They are not actually intended to help consumers. They are intended to help businesses.

lajimi: Why do economists hate consumers?

Too much fat, and the meat is tough

You know what would help? An increase in real wages so that people would buy even more shiat they don't need.

GaryPDX: Wouldn't want to hurt the state. Why do consumers hate the state?



/the state was awesome

filth: I love economics, but for Pete's sake, how hard is it to understand that gimmickry is the only politically viable solution to our economic problems?

/cough
Cash for Clunkers
/cough

I love that the article claims that the state 'lost' n* million in sales tax. At least half of that potential revenue from retail sales would have never happened in the first place without the holiday.

The holiday positively influences what the state takes out of commission sales payroll taxes, along with B&O taxes*.

*depending if the state has one or the other.

MonkeyVegetables: GaryPDX: Wouldn't want to hurt the state. Why do consumers hate the state?



/the state was awesome

I celebrate their entire catalog, which it so happens is now available on DVD.

The is clearly on holiday.

MrSteve007: I love that the article claims that the state 'lost' n* million in sales tax. At least half of that potential revenue from retail sales would have never happened in the first place without the holiday.

TFA: "It's just a timing shift; it's not an overall increase in the purchases that are made," said Mark Robyn, a staff economist at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation and an author of a new study on the holidays.

What was that again about half the potential revenue would never have happened?

unlikely: oldebayer: They are not actually intended to help consumers. They are intended to help businesses.

Which helps consumers as a second-order effect.

Yes and no. The problem is that most retailers shift around profits (e.g. Walmart) to avoid paying many taxes in the selling state. Used to be the stores gave second order effects due to the profits being reported in the state, blah blah blah. Nowadays, not so much. Keep drinking old kool-aid though.

GaryPDX: Wouldn't want to hurt the state. Why do consumers hate the state?

Why would anyone hate an entity, that they elect, that protects them from predations common in human nature? Oh yeah, human nature.

oldebayer: They are not actually intended to help consumers. They are intended to help businesses make more campaign contributions.

ftfy

equilibrium: MrSteve007: I love that the article claims that the state 'lost' n* million in sales tax. At least half of that potential revenue from retail sales would have never happened in the first place without the holiday.

TFA: "It's just a timing shift; it's not an overall increase in the purchases that are made," said Mark Robyn, a staff economist at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation and an author of a new study on the holidays.

What was that again about half the potential revenue would never have happened?

While TFA does say that, and this is totally anecdotal, most people I know who take advantage of the holiday do make purchases they wouldn't have made otherwise. These are not on school supplies but on clothes and shoes, especially adult clothes and shoes.

Take that for what it's worth.

SharkTrager: These are not on school supplies but on clothes and shoes, especially adult clothes and shoes.

TFA: The state already exempts clothing, footwear and food bought in stores from the tax.

It sounds like most people you know are morons.

MrSteve007: At least half of that potential revenue from retail sales would have never happened in the first place without the holiday.


Do you have a citation for that statement?

I think, like the cash-for-clunkers program, it merely steals future demand, not create new demand.

equilibrium: SharkTrager: These are not on school supplies but on clothes and shoes, especially adult clothes and shoes.

TFA: The state already exempts clothing, footwear and food bought in stores from the tax.

It sounds like most people you know are morons.

Except, in Texas, those items are not already exempt from tax.

Really, 6% is nothing unless you're buying A LOT. And states rely on sales tax revunue.

Quit playing moronic political games.

FTFA: In Massachusetts, which lost $14.9 million in potential sales taxes..

OR, consumers kept $14.9 million that would have gone to the state.

or, customers would just buy the same things from OUT OF STATE online retailers and save the sales tax anyway

at least this way state businesses see that money

/wait, arent we supposed to report amazon.com purchases to the county tax collector or something?
//nevermind

SharkTrager: Except, in Texas, those items are not already exempt from tax.

So your anecdote has nothing to do with the article. Good to know.

Riddle me this, Batman. In the absence of sales tax holidays, would your friends still need to buy shoes and clothes? My guess is that they do so waiting until a sales tax holiday to do so is really just time shifting demand unless they are opting to buy things that they would not have otherwise have bought.

equilibrium: SharkTrager: Except, in Texas, those items are not already exempt from tax.

So your anecdote has nothing to do with the article. Good to know.

Riddle me this, Batman. In the absence of sales tax holidays, would your friends still need to buy shoes and clothes? My guess is that they do so waiting until a sales tax holiday to do so is really just time shifting demand unless they are opting to buy things that they would not have otherwise have bought.

Would they need to buy shoes and clothes? Yes. Would they buy as much? nope. They make many more impulse buys due to the perception of getting a better deal. They also tend to buy items that are more costly than they would normally purchase.

And the article speaks of sales tax holidays in general without looking at the differences in tax policies in different states.

smerfnablin: or, customers would just buy the same things from OUT OF STATE online retailers and save the sales tax anyway

When you buy clothes or shoes online, you have to have the cash or credit to buy a whole bunch of stuff and return the ones that don't fit, and a lot of poor families don't have the money to do that.

a gimmick? in America??


so difficult to believe.

Since every dollar in sales tax that is not going to the state would still be with the consumers. Seems to me that it hurts the state revenues exactly as much as it helps consumers.

jake3988: Really, 6% is nothing unless you're buying A LOT. And states rely on sales tax revunue.


6% is really annoying. But I live in NH, which along with: Alaska, Minnesota, Deleware, and Oregon, doesn't have a sales tax.

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: jake3988: Really, 6% is nothing unless you're buying A LOT. And states rely on sales tax revunue.


6% is really annoying. But I live in NH, which along with: Alaska, Minnesota, Deleware, and Oregon, doesn't have a sales tax.

------------------
Minnesota?
General sales and use tax rate increases from 6.5% to 6.875% beginning July 1, 2009 (except on food and clothing)

interesting times:
------------------
Minnesota?
General sales and use tax rate increases from 6.5% to 6.875% beginning July 1, 2009 (except on food and clothing)

Would you believe I meant Montana?

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: 6% is really annoying. But I live in NH, which along with: Alaska, Minnesota, Deleware, and Oregon, doesn't have a sales tax.

Minnesota sales tax is 6.875% so I have no idea where you are getting your information from. However we don't tax clothing or food so happy shopping at the Mall of America.

/in Hennepin county the sales tax is 7.275% because darnit - we absolutely needed that new baseball stadium

mcreadyblue: MrSteve007: At least half of that potential revenue from retail sales would have never happened in the first place without the holiday.


Do you have a citation for that statement?

I think, like the cash-for-clunkers program, it merely steals future demand, not create new demand.

Welcome to the point of economic stimulus. Steal some of tomorrow's growth to keep from falling too hard today.

The state should just triple taxes the next weekend to make up the difference.

TMBGfreak: mcreadyblue: MrSteve007: At least half of that potential revenue from retail sales would have never happened in the first place without the holiday.


Do you have a citation for that statement?

I think, like the cash-for-clunkers program, it merely steals future demand, not create new demand.

Welcome to the point of economic stimulus. Steal some of tomorrow's growth to keep from falling too hard today.

The purpose of the economic stimulus is to create new demand ( eg money for "shovel ready projects" ).

Cash for Clunkers was merely a way to divert taxpayer money indirectly to the auto industry.

It could have been any industry, but auto industry lobbyist are evidently second only to Wall*Street lobbyist - Cash for Old Ipods, Cash for Boeing 727s, Cash for Old Hand Guns, etc.

HempHead: It could have been any industry, but auto industry lobbyist are evidently second only to Wall*Street lobbyist - Cash for Old Ipods, Cash for Boeing 727s, Cash for Old Hand Guns, etc.

How could you get Cash for Worthless Assests??? Smashing success.

Really? Saving 9.75% on my purchase hurts the state more than me? No, sorry. You have it wrong.

OK all you smart asses that complain about "cash for clunkers"...

To qualify for $4500 you needed to trade in an 18 mpg car for a 28 mpg car. And they destroyed the engines of these cars. So they effectively raised the fuel economy of approximately 500,000 (conservative estimate) vehicles by 10 mpg. Do you think this will not decrease aggregate gasoline demand? What about the decreased emissions? Or do you just assume people will drive more to make up for the decreased cost of driving.

There are benefits to others than the auto industry.

PersonaNonGrata: To qualify for $4500 you needed to trade in an 18 mpg car for a 28 mpg car.

There was no actual requirement that the car must be running or be in use. I guess technically, the car must have an engine to allow it to be destroyed.

How many of the clunkers were cars on the way to the junkyard or were already in a junkyard that detoured to the car dealership, had the engine destroyed, and then went to the junkyard?

There was no actual requirement that the car must be running or be in use. I guess technically, the car must have an engine to allow it to be destroyed.

There is a requirement that the car must have been insured for one year.

But, you could be right. I'm sure a lot of people insure cars that they own but are not using. They set a good example for the estimated 20% of people that drive with no insurance whatsoever in my state (Texas).

PersonaNonGrata: There was no actual requirement that the car must be running or be in use. I guess technically, the car must have an engine to allow it to be destroyed.

There is a requirement that the car must have been insured for one year.

But, you could be right. I'm sure a lot of people insure cars that they own but are not using. They set a good example for the estimated 20% of people that drive with no insurance whatsoever in my state (Texas).

I believe it had to be driven to the dealership, eh? Which would be illegal without insurance in states that require insurance like California.

PersonaNonGrata: OK all you smart asses that complain about "cash for clunkers"...



There are benefits to others than the auto industry.

Prediction: In 1-2 years there will be a federal bailout approved for the people who bought cars under the "cash for clunkers" program and who can no longer afford the loan payments.

/why do you think they were driving clunkers in the first place?
//"cash for clunkers" program will also drive up the price of used car parts
///"cash for clunkers" program was a bad, bad idea

Hey, I got an idea, repeal the income tax.

Google Tom Cryer.