Posted on 10/12/2005 8:39:34 AM PDT by pigdog
CBO says that federal government revenue is 16.3% of total GDP in 2004. This is down from 20.9% in 2000. See table 4 at http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
How on earth can "Line 29 Tax inclusive rate (no rebate)" be as low as 15.9% with all of the exclusions listed in your table?
How on earth can "Line 29 Tax inclusive rate (no rebate)" be as low as 15.9% with all of the exclusions listed in your table?
The NRST does not replace 100% of federal revenue sources. It only replaces income, payroll and gift/estate taxes.
Current misc excises, tariffs and import duties, fees and other sources of revenue to government are not replaced by the NRST.
Secondly the exclusions from GDP as well as the additions to GDP in the table are corrections that are necessary to GDP to adjust to the actual and practical taxbase the legislaton covers, not GDP as the theoretical number that BEA produces.
In otherwords, the taxbase covered by the FairTax includes taxation of imports at retail level (which GDP does not) while removing imputed rents (which is in GDP but not a part of anyone's taxbase) for example. There are many additions to Gross "Domestic" Product that are taxed under the FairTax yet are not included in "Domestic" production.
Another question about your table:
Buy the way, that is not "my table".
It is a standard calculation used by economists to determine the tax rate in a static study of tax rate for a given tax base. In this particular case it is the one of the calculations done for AFFT representing the taxbase implemented by the FairTax legislation.
I am merely an individual proponent for an NRST of any kind and for the FairTax legislation as it the only such legislation on the table today.
What I am not is an employee or economist belonging to AFFT having anything to do with their studies or what they select for their websites.
First of all, it's not "THEIR" idea which you'd know if you'd read up using the FairTax website. It came about by means of many years of economic studies. Trying to change the FairTax bill in any substantive way means that you affect each and every taxpayer - no hiding of cute little trick tax provisions or benes for certain people or groups. Everyone has the same tax treatment.
That will make a politician think long and hard before launching into something affecting all voters adversely.
It's apparent you are trying to defend the Status Quo from you posts that actually oppose the FairTax, Many have tried the stunt of saying "... oh, I'M not opposed to the FairTax ..." while arguing against it. That does not work friend.
That's because you haven't read the bill and do not realize that the FairTax eliminates the income tax (and some others) as well as the IRS and the applicable income tax code portions and in addition it requires the income tax records to be destroyed.
If you think that's something that can be restarted by a snap of the fingers you're quite mistaken.
What I said was that I disagreed with your entire list - not just part of it. You can think as you choose.
I didn't agree with you at all. I see that you haven't read the bill.
We are talking about benefits paid by companies to their employees.
How does the 'FairTax' tax those benefits? It doesn't. Therefore, by not being taxed, the number of company benefits will be taxed.
Even Boortz/Linder say that certain people will benefit from a 'FairTax', people that are included on that list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.