Posted on 10/10/2006 8:59:26 AM PDT by cryptical
That is so ignorant. Typing a 310 instead of 319 is a meaningless typo that did not change any substance of the arguement. Saying something that blantantly untrue and then denying it, is a lie. You sound like a DUmmie who tries to confuse a mistake with a lie to cover up their lie. Bill Clinton is more trustworthy than you.
Don't limit the possibilities. There is the high possibility pigdog is both a liar and ignorant of what the Fairtax bill means.
You demonstrate your cluelessness thread after thread. Even the biggest hardcore fairtax supporters don't stand up for your ignorance and lies. They are embarrassed.
No surprise on either count.
Stick it in which ear???
You've already shown how little you understand about what was said. And your continual post in this vein merely emphasize that.
PIGDOG post 473: "I've said nothing about any Congressional action in raising the rate since that will clearly not be required."
When in previous posts you most certainly did:
post 319 by pigdog: "The infamous "unelected bureaucrats raising taxes" ploy you've continually tried (unsuccessfully) to use isn't correct and never has been. They merely determine the split of tax revenue required to fund the S/S entitlement as required by S/S law - which it should be noted isn't part of the FairTax law at all. They have no power to raise (or lower) the FairTax rate ... that's what we pay the "big bux" to Congress for."
post 328 by pigdog: "Any change in the overall FairTax rate would have to be done by Congress, not some "unelected bureaucrat".
post 351 by pigdog: " And to change the FairTax rate it would, indeed, take congressional action."
post 368 bt pigdog: "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."
You have proved you can throw insults, but you have yet shown you can tell the truth. Fess up pigdog.
Grow up, child.
-------------------------------------
What's there to understand? You clearly lied. It's all documented here. You can continue to deny, but you only look foolish.
PIGDOG post 473: "I've said nothing about any Congressional action in raising the rate since that will clearly not be required."
When in previous posts you most certainly did:
post 319 by pigdog: "The infamous "unelected bureaucrats raising taxes" ploy you've continually tried (unsuccessfully) to use isn't correct and never has been. They merely determine the split of tax revenue required to fund the S/S entitlement as required by S/S law - which it should be noted isn't part of the FairTax law at all. They have no power to raise (or lower) the FairTax rate ... that's what we pay the "big bux" to Congress for."
post 328 by pigdog: "Any change in the overall FairTax rate would have to be done by Congress, not some "unelected bureaucrat".
post 351 by pigdog: " And to change the FairTax rate it would, indeed, take congressional action."
post 368 bt pigdog: "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."
You lies just keep growing with every post.
I'll not indulge in your childish games, Rumplestilskin.
-------------------------------------
What's there to understand? Everybody understands. You clearly lied. It's all documented here.
PIGDOG post 473: "I've said nothing about any Congressional action in raising the rate since that will clearly not be required."
When in previous posts you most certainly did:
post 319 by pigdog: "The infamous "unelected bureaucrats raising taxes" ploy you've continually tried (unsuccessfully) to use isn't correct and never has been. They merely determine the split of tax revenue required to fund the S/S entitlement as required by S/S law - which it should be noted isn't part of the FairTax law at all. They have no power to raise (or lower) the FairTax rate ... that's what we pay the "big bux" to Congress for."
post 328 by pigdog: "Any change in the overall FairTax rate would have to be done by Congress, not some "unelected bureaucrat".
post 351 by pigdog: " And to change the FairTax rate it would, indeed, take congressional action."
post 368 bt pigdog: "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."
Your lying butt is not getting the last word.
"....they think it looks unworkable and will or might lead to economic crisis,...."
And are they as oblivious to the economic challenges that we face under the status quo as you seem to be? (BTW that is a dead tipoff that someone has a hidden agenda - they only want to consider one side of the risk equation) You might want to at least feign interest in some of our more serious economic challenges (such as the trade deficit, federal budget deficit, the looming insolvency of Medicare and SS) that we face in order to not come across as someone who indeed does have a hidden agenda.
" or they have paid income tax all their lives and don't wish to now start paying taxes as they spend the money."
That is a legitimate concern for those who haven't studied the proposal and don't understand how the rebate protects lower and mid level consumers, or how the removal of the current system partially offsets the imposition of the sales tax, or how the expanded growth of the economy, as well as the removal of the tax burden from businesses increases the value of any equity holdings they may have.
I have met very few people who still opposed the FairTax on those two grounds once they have had a chance to understand the proposal better. I have, however, met quite a few people in the "real world" who make their living from some of the billions that we waste on compliance costs or who have some other angle going that makes them indifferent to the huge economic advantages, which even economists who don't support the FairTax acknowledge.
I have also met some who say that they believe they will be paying more taxes under the FT, but they still support it because it will be far better for the country in the long run. My view is that the only people who would pay more under the FairTax are those who enjoy extremely affluent lifestyles with high levels of consumption. Those people have the option of decreasing their lifestyle if their primary goal is tax minimization. Most of them won't do that, since they have worked hard to accumulate wealth and they feel that have the right to enjoy it. They aren't that price sensitive and they will have the means to benefit more than anyone from a greatly expanded economy.
The FairTax's critics on FR may be different; they may indeed have no vested interest in the perpetuation of the current system. However, their cowardly tactics and their continual hiding behind anonymnity makes me very skeptical.
I just love the argument that the professional economists who have studied the FairTax and produced estimates of its economic impact are either incompetent, dishonest, or both. In addition, I hear that economists can't be trusted to predict the economy, anyway. Only the anonymous bloggers on FR who have no professional reputations at stake, no verifiable economic qualifications can forecast the economic impact of the FairTax.
Right.
"So, 'dysfunctional' is a mighty hard word to use...."
You have a right to your opinion, just as I have a right to mine. (however, please check out my tagline) From my perspective, when you had an independent magazine, such as Money doing an annual test of the tax system in which they typically had almost as many answers relative to the taxes due as they have returns submitted, and these are from professional preparers, "dysfunctional" doesn't seem too harsh at all. "Disgrace" is the term used to describe the IRC in the 1976 Presidential campaign and I don't consider that excessively harsh, either. The system is far worse today than it was in 1976 from the standpoint of its complexity and the enormous burden it places on our economy. When you can call the IRS for technical assistance and have a high probability of getting a wrong answer, and when you rely on that wrong answer in preparing your return, you can be held responsible (including punitive fines, penalties and interest) while the IRS assumes no responsibility whatsoever for providing an incorrect answer, "dysfunctional" seems pretty mild to me.
"....an unproven FairTax plan that is full of obvious holes to describe a system that has allowed our economy to perform as well as it does."
Your bias is pretty blatant in this passage. The "obvious holes" are certainly no more serious than the inefficiencies and inequities of the current system. However, since the economy has managed to survive and, in some ways to thrive, under the current system, those problems are irrelevant in your view of the tax world. You continue to forecast some kind of economic calamity under the FairTax in spite of the mountain of evidence to the contrary.
One other thing exposes your bias. I have read your profile and I respect the compassion that you exhibit toward those who suffer from addiction to alcohol. On the other hand, you have been surprisingly (and inconsistently) indifferent to those whose lives have been turned upside down by an out of control government agency called the IRS. You have casually dismissed the opinions of those posting to the President's Tax Commission, referring to them as "IRS haters". Well, I am an IRS hater also, and a proud one at that. They are the most un-American federal agency in existence today and the closest thing that we have in this country to state sponsored terrorism. The fact that the terrorism is done financially, rather than with bombs, is not IMHO a hugely significant distinguishing feature.
I have known several people who have been put through the ringer for years. Some of these people were ultimately exonerated of any wrongdoing and all back taxes, penalties and interest were erased. However, I am not aware of a single case in which the IRS agreed to reimburse them for substantial amounts of money spent defending themselves, or to issue a public apology as a good faith attempt to help them restore their reputations in their communities. Just try suing the IRS because they shut down your business without substantial proof of any wrongdoing. The fact that you haven't been subjected to that doesn't mean it does not happen, and the fact that you are indifferent to it suggests that either you don't have a soul or you do have a hidden agenda. Given the compassion and empathy that you have displayed in other circumstances, I believe I know which is the case.
Or there could be a third option:
I have looked at the plan and I think it is fatally flawed.
That is the true option.
If I believed any of the FairTax propoganda rather than analyzing it myself, I am one of the people who would pay less in tax under the FairTax. I just don't believe the rate is accurate, and I don't believe that people will cough up $2.5 trillion without a negative effect on consumption, which will cripple our economy as well as tax revenue.
I think I and most productive people would end up with both. And vast segments of our economy wrecked, hurting my business and others. And that is my entire agenda.
Budget deficit- As long as the percent of debt-to-GDP is shrinking as it is now, and we are investing in important things like defense, then we are moving in the right direction.
Regarding the Medicare/SS deficits, you are grossly mistaken, I am outspoken on this subject and I have written at least a dozen letters to politicians on this subject, and I think it is the #1 fiscal issue we face, and I have stated so repeatedly. So come off your high horse.
Regarding the trade deficit, there is more to that than meets the eye, and this is primarily an issue made up to look scary by protectionists and others who are against Free Trade. I think this is a relarively minor issue compared with the entitlements.
There will have to be an equally ugly tax collection arm under the FairTax, ya'll just won't acknowledge it.
"Budget deficit- As long as the percent of debt-to-GDP is shrinking as it is now, and we are investing in important things like defense, then we are moving in the right direction."
Ok, so it is ok that the economy is booming (your description, not mine) and we still have a deficit. So tell me, if we can't pay down some of the debt we have run up when the economy is booming, when can we pay it down?
"Regarding the Medicare/SS deficits, you are grossly mistaken, I am outspoken on this subject and I have written at least a dozen letters to politicians on this subject, and I think it is the #1 fiscal issue we face, and I have stated so repeatedly. So come off your high horse."
So just what is the solution that you have proposed in those dozen of letters? Private accounts?
"Regarding the trade deficit, there is more to that than meets the eye, and this is primarily an issue made up to look scary by protectionists and others who are against Free Trade. I think this is a relarively minor issue compared with the entitlements."
We are on a path which will take us to a $1 trillion trade deficit by the end of this decade. No country on earth has ever run these size trade deficits and economists almost universally warn that this is not a sustainable trend. Our manufacturing base is being destroyed and we are becoming primarily a service economy. That is one of the reasons that, even though unemployment is low, the middle class is under great pressure. So this is a "relatively minor issue"?
BTW, I am most certainly NOT a protectionist, but I believe that "free trade" should be on a level playing field. Ignoring the disadvantage that our tax system places our producers in in the global marketplace and pretending that an exploding trade deficit is insignificant is very shortsighted IMHO. I am reminded to those who ignored the hugely expanding P/E ratios during the technology bubble. The more experienced market watchers warned that these were unprecedented and that "trees don't grow to the sky". The younger tech investors countered that this was the "new economy" and these companies were growing so fast that they would "grow into" those P/Es. With the benefit of hindsight, we can now see where that thinking led.
Do you follow the same kind of thinking in your personal finances? IOW do you just watch your debts mount up month after month and year after year and convince yourself that there won't ever be a day of reckoning?
"There will have to be an equally ugly tax collection arm under the FairTax, ya'll just won't acknowledge it."
Another unsupported assertion. You have a right to your opinion, but check out my tagline.
I couldn't care less whether you agree with me or not; if fact I doubt you will since you've locked yourself into a certain position from which you quite possibly will not retreat. Despite that I think it may help to actually understand what I've said whether you agree or not.
The two portions dealing with the subject of FICA payments and the funding of the two entitlements (S/S & M/C) by means of the FairTax are Section 101 (a) through 101 (b) (4) and entitled "IMPOSITION OF SALES TAX" and the second part is Sec. 904 (a) through (f) entitled "TRUST FUND REVENUE".
The wording in Sec. 101 is the controlling text in determining the FairTax rate while the text in Sec. 904 deals solely with the administering the entitlements and the funding thereof as already determined by statutes already passed and in effect from congregational action. The actions controlled by Sec. 904 are no different in principle that existing actions government is authorized to take (without voting) by the existing entitlement laws.
The reason for this wording (Sec. 904) being part of the FairTax legislation is so that there can be no claim that the FairTax is failing to fund the existing entitlements (basically S/S & M/C) at (at least) the existing levels - which are called out in Sec. 904. Here, the SSA bureaucrats have nothing at all to do with altering the tax rate in the bill; they are just administering the statutes passed by Congress in the past and allocating the money as determined by existing law. This is really no different than when unemployment taxes or the wage base (the amount of wages taxed) for payroll taxes change or the level of child credits, the personal and dependent exemptions, or even the actual tax brackets used each year under the income tax. All affect the amount of tax you pay, all are handled by "unelected bureaucrats" and none need be voted on yet there seems to be no discomfit on the part of any of you about that.
What I have repeatedly said to you throughout this thread is that these SSA guys do not get to change the tax rate. There is no provision for them to do so in the bill. That's the function of Sec. 101 in which they play no part. All they do is determine the apportionment of funds raised by the FairTax into the different "buckets" so that the entitlements are funded as required by law. I have NEVER said that the allocations determined under Sec. 904 might not cause the total tax rate to be larger than the original 23%. What I HAVE said is that such a circumstance is not going to happen - and I'll show this to you later using actual government numbers. As I've tried to get across to you the allocation proportions will actually decline rather than increase even as wages increase over time and the wage base grows due to the increased economic activity brought about by the FairTax.
The truth of this can easily be seen by reviewing the latest dynamic analysis paper (by Laffer et al) on the FairTax website. In this paper it is shown that over about the next 10 years that consumption (the FairTax base) will grow considerably starting from a baseline over a 10 year period by using the 2004 GDP set to 1.0 and assumes the economy will grow at its usual 3.0% per year which closely approximates the actual economy according to the BEA. This 3.0% rate is, if anything, conservative as the paper points out, meaning that the results in the paper and as I present below are probably on the low side and will actually be bettered by the FairTax performance.
Taking the consumption growth (basically a DPI growth assessment) over a 10 year period, the study shows that consumption will grow a good bit faster than the baseline number so that in the first year the increase will be not 3% but 5.4% and so on until in year 10 the increase is a full 11.7% over the 3% year-to-year baseline.
I've taken this assessment and incorporated it into a spreadsheet listing (NOT a table) starting from the projected 2007 FairTax base of $11,244 B$ derived by the Kotlikoff paper and expanding the figure by 3% per year then making the further expansion of consumption beyond this baseline each year determined by the Laffer et al paper. The actual FICA numbers (the OASDI and HI referred to in the bill's language) are taken from the NIPA Tables for the most recent year available (762.9 B$) and projected upward using the same expansion techniques as for the balance of the listing except that the FICA numbers are expanded at a faster rate than the GDP rate since the improvements caused by the FairTax should result in increased employment/wages and therefore a 3.5% per year expansion is used so that workers are earning proportionately more each year. The FICA numbers used include the requisite amounts from SE wages also.
The key things to notice (intermediate years are not shown but are taken from the Laffer et al consumption calculations) is that the resulting entitlement rates DECREASE each year despite the increased wage base used and that the resulting percentage of the two of the total FairTax rate of 23% (which has 8.09% for the two entitlements and 14.91% - the GRR - as the balance of the rate) eventually goes from the 8.09% presently (the OASDI & HI together) down to a bit under 6.80% from the present 8.09%. This has the corollary effect of reducing the term (defined in Sec. 101 of the bill) "Combined Federal Tax Rate Percentage" from the initial 23% down to 21.71% in year 10. It also means as shown in the spreadsheet listing that the two entitlement percentages determined by the SSA employees (your "unelected bureaucrats") as required in Sec. 904 drop from the 6.31% and 1.78% now for OASDI and HI respectively in the 10th year to 5.30% and 1.5% which (if the GRR remained unchanged and no action were taken by Congress) would reduce the total tax rate from 23% to 21.71% or other corresponding values in a given year. This in spite of workers earning more and the wage base increasing and the effect shows up each year.
Keep in mind too, that the Laffer et al paper is a dynamic analysis that purposely UNDERSTATES the beneficial effects of the FairTax as it shows within the paper. For example, the assessment of whether the 23% rate is revenue neutral (it is) in Table 3 does not even take into account the additional tax revenue that will result from taxing the illegal economy by the FairTax rate on purchases (rather than the relatively minor amount raised by the income tax from retail purchases by those funds). It also does not account similarly for the tax revenue derived from the foreign visitors/tourists to this country which number about 50 million people per year. If each of these 50 million spend $2,500 each (and 1/2 their airfare must be counted in this figure) then the FairTax revenue generated from this 125 B$ in consumption would be $28.75 B$ - a sizable amount indeed (and none would get the prebate). None of these increases are considered by the Laffer et al paper nor, indeed, by most economic studies.
Here is the spreadsheet listing (with the intervening years not shown to simplify the presentation):
Initial: FairTax base = $11,244.00; FICA = 762.90; yr+1 yr+2 ... yr+10 FICA $$$ $817.24 $845.84 ... $1,113.81 FairTax base $11,513.86 $12,073.53 ... $16,387.36 Adj over GDP 2.40% 4.25% ... 11.70% Sec. 904 rate 7.098% 7.006% ... 6.797% "new" FairTax 22.01% 21.92% ... 21.71% GRR/total FT 67.75% 68.03% ... 68.69% OASDI/total FT 5.54% 5.46% ... 5.30% HI/total FT 1.56% 1.54% ... 1.50%
The term "new" FairTax in the listing is what the resulting rate would be if there were no action by Congress. This seems hardly likely since the voters/taxpayers (which now would include ALL of us) will be quite aware (due to the 6 months lead time in the rate determination by the SSA) of the fact that the result could cause the total rate to decrease each year (even though the government would have an even larger amount of tax money) and should Congress decide to "correct" the GRR upward (or even to leave it where it is) to give themselves more money to spend from the increased funds available (a distinct possibility considering their normal proclivities), any such attempted "grab" of the additional tax money would be rightly seen by voters as a failure of Congress to reduce the overall tax rate and there would certainly be pressure upon Congress to reduce the FairTax rate by reducing the GRR from its 14.91% (from the 23% rate - or 64.84% of the overall tax revenue). It's hard to believe that voters would be that foolish when the information will be widely spread about and publicly available in sufficient time to make any such FairTax rate reduction. I think that most voters would insist on such a reduction.
At any rate, any change in the FairTax rate (which would really basically be a change in the one fixed rate - the GRR) would require Congressional action which is what I've been pointing out in this thread. Failure to change the FairTax rate downward would be, in effect, handing Congress mucho bux on a platter while maintaining the tax rate (the GRR) on the taxpayers. Some "official" reduction of the rate from 23% to, say, 22.01% would be required for publication in the Federal Register to advise everyone involved that the rate had changed to the lower number so that their cash registers, computer programs, and any forms involved could be altered to accommodate the lower rate. Keep in mind that if the GRR were left at 14.91% the indicated FairTax rate would be 22.01% but the government would have more tax revenue - and we certainly don't want that as they spend far too much already. Even so, an "official" rate announcement would surely be needed so the alterations mentioned could be made. More likely, though, would be huge political pressure to reduce the FairTax rate by GRR reduction which would require Congressional action. Since these sorts of changes affect all taxpayers I certainly believe that Congress would choose to be involved (so they can take political credit for "helping" the taxpayer).
Keep in mind Looey's #302 which said "... the law gives taxing power to SS bureaucrats ...". That is simply not true - they have no ability to change the FairTax rate at all (specified in Sec. 101) as I've shown here. Or his #233 which said "... after the first year the unelected bureaucrats at Social Security could implement their new congressional taxing power and raise the rate to 25 or even 30% without a vote from congress ..." which, again, is simply not the case as I've shown here. I believed you've stated this effect also (though I could be wrong), but your colleague certainly has - on many posts - and it is clearly wrong. If you choose to continue your assault against me as a "liar" I see no reason to continually point out that I have not "lied" despite your claims, but you'll have to do as you think best. You chose to ignore my #334 and #500 but in #334 I misstated that the GRR would rise when the analysis shows correctly that the GRR rate would not rise (being fixed in the bill) but that more tax funds would be available due to the decrease in the FICA proportionate funding. The statement should have been that in effect the GRR would be raised since more tax money would be available even under the reduced FICA proportions as the same GRR represents an increased percentage of the total tax revenue.
At any rate the FairTax rate is determined by Sec. 101 which requires the GRR of 14.91 plus the proportionate determination required by existing entitlement laws and changing the entitlement funding. If those funding requirements change the tax revenue rate required (and as shown in the spreadsheet listing, it will be decreased) then for the law to function as a practical matter all involved in collecting and remitting the tax will need to be advised of the correct FairTax rate to be used. The analysis shows that when the rates decrease for the entitlements, the FairTax rate - to retain the same tax revenue - would need to have the GRR altered downward to prevent an "excess" of tax funds (ain't that a kick?). Such an action would, indeed, require Congressional action. Not doing so would mean that Congress is knowingly sticking it to taxpayers with the full knowledge that taxpayers will be VERY aware of this action ... and that the congressmen will very likely suffer retaliation at the polls. Congressmen may not be too smart, but most certainly are not that dumb.
You're welcome to have our own opinion but neither you nor anyone else has ever offered any valid detailed analysis that shows anything different from the action shown by my analysis here. In this analysis, congregational action IS required to change the FairTax rate (by means of the GRR) due to the action of the reduced entitlement funding. Even if the GRR remains the same action will need to be taken to advise tax collectors of the new rate - and for the GRR to remain the same Congress would be "in your face" with every taxpayer since they would be receiving more tax funds (at the new lower rate) than were originally called for by the 23% rate. Perhaps you wouldn't be all over your congressmen in that event for a rate reduction, but I certainly would and I think most taxpayers would also.
Keep in mind Looey's #302 which said "... the law gives taxing power to SS bureaucrats ...". That is simply not trueIt's absoluteley true and the rest of your essay is also a lie....
You went a long way to avoid quoting any text from the bill.
....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...."Shall be determined by the Social Security Administration" can't mean anything other than "shall be determined by the Social Security Administrationthan" and "shall be that sales tax rate" can't mean anyting other than "shall be that sales tax rate" no matter how many ways or pages it takes for you to lie about it.
BTW, in your twisted interpretation, what exactly would the bureaucrtats at SS be required (by law) to announce if not a sales tax rate?...
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.
The Fairtax and your entire essay are a pathetic sick joke!
Oh but there is a difference. Under the current law the SS tax rate is fixed. Under the fairtax it changes.
This is really no different than when unemployment taxes or the wage base (the amount of wages taxed) for payroll taxes change or the level of child credits, the personal and dependent exemptions, or even the actual tax brackets used each year under the income tax.
Unemployment taxes is a state thing, but it is a bad situation just like the fair tax. You have bureaucrats effecting your tax rate by calculations. The other things are all fixed by law and don't change based on some government statistics. The current SS/medicare is 7.65%, it is fixed. Without an act of Congress it stays 7.65%. The fairtax rate will go up or down based on government numbers, mainly wages. If reported wages go up relative to gross sales, the fairtax rate goes up.
I have NEVER said that the allocations determined under Sec. 904 might not cause the total tax rate to be larger than the original 23%. What I HAVE said is that such a circumstance is not going to happen.
OK, now your out of spin mode and in full LIAR mode once again. You have said more than (you think) its not going to happen, you have said it takes an act of congress for it to happen. Let's review:
post 319 by pigdog: "The infamous "unelected bureaucrats raising taxes" ploy you've continually tried (unsuccessfully) to use isn't correct and never has been. They merely determine the split of tax revenue required to fund the S/S entitlement as required by S/S law - which it should be noted isn't part of the FairTax law at all. They have no power to raise (or lower) the FairTax rate ... that's what we pay the "big bux" to Congress for."
post 328 by pigdog: "Any change in the overall FairTax rate would have to be done by Congress, not some "unelected bureaucrat".
post 351 by pigdog: " And to change the FairTax rate it would, indeed, take congressional action."
post 368 bt pigdog: "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."
Why Pigdog can you still fail to admit a mistake???? You always must spin your way out of a mistake. Instead of saying you were wrong in those 4 posts, you must LIE. You are a LIAR and continue to LIE. Why???? Why not just say you were WRONG???? It blows my mind.
The two portions dealing with the subject of FICA payments and the funding of the two entitlements (S/S & M/C) by means of the FairTax are Section 101 (a) through 101 (b) (4) and entitled "IMPOSITION OF SALES TAX" and the second part is Sec. 904 (a) through (f) entitled "TRUST FUND REVENUE".Here's a question. If the the old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate and the hospital insurance rate don't change every year, why do they even exist in the bill? You could achieve what you are claiming by just having the 23% rate and then use the percentages in Sec. 904 (c) to divide it up. Furthermore, why are Sec 904 (d) and (e) even in the bill? What you claim is achieved in Sec. 904 (c).
The wording in Sec. 101 is the controlling text in determining the FairTax rate while the text in Sec. 904 deals solely with the administering the entitlements and the funding thereof as already determined by statutes already passed and in effect from congregational action. The actions controlled by Sec. 904 are no different in principle that existing actions government is authorized to take (without voting) by the existing entitlement laws.
The reason for this wording (Sec. 904) being part of the FairTax legislation is so that there can be no claim that the FairTax is failing to fund the existing entitlements (basically S/S & M/C) at (at least) the existing levels - which are called out in Sec. 904. Here, the SSA bureaucrats have nothing at all to do with altering the tax rate in the bill; they are just administering the statutes passed by Congress in the past and allocating the money as determined by existing law. This is really no different than when unemployment taxes or the wage base (the amount of wages taxed) for payroll taxes change or the level of child credits, the personal and dependent exemptions, or even the actual tax brackets used each year under the income tax. All affect the amount of tax you pay, all are handled by "unelected bureaucrats" and none need be voted on yet there seems to be no discomfit on the part of any of you about that.
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.