Posted on 10/19/2006 5:11:50 PM PDT by pigdog
As specified in Congressional bill H.R. 25/S. 25, the FairTax is a proposal to replace the federal personal income tax, corporate income tax, payroll (FICA) tax, capital gains, alternative minimum, self-employment, and estate and gifts taxes with a single-rate federal retail sales tax. The FairTax also provides a prebate to each household based on its demographic composition. The prebate is set to ensure that households pay no taxes net on spending up to the poverty level.
Bill Gale (2005) and the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform (2005) suggest that the effective (tax inclusive) tax rate needed to implement H.R. 25 is far higher than the proposed 23% rate. This study, which builds on Gale’s (2005) analysis, shows that a 23% rate is eminently feasible and suggests why Gale and the Tax Panel reached the opposite conclusion.
This paper begins by projecting the FairTax’s 2007 tax base net of its rebate. Next it calculates the tax rate needed to maintain the real levels of federal and state spending under the FairTax. It then determines if an effective rate of 23% would be sufficient to fund 2007 estimated spending or if not, the amount by which non-Social Security federal expenditures would need to be reduced. Finally, it shows that the FairTax imposes no additional real fiscal burdens on state and local government, notwithstanding the requirement that such governments pay the FairTax when they purchase goods and services.
(Excerpt) Read more at people.bu.edu ...
I recently had to send one of my kids to an expensive school (and college is coming up).Oh you poor thing.
Yeah! Those and the hundres of others who have signed on simply becuse it is such a GREAT idea!
I don't put much weight into opinions of economists who were paid to come to particular conclusions.
Far a VERY long time now it has been abundantly clear to me that the only thing you put much weight into is what's in it for me?.
Maybe he'll even rat on you to the TX IRS ... oops, he can't since there's no state income tax ... dangit!!! Maybe he'll tell your mother!
Yep! Many do try such things and if they continue the practice for very long at all in this state they WILL get dinged for it!
It is a very difficult thing to police.
Not so difficult as you seem to imagine I'll assure you.
They just state things and expect to be believed since they represent "the government". Sorry, but I like to see the work and reasoning involved. Do you have any???
Sorry! Can't do that either! At least not in THIS world. ;>)
There are only 8 questions, it's anonymous, and is easy to use. Just do a thoughtful job and when you don't know any figures estimate as closely as p[ossible. Also, keep in mind that in question 6 (from memory), political contributions are also deductible but not so mentioned.
If I bought a roll of toilet paper for business use, how exactly do you police it to make sure I did not use it for personal use? It is nearly impossible.
I am leaving for a while and no longer have the time to engage in your nonsense.
Yeah, right!!! Several have been sighted on these threads from time to time attempting to tell us that. Some, however, can't even spell NIPA.
Sorry! Can't give away state secrets! LOL!
I don't deny that one can probably get away with doing that on a very small scale but I'll assure you that they won't for long otherwise.
The nonsense you read from many of the FairTax opponents of "everything costs 30% more" (or even more) is just that - nonsense. Find your real effective FairTax rate and become informed (and empowered).
Wow!!! You use toilet paper??? How high class ... how appropriate, too.
Who have you appointed o take over for you???
Please give me a link that shows me ever quoting polling or retract that untrue charge.
"BTW, the problem is a bit different at the state and local level, but Kotlikoff, in the very paper cited above, agrees that S&L governments will need to raise their own tax rates to collect enough money to pay their FairTax."
BTW, Kotlikoff et al (there are several economists involved in the paper) say no such thing unless you choose to take a single statement out of context and pretend that's what the paper says. IT ISN'T.
The paper mentions that as one of the things the particular government could do but he also points out others and that it isn't necessary unless they wish to do so (it being up to the state) ... but hey - they can do that now, can't they??
"And 20 million business owners, and another 40 million "whopper flopper's" behind cash registers. - all now federal tax agents."
Not at all ... that would be 20 million cash registers that are state tax agents (and the business owning them are paid for the "work" of their cash registers).
So why are you upset about it then? Either tax systems have differences or they do not. I assert that they do - and further that the nrst is an improvement - and hence is by definition reform.
If you choose to continue reforming spending, have at it. I support you. I've been doing it for over 40 years. Long ago I came to the conclusion that spending reform won't happen until taxes are more visible and eveyone pays the same marginal rate.
The final disposition is that changing the method of collection of taxes can indeed have an impact on spending. As a simple example, simply changing the way we collect income taxes could affect gov't spending - by eliminating withholding and making people pay in cash monthly or annually. Golly, why hasn't it happend?
Don't you see that changing the method of collection could indeed affect gov't spending?
I have considerable after tax savingsThat isn't possible with the income tax. The only way anyone could ever accumulate wealth is if Congress passes the Fairtax.
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.