Posted on 10/10/2006 8:59:26 AM PDT by cryptical
"I just don't see how a wholesale transaction from an income tax to a sales tax can work. "
Very simply, quickly, and with little fuss.
That wasn't the question. (You always change the question when you are shown to be wrong.) The question was is the 23% rate applied to government wages inclusive or exclusive of the tax!?! By including them in the FairTax base without any adjustment for the rate being 23% exclusive, they are clearly demonstrating that the rate applied to government wages is 23% inclusive, just like all the other consumption in the FairTax base.Isn't it amazing that that is exactly what I have been saying throughout this thread - see post #316 for example which says the same thing.Isn't it amazing that that is exactly what I have been saying throughout this thread - see post #316 for example which says the same thing.
And even the two sources you cite also show that the government consumption figures are used to calculate the tax base upon which the FairTax is imposed at 23%. that's the purpose of those tables - to derive the revenue generated at 23% or thereabouts depending upon which table you use.23% inclusive.
Thank you for providing them since it merely proves what I've been saying all along - the governmental wages are taxed at the basic FairTax rate.You've been saying it's 23% excluding the tax! That is not what the AFT and Kotlikoff are showing.
They are not first adjusted or "grossed up" to be a higher figure at all.They are treated like all other consumption in the FairTax base. The 23% rate is applied to an amount that includes the FairTax.
And BTW I have never called the 23% excise on government gross wages anything but an excise (e.g., neither inclusive or exclusive).You are saying that the 23% is applied to government wages excluding the tax. You are saying the 23% is exclusive whether you use that exact word or not.
I have always said (and still do) that the tax imposed on those wages is 23% of gross wages (there is no nonsensical "grossing up" as you like to claim) and it shows in both the Tables you cite. It happens that both Kotlikoff and the AFFT agree with pigdog and we're all sayingThe term "gross wages" doesn't appear in the text of the bill. Nothing remotely similar to what you are claiming appears in the text of the bill. You've made all of this up.
It happens that both Kotlikoff and the AFFT agree with pigdog and we're all saying a 23% "excise" on gross wages.No they don't. They show government wages being treated like all other consumption in the FairTax base - with the 23% being applied to wages including the tax!
I also do not find either number you cite of $273 or $326 gazillion (or whatever number of zeros it was) in the current Kotlikoff/Suffolk paper - but perhaps I missed it. In any event the rate calculations in both tables are just fine as they are.Take the government consumption expenditures numbers and multiply by the exclusive FairTax rate and you get the amount of FairTax that would be due on those expenditures.
"... your "actual examples" are the product of wishful thinking ..."No, they're quite real since the same amount is used for the same taxpayer under either system. The numbers used are the CBO quintiles for effective household tax rates/amounts and the AFFT prebate figures which are also real.
In fact, it is your assumption that there is some massive amount of evasion involved. You've apparently not read the discussions in Kotlikoff's current paper about that. The amount used for price reductions is the 9% that the FairTax opponents have stipulated to (except Robbie claims he said 8%). Perhaps they're wrong as many FairTax supporters thing the actual price decrease will be greater but for the comparison of purchasing power using the stipulated decrease is just fine.
None of you seem willing to be open minded enough to look into matters and see what your own FairTax effective rate might be, but you can do so here.
Actually, they already do.
And when the two entitlement rates fall in proportion to the third one (the GRR) due to the increased economic activity the FairTax brings, the amount needed to generate the requisite wage proportion will be less that at present for both not more. This means that the remaining portion which is the General Revenue Rate will in effect increase since the other two have decreased and the statutory rate for all three combined must be 23% (or whatever the rate ends up as in the bill) unless changed by Congress.Listen, it's clearly worded in the bill. If you don't believe me, ask some of your buddies. If they are honest, they'll set you straight.
If they are honest, they'll set you straight.When he lies they swear to it.
As far as I know, only the FairTaxers believe government can raise revenue by taxing itself.
It certainly is and it's really to bad that you, and some others here, either cannot read and correctly interpret what it says or, since doing that would shoot the B.S. you have been trying to sell for years down completely, REFUSE to do so.
How do you figure? We have established that hidden taxes will still exist. Who knows, it may prove to be more politic to raise excise and "certain other" taxes than the FairTax.
In your FairTax dreams.
What will the cost of a hip replacement be with the FairTax in place? The price of automobile insurance on a leased, new Toyota Avalon?
It certainly is and it's really to bad that you, and some others here, either cannot read and correctly interpret what it says or, since doing that would shoot the B.S. you have been trying to sell for years down completely, REFUSE to do so.Are you saying that the combined Federal tax rate would not change every year based on the old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate and the hospital insurance rate, as determined by the Social Security Administration?
It certainly is and it's really to bad that you, and some others here, either cannot read and correctly interpret what it says ...`(d) Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance Rate- The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be determined by the Social Security Administration. The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 12.4 percent tax on the Social Security wage base (including self-employment income) as determined in accordance with chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code most recently in effect prior to the enactment of this Act. The rate shall be determined using actuarially sound methodology and announced at least 6 months prior to the beginning of the Calendar year for which it applies.
Yea, judging by past experience with your interpretations I can see how those words like "shall be determined" And "shall be that sales tax rate" are difficult for you Fairtaxers to interpret.
As i said previously, it really would be nice if you folks could, or would, actually READ the paper under discussion.
The following quoted directly from that paper:
"2.2 Government Consumption Spending
Government consumption is included in the FairTax base in order to put personal and government consumption expenditures on an equal footing."
I cannot help it that you, and a few others here, cannot grasp the great importance of doing that but most folks do so quite readily.
Unless congress acts to change it every year that is exactly what I am saying.
The portion of that 23% required to fund those things absolutely WILL change every year and without any need for the congress to act.
You do know that those things are required to be seperately stated on reciepts under the fairtax don't you?
The portion of that 23% required to fund those things absolutely WILL change every year and without any need for the congress to act.LOL! OH yeah, that'll sell... SS takes what they want and everyone else, defense included, be damned...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!...WHAT A MAROON!
Unless congress acts to change it every year that is exactly what I am saying. The portion of that 23% required to fund those things absolutely WILL change every year and without any need for the congress to act.You and pigdog are wrong. The overall rate changes every year based on the OASDI and HI rate the SSA determines. It doesn't require a vote by Congress.
"In the calendar year 2007, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service. For years after the calendar year 2007, the rate of tax is the combined Federal tax rate percentage of the gross payments for the taxable property or service. The combined Federal tax rate percentage is the sum of the general revenue rate, and the old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate, and the hospital insurance rate."
I cannot help it that you, and a few others here, cannot grasp the great importance of doing that but most folks do so quite readily.
It is true that I don't grasp the importance of putting government and personal consumption on an equal footing. In areas where government directly competes with the private sector, then the same tax rules should apply, however the government is not personal and much of government's activities are not designed to make a profit. Why, in instances where government provides services not-for-profit, should it it (and we) be taxed? Government employees will be taxed, just like the rest of us, when they spend.
What is the logic behind a church purchasing a stove tax free, for its soup kitchen that provides no cost meals to the poor, while charging the government a 30% tax on a tank?
Just because the Mods don't remove your posts or ban you for them does not mean they are anything BUT personal attacks. Most people will certainly realize that and it seems to be part of the "debating tactic".
Actually it was both you and Robbie who were pretending that Jorgenson's assumptions were predictions of what would happen - and they weren't. You're welcome to misremember it as you like, though. I've had the discussion with both of you at different times.
"You love to redefine words and then lie about history."
The "word redefinition" you mention more correctly applies to the FairTax opponents who routinely - in fact, always - refer to the prebate as an "entitlement" when in fact it is a rebate and is so defined in both the bill HR25 and in dictionaries in that manner. The word "entitlement" has a different meaning than "rebate", so your little mini-lecture about "word redefinition" falls flat.
And it happens to be against FR Posting Guidelines to try to continue your personal attacks and taunting from thread to thread as you FairTax opponents routinely do. Look it up.
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.