Oh great master of the English language, would you please tell me what you meant by:
"And to change the FairTax rate it would, indeed, take congressional action."
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."
Just how did all the BS you spewed about before making these statements, changed their meaning? Come on pigdog come clean, we know you can. Just say, "I made a mistake, I then lied about it, I am sorry". I won't hold it against you.
"...the statutory rate for all three combined must be 23% (or whatever the rate ends up as in the bill) unless changed by Congress."Another pigdog lie. The only "statutory rate" after the first year is the 14.91% general revenue rate.
`(1) FOR 2007- In the calendar year 2007, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.It's such a great plan you have to lie to cover up the lies about it.`(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.
`(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
`(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.
`(C) the hospital insurance rate.
`(e) HOSPITAL INSURANCE RATE- The hospital insurance rate shall be determined by the Social Security Administration. The hospital 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 2.9 percent tax on the Medicare 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.
`(4) GENERAL REVENUE RATE- The general revenue rate shall be 14.91 percent.
""Oh great master of the English language, would you please tell me what you meant by:And to change the FairTax rate it would, indeed, take congressional action."
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.""
Sure, I'd be glad to help out someone who isn't too conversant with the subject ... but flattery really isn't necessary (in fact not even appreciated since I know you're not sincere).
You need to read the three posts in question #334,351, and 368. The discussion was not about whether the rates would change but the point I made (which no one has refuted) is that the change in the two entitlement proportional ratios would be to reduce them rather than increase them. Having those percentages reducing, the additional funds would necessitate a change in altering the GRR (since there would be an overage of funds requiring a GRR rate change or change in the 23% rate) which can only be done by Congress. There is no provision to automatically alter the GRR.
Your and Looey's continual stating that the rate can only go upward is incorrect and the changes you thereby project will not occur.
That's what those three posts say and that's the actual situation. Trying to project some sort of automatic increase routinely as you do is both incorrect and disingenuous. That's why I've disputed the interpretation you both make ... you're incorrectly assuming the wrong direction of change.
If you continue in your insistence that the direction of change can only be in a way unfavorable to the FairTax (and apparently you do) then you are offering up misinformation just as he is. And it matters not how many times you make such a foolish charge; it's still wrong. The continual insistence of both of you that I'm "lying" will have no effect since what I have said is not a lie at all, but quite true.