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 ...
You would know... you invented it - in spades.
I wasted a few moments using the "FairTax" calculator, noting that it does not acknowledge or accommodate those who have accumulated after tax savings at all. It obviously is a fraud, a nostrum, an overpriced panacea offered to the gullible, a simpleton crank to entice the widows and orphans who might have some current advantage. An honest appraisal - no way. A cheat, corrupt lie - yes. And those who support the corrupt lie - fie, you creeps.
My anticipated SS income is a joke. I've accumulated lots of after tax assets, and funded (at the same contribution level as SS) retirement accounts that will pay me 10 time the amount that SS would pay out, and post tax accounts that vanquish these accounts by a fair margin. I've fared well, being on the emerging cusp of the commie transistion being fostered by your ilk. It looks like my goal is to leave the US for better tax haven's in my retirement, as the beguiled children here will only vote for robbing their forefathers of their providence for their wherewithal and direction.
As it is to us all. I'm not going to respond to all matters in your post as it would take too long.
My absolute theory is that with a consumption tax the economy will grow boundless. There are certain scenarios where seniors would be hurt. Let's have the debate. For every senior hurt a whole bunch of seniors prosper because their never taxed plans become tax free. Let's have the debate and equalize. No FairTaxer wants anyone to be hurt outright. We need to adjust.
Worse, they want to tax into oblivion those who have no current income!
It's too bad you aren't adept enough to use the Calculator but obviously that's the case. Blow all you wish about how wealthy you are and how the government "Owes" you some return of the taxes you've paid. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It's too bad you aren't adept enough to use the Calculator but obviously that's the case.WOOOO! the (phony) calculator with a capital "C" no less.
I wonder when they'll start capitalizing "prebate"?
There has even been talk of "Fair" taxing homeowners on the value of their home for its "imputed" rental value, whether they rent it out or not.
My absolute theory is that with a consumption tax the economy will grow boundless.
I would not subscribe to such a theory. There are lots of uncertainties to growth. Time, resources, talent, courage, confidence, etc. The economy is made up from many unpredictable things - look at Ireland, and its uncanny "artist" contributions to growth. Of course that could be inspired by previous "no-tax" policies on artistic creations. Perhaps? By some odd chance - in some alternate universe? Yea, some moron would need more evidence. It is obvious that if one does not tax productivity, it flourishes. And when one does, it vanishes.
I believe low taxes on productivity, and moderate taxes on passive wealth would be the ticket.
Sure, the government may even decide to "tax" the difference between the imputed value and their calculated value of the difference, all for the children, of course.
"Bull-Crap-U-Lator"
The calculator correctly excludes from tax any EXISTING loan payments - they were established while loan rates/fees were still inflated by income tax costs and hence will not be taxed again. So anyone who has an existing mortgage will pay them without nrst.
New mortgages will have tax added to the excess portion of interest - and will come out about the same (tax costs are removed.... then added as an nrst).
The nominal price of the home will be higher, but it will cost me less in earnings....as has been demonstrated continually.
To buy a 300k house today (excluding interest), I have to earn 400k cuz i'm in a 25% tax bracket. Under the nrst, I'd have to earn 300k*.91=273k (removal of income tax costs), then pay my effective nrst of 15% and go from 273 to 321k; so I'll have to earn 321k.
Under the income tax, the house costs me 400k in earnings. Under the nrst, the house costs me 321k in eanrings.
Why do some continue to pretend that the income tax has no effect on purchasing power?
Under the income/payroll tax scheme, the gov't requires 25% of my earnings - because of what my income represents as a portion of the base. But make the base larger and the gov't can get the same amount of money by taxing me less.
That is, my discretionary spending represents a smaller part of the consumption base than my income represents of the income base.
I really don't think you get that.
Sorry, no sale. Until you income taxers can be honest about what happens, you will continue to keep the nrst ball rolling faster than it would on its own.
That post tax savings are taxed when spent is mitigated by gains in cap asset values, (17+%), gains in earnings (+20%), and gains in pretax investments like 401k (+marginal income tax rate).
It isn't nonsense at all, it's trivially obvious. You've been asked repeatedly to indicate your net position - because due to all the mitigating factors it is going to at least as good as now. For some reason, you've refused to provide enough detail to accomplish the task of detemining your effective rate under the nrst. Why's that I wonder?
And you gotta get this - you're looking foolish on it... there is no 30% tax on anything. You are asserting that all tax will be paid at the marginal rate. It isn't. You are actually putting the max marginal rate out there thinking some people will beieve it! No more than you pay your highest marginal income tax rate on everything do you pay the marginal nrst rate - and everyone except you knows it.
Under the income tax, marginal rates are reduced to effective rates using deductions, exemptions, credits, etc. Under the nrst, the marginal rate is reduced by a rebate for necessity level spending (like today's standard deduction).
Anyway, you should learn this, quickly!
LOL. Yes it does. You aren't capable of figuring it out it seems. There's a place to put it. If you ask nicely, I'll tell you what space it can go in to get an accurate result.
Hint: the nrst taxes spending, not income.
The tax calculator excludes all principle. It makes no distinction. Loan principle includes all sorts of things, just not housing. Cars, clothes, meals, housing, etc. During the transition, all goods bought under the old system did not have sales tax (because there was no fairtax yet), but as time goes by more and more of the principle will be goods with the fairtax. It is dishonest analysis to include principle as things that aren't taxed under the fairtax.
The calculator also has a mathematical error. You receive the "prebate" but they assume you never spend it (you pay FairTax on it when you spend it thus reducing it's real value).
they were established while loan rates/fees were still inflated by income tax costs and hence will not be taxed again.In your dreams. The interest is what is taxed, you haven't paid the tax on the monthly interest due because it accrues with time.
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.