Posted on 10/10/2006 8:59:26 AM PDT by cryptical
You have to chuckle watching pigdog contradict himself, sometimes even in the same post. He could have a debate with himself(and it appears he's doing that right now) but he still couldn't win!
Maybe I am missing something, but that seems to be the identical assumption that Jorgenson made, except Jorgenson assumed after tax prices would stay the same due to lowering wages, and Kotlikoff assumed that he would keep after tax prices constant by monetary policy (which I suppose in the long run could force wages down, but again is a unrealistic assumption). In the short run that kind of monetary policy would destroy the economy before the wage-issue was rung out.
See, I always assumed that when I paid my taxes that I was paying my share of the cost for government services, what ever they might be.
Now your telling me that paying my share of taxes isn't enough, that I must also pay additional taxes so that government can pay its share of taxes on what I've already paid taxes for.
But then government doesn't pay taxes, people pay taxes.
A legitimate point and the biggest reason why we should consider adopting some form of a sales tax. Unfortunately, I am not sure there would be any support for a greatly reduced flat income tax combined with a smaller sales tax rate that only excludes food and housing without the prebate nonsense. I just don't see how a wholesale transaction from an income tax to a sales tax can work.
What your FairTaxer exercises show is increased purchasing power within certain FairTax parameters. Without knowing how much prices will fall, what an employee's take home pay will be, what bite tax evasion will take out of predicted revenue, or how much state and local government will have to raise taxes to pay the federal FairTax, your "actual examples" are the product of wishful thinking.
That should certainly help boost sales of US made products, don't you think, since those prices will drop before having the FairTax imposed ?Prices will drop? Only the tax would be a sure thing, everything else is wishful thinking.
Imports are less expensive because of labor and regulations, not income taxes. So unless the Fairtax is going to reduce labor costs (it doesn't) and eliminate regulations (it doesn't) there would be little if any price competition with foreign manufacturing...in fact I wouldn't be surprised if the Fairtax wouldn't be deemed illegal by the WTO.
"You are wrong. Deal with it. "
Glad to. First of all you should more properly have used the combined Federal and S&L figures rather than just Federal. But no matter, your error is the same anyway. From the current Kotlikoff/Suffolk paper in the section discussing collecting money with the FairTax, we find:
"... We know that the tax is levied on consumption: personal consumption and the consumption of federal, state and local governments ... "
Isn't it amazing that that is exactly what I have been saying throughout this thread - see post #316 for example which says the same thing.
And even the two sources you cite also show that the government consumption figures are used to calculate the tax base upon which the FairTax is imposed at 23%. that's the purpose of those tables - to derive the revenue generated at 23% or thereabouts depending upon which table you use. Thank you for providing them since it merely proves what I've been saying all along - the governmental wages are taxed at the basic FairTax rate. That's what the tables show whether you grasp that or not. They are not first adjusted or "grossed up" to be a higher figure at all.
Your original claim in post #305, then of:
"Oh, and BTW, both the AFT and Kotlikoff use 30% exclusive to determine the revenue generated by taxing the wages of government employees. Who are we to believe? The AFT and Kotlikoff, or pigdog? If it's 23% exclusive, as you claim, then their rate calculations are incorrect and would have to be adjusted up. "
And BTW I have never called the 23% excise on government gross wages anything but an excise (e.g., neither inclusive or exclusive). It is you opponents that try to bumfuzzle everyone by mixing up the usage and meaning of inclusive and exclusive. I have always said (and still do) that the tax imposed on those wages is 23% of gross wages (there is no nonsensical "grossing up" as you like to claim) and it shows in both the Tables you cite. It happens that both Kotlikoff and the AFFT agree with pigdog and we're all saying a 23% "excise" on gross wages.
I also do not find either number you cite of $273 or $326 gazillion (or whatever number of zeros it was) in the current Kotlikoff/Suffolk paper - but perhaps I missed it. In any event the rate calculations in both tables are just fine as they are.
If you'd like to now say that your use of 30% exclusive really meant 23% inclusive you're welcome to attempt that, but we both know that such was not the discussion. The discussion was the actual rate imposed on government non-educational gross wages ... and (is there an echo in here?) that rate is 23% of gross wages. An employee in that category having gross wages of $100,000 will have the government paying $23,000 as FairTax (and NOT any "grossed up" amount).
"You are 0 for 2."
And when the two entitlement rates fall in proportion to the third one (the GRR) due to the increased economic activity the FairTax brings, the amount needed to generate the requisite wage proportion will be less that at present for both not more. This means that the remaining portion which is the General Revenue Rate will in effect increase since the other two have decreased and the statutory rate for all three combined must be 23% (or whatever the rate ends up as in the bill) unless changed by Congress.
Do you not grasp that? Perhaps your misunderstanding stems from your initial belief that the rates would increase with increased economic activity? Sorry - won't happen.
It's pretty simple kev, those with less icome obviously have less to start with than those with greater income. But that's not the issue that the person who posted to you is missing.
Those with a greater income will ultimately pay more taxes because they will be consuming more than those with a lower income. It's all even in the end. See?
You should read my post on the mater more thoughtfully so that you can understand that what it says is correct. You can look it up on this thread and educate yourself.
If you have nothing better that endless strings of personal attacks, then please don't bother. I've better things to do - like mow the lawn.
Then try reading his paper again - more slowly.
Indeed, maybe you ARE missing something. Quite a bit in fact. Try again ... or even try studying what the entire paper says.
Umm, no it wasn't RobfromGa, it was me you got in that discussion with, and it was also you who confused the meaning of assumption and prediction. I used the word assumption and you kept insisting I somehow meant prediction. You love to redefine words and then lie about history.
If you have nothing better that endless strings of personal attacks, then please don't bother. I've better things to do - like mow the lawn.
LOL, you are a tool. Aren't you the one coming off a three-day ban for referring to other posters as jacka$$e$? It is not a personal attack to point to your endless lies. Are you denying you wrongly called us liars many many times for exactly what you just admitted about Jorgenson? Of course getting you to admit your past mistakes is an impossible task even by pulling up your past posts and linking to them.
OK, so you can't point to the part in the paper which supports your claim. You just deny what the paper does clearly state and insist the paper says something else, but you can't point to it? That's about par for the course.
Hey, pointing out pigdogs contradictions is apparently a personal attack. Stop it at once.
"I always assumed that when I paid my taxes that I was paying my share of the cost for government services"
And you never knew how much that amounted to since you didn't know how much you paid in taxes - and that includes hidden taxes, too, Now you'll know.
"Now your telling me that paying my share of taxes isn't enough, that I must also pay additional taxes so that government can pay its share of taxes on what I've already paid taxes for. "
I'm telling you no such thing. Under the FairTax most taxpayers will have a lower effective tax rate than they have had had under the income tax so you'll pay less - not more - and you'll know how much that is since the marginal rate on each receipt will remind you and your effective rate will be much lower unless you're a big blowhard spender like some of the opponents no doubt are.
"But then government doesn't pay taxes, people pay taxes."
I have no argument with that but if you truly believe it then why don't you educate some of your cronies who seen to believe otherwise?
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.