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 ...
".. accumulated what I expected to be, savings that will allow me a comfortable 20-30 years of non-income earning (retirement) life, should I be able to buy things at only inflation adjusted prices through those years ..."
I'm perplexed as to why you would go 20-30 years with a non-income earning life I guess. It seems inexplicable. If you have enough salted away to spend for 20-30 years, why not put it to earning in savings and/or investments and use the proceeds to live off of?
For example let's say you've planned for a 25 year retirement spending $50,000 per year. With no income this would mean you've set aside 25 x $50,000 = $1,250,000. Even as little as a 5% return would result in $62,500 per year or the $50,000 with another $12,500 each year added to savings. You might very easily do better that the 5% without great risk to your capital.
Perhaps I'm missing something. Could you explain ... and please knock off the personal attacks.
And BTW, have you used the Calculator to assess your effective tax rate???
In other words, If you have been clever and successful, earned a great living, put away a large nest egg, taken care of your kids, never cheated on your taxes, invested well, earned the right to live the good life, you're either going to take it right up the wazoo, or have to learn to live like a hermit. After all, piggy poo says it's all about the spending ... I hope they invent better tasting dog food and waterproof refrigerator boxes by then.
"You can look at your savings or you can sit and count it but it has no value untill you spend it and that is exactly when it loses it's value under the Fairtax scam."
You have other more productive options too. You can save or invest the money and put it to work for you - earning more.
Only when you choose to spend some part of the money for taxable things is it taxed ... and as you have may have noticed there are many things under the FairTax that are not taxed at all.
Then again, maybe you haven't. Have you figured out your FairTax effective tax rate with the Calculator???
There is nothing inherently wrong with an income tax. It may become perverted, twisted, oppressive and abusive - to my knowledge, no system devised by man that is safe from the same fate.
The discussion here, however, is about the FairTax, not your beloved income tax.
"... you're either going to take it right up the wazoo, or have to learn to live like a hermit ...."
Actually the data in #481 shows that that taxpayer would live quite well indeed and nothing at all like a hermit or any other quaint description you might have.
And, once again, knock off the personal attacks.
(I guess he just likes setting himself up then whining about imaginary 'personal attacks')
Because EVERYONE gains in the world of fairytaxers. Its a plan that takes the same amount of money out of the economy, but everyone who checks with the handy dandy fairytax calculator comes out way ahead. It is a miracle.
The prebate is a rebate which is:
"... a return of a part of a payment ..."
Merriam-Webster Online
An entitlement is a completely different word with a completely different meaning. It is not at all a rebate.
And once more you continue your personal attacks.
Also, I've never stated it would "take the same amount of money out of the economy". That merely sounds like another of your fake charges.
oh... and the "data in #481" is based entirely on completely fallacious assumptions, but we already knew that.
Actually the link is quite informative. What happens when you CUT income taxes? People benefit greatly. WHY? The fruits of their labors are rewarded much more. What would happen if there were no income taxes? Per Jorgenson, 13% increase in GDP. The link informs us that income taxes are like a chain around out necks. Get rid of it and hold on for the ride.
Actually there's no reason why you'd have to "buy necessities and pay the 30% sales tax" since a) there is no 30% sales tax, b) you will never have to bear more than the cost of the item plus your effective FairTax rate, and c) there is no "tax on interest on even should you borrow - and the rates at which you borrow will be reduced considerably from present rates.
If you "knew that" you're on pretty thin ground since the date was based upon what the poster had either stated or implied in past posts.
the fallacious assumption is that anything like the FT will ever come to exist
That you lie frequently is well know.
The President's Advisory Panel noted that not only would it be an entitlement, it would be "the largest entitlement program in American history..."
Yes, going forward, earnings from savings may accumulate tax free, a good thing, but currently so can assets that are not traded, or are traded into equivalent holdings. I can hold an investment in IBM or GE, a tax efficient index fund, or an apartment complex for 20 years without being taxed on anything but their dividend, or net income. I can decide when to take a gain or a loss on the holding, and be subject to the as low as 15% capital gains tax (again only on the difference between basis and realized value), or just borrow against the asset and pay no tax. The CG rate can change of course, but the public servants would be facing down the rich guy as well as the middle class guy if they wanted to change the capital gains rate - and hence would be less likely to pursue this option (as their campaign contributions would vanish). And the "FairTax" would never recognize a capital loss.
The "FairTax" favors the low asset wage/income earner, at the expense of the high asset holding individual at the time of enactment. Typically, the new worker vs. the prudent individual nearing or at retirement. So there are winners and loosers in this contest. I would be a looser, and so would vigorously (old guy vigor) oppose the change.
If I felt you honestly wished to learn more about it I might explain hem further, but since I know your only wish is to absolutely attack anything FairTax - or any FairTax supporter ... I won't waste the time, but will just point out for the record that your #1, 2, 3, 5, & 6 are quite 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.