Posted on 10/10/2006 8:59:26 AM PDT by cryptical
Aand your continual fabrication that I'm "lying" about something that is quite true is nonsense.
Then you should be tickled to death that I continue rebutting all your nonsense.
Read #334, 351, & 368 and see if you can understand what is being said. There is no "lie" and your continual charges claiming that are foolish.
Nice try, but you made specific reference to the 23% rate requiring an act of Congress to change, not the GRR. You lies only grow bigger and bigger with each post.
I have not said it can only go upward. Why must you continue to lie and act like everyone else is. This is too damn funny. And you just keep adding more lies everytime you post.
The posts themselves are just wrong. It is your denial what they clearly say is where the mountain of lies are.
Can't see the NRST doing anything but adding to the burden.
Your and Looey's continual stating that the rate can only go upward is incorrectI never stated "they could only go up"...another pigdog lie.
On this thread alone I think I could easily document a couple dozen pigdog lies. These aren't disagreements of opinions either, but bold face lies that are in black and white. Pigdog says something, then denies he says it, then makes up more lies to cover. It has gotten to the point of just being ridiculous. I have never seen anyone lie like pigdog does even when confonted with undeniable facts.
I have never seen anyone lie like pigdog does even when confonted with undeniable facts.Bump the thread at any cost, even his integrity...It's his duty.
Please point to the language in the bill that allows this.
"The key phrase is ..., but is: "... that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 12.4 percent tax on the Social Security wage base ...".Since the wage base will increase more slowly than the total economic activity, this means that the rate so derived will actually provide the funds to match the 12.4% amount mentioned in the bill but that the proportion of that wage amount in the total 23% will actually fall from its present 27.43% to perhaps 25% (of the 23% rate) or possibly even less depending upon the increase in economic activity. This would actually free up more funds for the general revenue rate which would rise after 2007 from the 14.91% figure to, say, 15%.
That result would bring about a hue and cry from taxpayers to lower the rate from 23% (if it in fact starts at that level - which is too high). I suspect that even you and your friends would bitch to high heaven about having the rate "too high".
In other words, you've ignored the simple fact that the rate 23% (or other %), composed of the two entitlement rates that total into the overall 23%, are more likely to decrease from their current proportion of the total. That is FAR more likely that the results that you keep pushing with your nonsense "unelected bureaucrat" business. The FairTax will certainly boost economic activity - every single real economic study that has been done shows this. Pretending otherwise ignores what is obviously the truth of the matter. "
I realize that neither of you want to or can understand this, but it happens to be true. The nonsense about "unelected bureaucrats raising the rate automatically each year" is just that - and isn't going to happen. Just the opposite will occur and to lower the 23% (or alter the GRR) will require Congressional action. Most people understand this readily enough but you don't seem to.
You continual charges of "liar, liar, pants on fire" are childish in the extreme.
We are not claiming that, we are telling you that for the 1000th time. The 23% rate is fixed by the bill only for the year 2007. The GRR rate is fixed by the bill indefinitely. The Social Security Administration determines what happens to the other rates in the following years based on some formula. Those rates WILL change every year and thus so will the COMBINED FEDERAL TAX RATE. You have been told this numerous times, so it is probably worthless to tell you again. Here is all the applicable sections that were posted to you on post 331:
`SEC. 101. IMPOSITION OF SALES TAX.
`(a) In General- There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.
`(b) Rate-
`(1) FOR 2007- In the calendar year 2007, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.
`(2) FOR YEARS AFTER 2007- For years after the calendar year 2007, the rate of tax is the combined Federal tax rate percentage (as defined in paragraph (3)) of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.
`(3) COMBINED FEDERAL TAX RATE PERCENTAGE- The combined Federal tax rate percentage is the sum of--
`(A) the general revenue rate (as defined in paragraph (4), and
`(B) the old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate, and
`(C) the hospital insurance rate.
`(4) GENERAL REVENUE RATE- The general revenue rate shall be 14.91 percent.
`SEC. 904. TRUST FUND REVENUE.
...
`(d) Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance Rate- The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be determined by the Social Security Administration. The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 12.4 percent tax on the Social Security wage base (including self-employment income) as determined in accordance with chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code most recently in effect prior to the enactment of this Act. The rate shall be determined using actuarially sound methodology and announced at least 6 months prior to the beginning of the Calendar year for which it applies.
`(e) Hospital Insurance Rate- The hospital insurance rate shall be determined by the Social Security Administration. The hospital insurance rate shall be that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 2.9 percent tax on the Medicare wage base (including self-employment income) as determined in accordance with chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code most recently in effect prior to the enactment of this Act. The rate shall be determined using actuarially sound methodology and announced at least 6 months prior to the beginning of the calendar year for which it applies.
In my posts to you I have not addressed such a rate increase (the entitlement proportions) at all and do not consider it even a possibility due to the increased economic expansion caused by the bill. Instead of continually yapping about "liar" and trying to bolster your own egos by throwing personal attacks, why don't you show me by actual numerical examples how your desired scenario would occur with an increase in economic activity. Show what would need to happen to the two proportions in relation to the overall rate.
Also numerically show the circumstances required for the rise in the two proportions to create your "unelected bureaucrat scenario.
It is you continual denials of saying something that I have plainly show you did in fact say which is childish. You said something not only once, but more than 4 times and yet you still deny it. Why not be a man and admit the truth.
Another bold face lie. I can post numerous places on this thread that shows otherwise. Here is one example in 464:
You are confused here. The 14.91 GRR rate is fixed by the fairtax. It can not change. The taxpayers would have to say nothing to lower the rate overall rate, it would automatically adjust lower if your scenario of the other rates going lower did come about
The rate can go up or down automatically. Quite adding more lies to your the mountain and trying to change the subject.
What you seem to be saying is that there is a provision to automatically decrease the tax rate (the 23%) since with increased economic activity the proportions of the two entitlements will fall causing an automatic lowering of the 23% rate since the 14.91% GRR is fixed in the bill. If you'd like to argue otherwise - have at it.
Also, if you believe that Congress would sit still for an automatic lowering of the FairTax rate (or of a corresponding change in the GRR) without their action then I think you're kidding yourself. Congress is charged with the money raising task by the Constitution and they certainly won't punt and hand that over to "unelected bureaucrats" as you claim.
So tell me, what is it you think will happen with the FairTax rate with the percentages for both S/S and M/C decreasing??? By the logic you've presented so far, your answer would have to be that the FairTax rate would automatically decline. Do you genuinely believe that???
"You are confused here. The 14.91 GRR rate is fixed by the fairtax [sic]. It can not change. The taxpayers would have to say nothing to lower the rate overall rate, it would automatically adjust lower if your scenario of the other rates going lower did come about "
Not confused, but yes, I did miss your post saying that. What number was it?
That is quite different tat what Looey has continually presented which was only a unilateral increase in the rate automatically.
Do you both agree, then, that a lowering of the entitlement rates as I have presented will automatically lower the FairTax rate??? I'd like an answer from each of you.
"Another bold face lie. I can post numerous places on this thread that shows otherwise."
OK - you've shown your #464 which I've said I missed. Please show the other instances of your "numerous times" and also, Looey, please do the same.
Odd that you missed it because you responded to it in post 468.
Please show the other instances of your "numerous times"
OK, here are a couple more....
From post 472, BTW which you also responded to: For the 20th time, I never attempted to debate whether those rates will raise or fall. It makes no difference to this point. The point was that the overall rate would automatically change when those rates changed. You keep incorrectly insisting it takes an act of congress to change the 23% rate.
And from post 474: After you admit how the fair tax rate will automatically fluctuate with changes in the two entitlement components of the overall fairtax rate, then we can get to the debate about whether we think those rates go up or down. But right now that point is mute because you are mistaken about what the bill says.
Must I really go on proving how untruthful you are?
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.