commend those with the same sentiments the past X years in the United States.  What I do question is why it requires a President of a different party in power to say anything about it.  The tea bagging should have begun when Bush and his appointees announced the TARP plan.

[waterboy]

Okay, I read all this crap filling the last three pages AND the remarks made by Governor Ludicrous Perry from Texas or (I'm not as dumb as that Alaska chick Perry).

My summary (no use re arguing all the points). Nathan, WeVus, Swake, FOTD and Trogdor make perfect sense. Especially the part about products being priced irregardless of the taxes levied. Prices for some products are so sensitive that to retain market share a producer will indeed either eat the tax to keep that price point or reduce the cost in some other way. First they'll lobby to congress to be exempt however. Perry made a stupid faux pas or at least a  Freudian slip and you folks (Nadine...get a grip) let him pass with it. Can you imagine Obama having made such remarks and you guys giving him a pass? The rest of you move to Texas, secede and start your own drug cartels where taxes are indeed meaningless. Enjoy your freedom there and hope to make friends with your new southern border pals who want their state back.

[Gaspar]

This is completely untrue.  Except for companies in regulated industries.  Companies (should) price their items for MAX PROFIT (current and future).  It takes like $20 to make an IPOD shuffle that they sell for $89.99 if they raise the taxes on them they will probably suck up the extra cost and make a little less.  For some reason everybody acts like 1) Cost has no bearing on the qty sold 2) That every company sells everything for cost or has a very low profit margin.

Taxes are built into price.  When developing a proforma for a product or business, you apply your multiplier after you've added your cost for goods and services (tax included), insurance, and overhead, and after your add your payroll and disbursements (tax included).  So each time one of those factors is adjusted, you simply adjust your profit multiplier to cover it and maintain your margin.

Sure some businesses with multiple distribution points and multiple product lines will shift profit models, but ultimately any increase in taxes passes to the consumer.

if they raise the taxes on them they will probably suck up the extra cost and make a little less.

No! Successful businesses will ever compromise their business model to "suck up".  The additional cost is shifted somewhere, and that somewhere is always in the form of consumer cost, service, warranty, or product quality. 

Thanks for playing.

[Wilbur]

Okay, I read all this crap filling the last three pages AND the remarks made by Governor Ludicrous Perry from Texas or (I'm not as dumb as that Alaska chick Perry).

My summary (no use re arguing all the points). Nathan, WeVus, Swake, FOTD and Trogdor make perfect sense. Especially the part about products being priced irregardless of the taxes levied. Prices for some products are so sensitive that to retain market share a producer will indeed either eat the tax to keep that price point or reduce the cost in some other way. First they'll lobby to congress to be exempt however. Perry made a stupid faux pas or at least a  Freudian slip and you folks (Nadine...get a grip) let him pass with it. Can you imagine Obama having made such remarks and you guys giving him a pass? The rest of you move to Texas, secede and start your own drug cartels where taxes are indeed meaningless. Enjoy your freedom there and hope to make friends with your new southern border pals who want their state back.

Hardly a Freudian slip.  Add our own state to the list.

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0409/613607.html