Tax panel leans toward AMT repeal

MarketWatch ^ | 5/20/2005 | William L. Watts

[rwrcpa1]

It is only your opinion that it would be a disaster.

[Your Nightmare]

I see you lost your ticks. Did you get dipped?

Nope, the alarm started ringing. The beginning of the end of the FairTax is here.

[Your Nightmare]

It is only your opinion that it would be a disaster.

Yeah, what's your opinion (or do you consider them facts?).

[rwrcpa1]

That's because a VAT is a sorry idea.

[lewislynn]

Hell, why not make it 1000% and quadruple the FCA? The government could make tons of revenue taxing itself and send us citizens huge "prebates."

According to one of their moron's examples (It must have been their AFT Scientologist director of research) at the end of the year, if you include the "prebate" you would actually have more spendable income than gross income...(the words "gross income" eludes them)...and they say it isn't a welfare check.

I've asked them several times. If the "prebate" to "untax" the poor is such a good idea why not increase the "prebate" (GAG!) to untax the middle class too?...or like you say, why stop there?

My other question about their (phoney) rebate to cover the tax on my "necessities" is: What are my necessities and what do they cost me?

[Final Authority]

I was wondering the other day where the farttaxers have been. I downloaded several years ago a rather long study of the level of taxation required by way of a NRST with certain exclusions, needed to replace an eliminated income tax, and the number came in in the 30 odd percent range. If I can I will forward you the URL but I expect you to have it. I am thinking it was the Brookings Institute, they would have a definite slant on the outcome of tax reform but most of the time the studies they publish are at a minimum, accurate with respect to government generated economic data.

[rwrcpa1]

There are two parts to the payroll taxes. The employer contribution and the employee contribution. But you knew that. You just chose to ignore it.

[Your Nightmare]

That's because a VAT is a sorry idea.

There are worse...

[Always Right]

I think calling them cult members hit a sore spot.

[lewislynn]

The employer contribution and the employee contribution

They're both the employee's contribution. The employer contributes on the employee's behalf...if he didn't do that he could give the entire amount to the emoployee...everyone but you knows that.

[rwrcpa1]

It'll collect it from fewer taxpayers on more items...that's what the fuss is about.

Sounds like a WONDERFUL idea! Is that what your beef with the Fair Tax is about?

[pigdog]

You've posted the 9/30 reco prediction previously?? Must have been really enlightening since it has slipped my mind. Perhaps you could post it again since I'm sure inquiring minds want to know.

What makes it so "obvious" to you that I'm "... not a rational person ..." - merely because I realize the FairTax obtains much more tax revenue from the underground economy than an income tax system??? Perhaps you could explain the "irrationality" of that.

Pointing out the obvious flaws and oversights in the Staff's "analysis" (which seems to have the force of law with you) is quite different than just disagreeing with them (which I also do) or merely calling them biased.

It is showing very clearly that they have not considered things that obviously have large economic effects and therefore skews their presentations (presumably accidentally) in a direction deleterious to the FairTax. And those are only things that are on the surface. Once more is known about their derivations it will, I'm sure, be quite apparent that they were off-base in a number of other areas also.

The reason you think I'm "biased" of course is that I disagree with you. In the case of the Panel Staff I don't just "declare" them biased, but show where their analysis if off base and inaccurate.

[rwrcpa1]

It'll collect it from fewer taxpayers on more items...that's what the fuss is about.

Sounds like a WONDERFUL idea! Is that what your beef with the Fair Tax is about?

[rwrcpa1]

Sorry, but that theory you guys have about wages having to be reduced to make up for no withholding is just stupid.

[rwrcpa1]

And it is like AR, YN, and LL are IRS agents afraid they're going to lose their jobs.

[rwrcpa1]

Uh huh.

[Always Right]

Sorry, but that theory you guys have about wages having to be reduced to make up for no withholding is just stupid.

No it is not stupid, it is the bloody only possible way it could happen. If you do not extract all the income taxes out of the costs of the products and pass it on to the consumer, prices can not come down after you add a revenue neutral sales tax on. If workers pocket the taxes, prices go up....Q.E.D.

[Your Nightmare]

The reason you think I'm "biased" of course is that I disagree with you. In the case of the Panel Staff I don't just "declare" them biased, but show where their analysis if off base and inaccurate.

Based on what? They have posted but a thumbnail sketch of their methodology. So how were you able to show "where their analysis if off base and inaccurate."

The fact is you didn't and you can't. Your opinion of their analysis is prejudiced.

[rwrcpa1]

Actually, I won't tell you the very descriptive term I have for you. Actually.

[lewislynn]

Sounds like a WONDERFUL idea!

Collecting the same amount of money from fewer taxpayers is a "wonderful idea"?

I guess it would be if you weren't one of the few.