Posted on 10/10/2006 8:59:26 AM PDT by cryptical
Couldn't agree more.
I am not the person to ask - I hate insurance companies more than I hate government.
"Nothing you posted changed the lie you continue to post. "
That's because you didn't read or didn't understand what was said in all 3 posts I pointed you to.
One thing that was NOT said was the statement you keep insisting I made - which I never did. That sort of false claim (especially when coupled with the claim that the statement I never made is a "lie") is nothing but an abject personal attack - and a dishonest one as well.
Knock off the personal attacks ... they're getting to be such second nature to you that I even doubt you know how foolish and objectionable they are.
POST 334: This would actually free up more funds for the general revenue rate which would rise after 2007 from the 14.91% figure to, say, 15%. That result would bring about a hue and cry from taxpayers to lower the rate from 23%
You are confused here. The 14.91 GRR rate is fixed by the fairtax. It can not change. The taxpayers would have to say nothing to lower the rate overall rate, it would automatically adjust lower if your scenario of the other rates going lower did come about (which it would not, BTW).
POST 351: and the answer is as I already gave it to you in post #334; the rates will FALL due to the factors shown in that post. Even so, it would take Congressional action to lower the FairTax rate.
Again, you show your confusion. It would not take any action by Congress for the lower rate to take effect if the other two rates fell. The only fixed rate is the GRR. Do you get it yet?
POST 368: 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.
Again you further illustrate you do not have the slightest understanding of how the Fairtax bill is written. The sum of the three rates is only 23% in 2007, after that it automatically adjusts with the changes in the second two rates. It takes an act of Congress to change the GRR of 14.91%, but not the other rates. You either have no reading comprehension or are a liar.
Incredible.
Everyone but you understand your total misconseptions of what is in the bill. It has been demonstrated to you by three different posters, but you continue to insist your misreading of the bill is correct. You are beyond help.
How then do you feel about a government run insurance scheme set up in a fashion that would land any private company in jail overnight and with the ability to FORCE the American people into participation in its plan?
IOW you really haven't a clue ...
"... you continue to insist your misreading of the bill is correct ... "
In fact, I'm insisting that the bill means exactly what it says and that the three of you are exactly 180 degrees out of phase with the direction of economic activity under the FairTax (which you always have been due to your blinding bias against it) and that causes all three to be completely incorrect on the rate mixture and how it operates - as discussed in posts #334, 351, amd 368.
What are you even talking about? I have not even argued anything the direction of the economic activity. It has nothing to do with what the bill says. It is just a lame attempt by you to shif the discussion away from what the bill says in 3rd grade English.
For the 20th time, I never attempted to debate whether those rates will raise or fall. It makes no difference to this point. The point was that the overall rate would automatically change when those rates changed. You keep incorrectly insisting it takes an act of congress to change the 23% rate. However, everybody who can read knows otherwise. You are just acting dense and trying to change the topic to something else. Why not just admit your statement was in error? Instead you keep lying and lying and lying to cover up an error. You are pathetic. Its all in black and white where everyone can read it. People are not that stupid.
"... whether those rates will raise or fall. It makes no difference to this point ..."
Quite the contrary - the direction of change in the economy has a great deal to do with the discussion of the entitlement proportions in the FairTax makeup. Your belief that those proportions can only rise shows your thinking locked into a single specific view of the FairTax ... one at odds with every economic study on the FairTax.
I have not "insisted" as you put it that the 23% rate cannot change, but I have pointed out that the direction of change will be for the rates for the 2 entitlement components will be to fall, not rise as you claim.
Every single real economic study done on the FairTax shows that by the fact they ALL show increased economic activity due to the FairTax which will have the effect of boosting the GRR proportion at the expense of the entitlement portions - and that it would take an act of Congress to lower the 23% rate. I've said nothing about any Congressional action in raising the rate since that will clearly not be required.
Note here that I have called you no names, and made no extraneous charges as you do in your post.
Nice attempt to twist the subject yet again. You have insisted numerous times that it takes an act of Congress to change the 23 percent rate. Instead of lying and/or changing the subject, why not just say, hey I misunderstood it and was mistaken. Instead of looking like a fool and defending something that is clearly wrong. After you admit how the fair tax rate will automatically fluctuate with changes in the two entitlement components of the overall fairtax rate, then we can get to the debate about whether we think those rates go up or down. But right now that point is mute because you are mistaken about what the bill says.
??? Are you now saying it would take an act of Congress to lower the 23 percent rate, but not raise it???? Even with that partial admission you are admitting lewislynn was right all along on that point.
And yes, you have made statements about it taking an act of Congress to both raise and lower the 23 percent rate despite what the bill clearly says:
post 310 by pigdog: "The infamous "unelected bureaucrats raising taxes" ploy you've continually tried (unsuccessfully) to use isn't correct and never has been. They merely determine the split of tax revenue required to fund the S/S entitlement as required by S/S law - which it should be noted isn't part of the FairTax law at all. They have no power to raise (or lower) the FairTax rate ... that's what we pay the "big bux" to Congress for."
post 328 by pigdog: "Any change in the overall FairTax rate would have to be done by Congress, not some "unelected bureaucrat".
post 351 by pigdog: " And to change the FairTax rate it would, indeed, take congressional action."
post 368 bt pigdog: "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."
I hope 4 examples are enough, because there are more...
`(2) FOR YEARS AFTER 2007- For years after the calendar year 2007, the rate of tax is the combined Federal tax rate percentage (as defined in paragraph (3)) of the gross payments for the taxable property or service."Shall be" doesn't mean maybe or it can change on a whim by SS because they need more or less money, it means IT WILL BE 14.91%...period.`(3) COMBINED FEDERAL TAX RATE PERCENTAGE- The combined Federal tax rate percentage is the sum of--
`(A) the general revenue rate (as defined in paragraph (4), and
`(B) the old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate, and
`(C) the hospital insurance rate.
`(4) GENERAL REVENUE RATE- The general revenue rate shall be 14.91 percent.
pigdog's paragraph (like everything he posts) is a lie, the rest is the law. To change the paragraph 4 rate to anything other than stated in the law WOULD take an act of congress. The other rates "shall be determined" by unelected bureaucrats at SS. Whatever they do would be combined with the 14.91% rate to change the overall rate which is why it has to be announced 6 months prior to implementation...If the 23% rate doesn't change, what's to announce?
It's simple logic, not rocket science.
It's simple logic, not rocket science.That was not directed at you. I know you (unlike pigdog) have a grasp of what the legislation means.
Your posture is simply nonsense since you don't grasp the concept. There is no way I should "admit" that I misunderstood or was mistaken since I am neither. That would be more properly something you should be doing since your presumed one-way street to push those proportions up isn't in the cards ... and you don't seem to realize it.
You inability to not understand what you read is second to none. Either that or you are a liar. There is no debate here. You are wrong.
You're also the guy who claimed that the wages of non-educationald government employees would be taxed at something other than the 23% of gross wages (less the different ER FICA adjustments).
Who could even think you might be the teensiest bit wrong???
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.