Posted on 04/04/2006 2:17:28 PM PDT by Eaglewatcher
The Mastromarco/Burton explanation on the subject is quite clear and I think you'd understand it also, Looey.
Does this response mean that you didn't understand it?
Are you boasting about your own veracity, Rightie??? Or just attacking someone else?
Here.
'Course it's old, 2001. And there is no reason to think any other year would be significantly different.
Earn or not, folks consume. So while there will be those who some months receive more in prebate than they spend, the aggregate picture is that there will be very, very few in that situation long-term - contrary to what we have now in our income tax.
Yet another point on which the nrst is better than the existing system.
Your comments seem to indicate that you have or had a copy of it so presumable you'll put it up for viewing.I had one at some point. I'll have to find it.
Actually most of us would believe them rather than you if it comes to that Nightie. Their track record for veracity is much better than yours.*cough* jorgenson *cough*
Besides, the question you're pounding your chest with is irrelevant. It doesn't make a lick of difference to me whether gov't purchases, wages, etc are taxed we've talked about why it makes sense numerous times. As long as withholding is eliminated, payroll tax is eliminated, income taxes (personal and business) are eliminated, and the disadvatage to US exporters is eliminated I'm happy.
THe other wrangling you're doing is just a bunch of nothingness for you to pound your chest with.
THat's not what this data say: Data
So irrespective of reported earnings, folks spend. So, you're wrong.
Beyond that, what does it say that so many are underreporting earnings? That perhaps the nrst will indeed capture more taxes from the cash economy?
Got any other data to analyze? If so, post it.
After all, why pick and choose sentences here and there from Jorgenson's words to attempt to construe an assertion rather than just getting the whole thing from Jorgenson?
Yes, the former chairman of Economics at harvard, the guy with the letters behind his name indicating that he is an expert - he far, far, far outweighs anyone on this forum, no matter how skilled at misrepresentation.
You apparently do.
Iow, yes there would be an additional 30% (not 23%) tax ON "any government" employee's wages, salaries and benefits....Gee, that shouldn't amount to much. < /sarcasm >
How so? THe nrst only has business as filers - no individuals are filers. So how will it be worse if no individuals are tax filers? Besides, doesn't today's system already create cover for creating more gov't for tax enforcement? Hence your argument is not against any particular tax method, but is against gov't getting larger to enforce taxes. But since only business will face enforcment, not individuals, how will it be worse? Seems to me that by reducing the nuber of filers so drastically will make enforcement easier, not harder. Beyond that, no individuals will file - only business.
...every American who does not desire to be taxed excessively will be forced to beg an offsetting sum of money from government, they could simply manipulate prices when they wanted more money, etc.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Can you clarify?
Did you read this part?
Yes, the former chairman of Economics at harvard, the guy with the letters behind his name indicating that he is an expert - he far, far, far outweighs anyone on this forum, no matter how skilled at misrepresentation.I wasn't commenting on Jorgenson's believability, I was commenting on the AFT's. They are the ones who have (and continue to) misrepresent Jorgenson's work.
Or this?
My mistake.
I read it and most of the rebuttal, including this part, makes no sense. How, exactly does the income tax or Flat Tax tax government output?So today, both the income tax and the flat tax tax government output.Did you read this part?
While the government pays its employees a gross amount and then withholds the income tax from their paychecks,...
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
LOL! Words.
What (words) indicates to you it wouldn't
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.