Posted on 07/20/2005 12:51:23 PM PDT by Your Nightmare
Members of President Bush's advisory panel on tax reform largely agree that the individual alternative minimum tax, or AMT, should be fully repealed the committee's chairman said Wednesday.
"I think the obvious consensus was on the AMT on the individual side. We didn't end up with a consensus on the corporate side, even though I think it's fair to say that I think all panel members felt the corporate AMT was really not an effective way to tax," Chairman Connie Mack, a former Republican senator from Florida, told reporters after a public meeting of the committee.
The AMT is a parallel tax system created in 1969; it was enacted after it was revealed that a handful of extremely wealthy Americans paid no income tax. But thresholds for the AMT were never indexed for inflation. As a result, it has encompassed or threatened a growing number of middle-income taxpayers over the years. Lawmakers and administrations have responded by temporarily pushing up the threshold, but have yet to come up with a complete fix.
It's also become a substantial revenue source. Full repeal would reduce revenues by more than a trillion dollars over 10 years.
During the panel discussion, committee member Bill Frenzel said he agreed that it was time to "bite the bullet" and press for full repeal, but warned that doing so will put a "huge burden" on the panel to find a way to make up the lost revenues.
The panel's vice chairman, former Democratic Sen. John Breaux, said that while he's not a fan of the AMT, the panel must examine whether the full repeal of the system would allow some of the nation's highest earners to get away with paying no tax at all.
Mack replied that if that were the case, the committee would have to make adjustments in order to maintain roughly the same tax burden on the upper quintile of earners that is now in place.
The panel members agreed that changes to the corporate AMT would best be tackled as part of a broad corporate tax reform, Mack noted.
The committee, formally known as the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, must present the Treasury Department with a set of tax-reform proposals in September.
Bush has set a number of ground rules for the panel, however. The proposals must be revenue-neutral. Also, future tax measures can't touch the code's most sacred cows -- mortgage interest deduction and charitable giving.
Beyond that, business that consistently lose money will die.Unlike your plan for retail and services, they also won't owe any taxes when they're losing money.
The government could, if it chose, merely reduce the wages (thereby saving all that $$$) and not have any taxes paid (to itself, you see) - but that's not what is done.Totally irrelevant. The government is still going to pay their employees the same amount regardless if there is an income tax or not, but the FairTax would require they pay a sales tax on top of that thus increasing expenditures.
Why the fuss about rate. It's revenue neutral. It'll collect the same amount as now.It'll collect it from fewer taxpayers on more items...that's what the fuss is about.
You know what would be REAL interesting, if your EXPERTS could stick to a set of assumptions so that a TRUTHFUL analysis could be given. You can't assume taxes are paid by the consumer in one set of numbers and then include as a benefit that the worker is going to pocket all those taxes. If the consumer is really the one who pays the taxes, the worker must take a pay cut so the consumer can see the savings or your analysis is just a big fat lie. I would LOVE for you guys to tell me WHO it is you ASSUME is paying the tax. In one point it is the consumer and then on the next point it is the worker. Pick a set of RULES and stick to it, otherwise the whole discussion is meaningless.
By that logic you could just charge the federal government 100% sales tax and eliminate the sales tax on consumers altogether.Hell, why not make it 1000% and quadruple the FCA? The government could make tons of revenue taxing itself and send us citizens huge "prebates."
It is comical how those fair taxers think. It is as if they are a bunch of brainwashed cult members.
and feds pay payroll taxes to the employees - and it comes right back - and they "contribute" to the employees' fica.
So government already pays tax to itself.
The nrst won't change that. That they pay nrst prevents them from having an advantage in the market too.
You wouldn't want it to be easier to spend tax dollars would you???
You're opposed to the nrst solely on the basis that you started out opposing it. Then you felt someone was being mean to you - so now you won't admit changing your mind. Like a kid holding his breath ! LOL!
No I have opposed it from the beginning because of its intellectually dishonest analysis which grossly overestimates its benefits and grossly understates its costs.
If you're taking the position that the Panel Staff analysis is somehow right on the money or accurate, that's not a very solid position, Nightie.
For example, where does the Staff reduce government outlays by the reduction in prices brought about by the FairTax? It doesn't, you see. Also, where does it factor in the BILLIONS brought in - for the first time by any US tax system - from the underground economy. It doesn't, you see. As we obtain more data on what the Staff actually thought up, those positions will get even shakier.
As I told you, the Staff analysis is biased (intentionally or not). You'd best not get carried away by their numbers.
What??? NO VAT reco??? Surely you jest. Better go before the Panel by special appointment and set them square, Nightie.I've never thought there was much chance they would recommend a VAT.
And nowhere have I seen any sort of lucid description of why the same level of evasion as at present is used when that is clearly not the case at all.Your problem is you have to be lucid to recognize a lucid description. It's obvious you are not a rational person.
That's merely another of the Panel Staff's boo-boos (or bias; or lack of knowledge).Your consistent habit of declaring anyone who disagrees with you as having a bias does nothing more than display your own bias.
Don't you think it's pretty likely that the Panel will reco the FairTax and a mod to existing ITLOL! No. There is absolutely no chance of the Panel recommending the FairTax or a NRST in general. None.
Want to predict the Panel's 9/30 recos??I have previously.
For example, where does the Staff reduce government outlays by the reduction in prices brought about by the FairTax? It doesn't, you see. Also, where does it factor in the BILLIONS brought in - for the first time by any US tax system - from the underground economy. It doesn't, you see. As we obtain more data on what the Staff actually thought up, those positions will get even shakier.That's because they live in the United States, not Fantasyland.
Your analysis in #84 is way off base with the either/or statements you make - which are quite wrong.
That information has been pointed out to you before but I guess you really don't understand it.
That's just wrong. And backwards.
The nrst base is larger that the payroll tax base.
The nrst base is larger than the income tax base.
That's how the rate can be lower (for those currently paying anything).
If you have a pizza party costing $90 with 18 people,
you can charge 9 people $10 each, or
you can charge 15 people $6 each.
That's how increasing the base can reduce the rate.
Are you one of the moonbats that think prices do not contain any taxes or tax costs?
Oh, really? What "people" would that be? YN, LL, and AR? Fanboys? Hey, everybody! YN has a new insult term!
and feds pay payroll taxes to the employees - and it comes right back - and they "contribute" to the employees' fica.And the budget has been adjusted to account for the increase in expenditures required to pay these taxes and, thus, there has been an increase in the revenue required. The "revenue neutral" FairTax rate fails to account for the increase in expenditures that would be required for the government to pay itself.
No I understand it just fine. It explains perfectly how all your experts come up with all these unbelievable benefits by just shifting the way tax is collected. It is a shell game of shifting assumptions that allows everyone to pocket more money and all prices come down. An honest analysis could not produce those results by simply changing the way taxes are collected. You could honestly claim some benefit in its efficiency, but that does not account for the outrageous numbers that you throw around.
How can its analysis be "intelectually dishonest"? Aren't you the one doing the analysis?
Which benefits are overestimated?
Which costs are understated?
You wouldn't be throwing around generalizations that are nothing more than your "feelings" would you?
Takes one to know one. I see you lost your ticks. Did you get dipped?
Fanboys? Hey, everybody! YN has a new insult term!Actually, "Fanboy" is a very descriptive term for some FairTax supporter's fanatical, unwavering support for the FairTax and their inability to concede even the smallest point even when it's obvious they are 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.