Posted on 10/19/2006 5:11:50 PM PDT by pigdog
As specified in Congressional bill H.R. 25/S. 25, the FairTax is a proposal to replace the federal personal income tax, corporate income tax, payroll (FICA) tax, capital gains, alternative minimum, self-employment, and estate and gifts taxes with a single-rate federal retail sales tax. The FairTax also provides a prebate to each household based on its demographic composition. The prebate is set to ensure that households pay no taxes net on spending up to the poverty level.
Bill Gale (2005) and the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform (2005) suggest that the effective (tax inclusive) tax rate needed to implement H.R. 25 is far higher than the proposed 23% rate. This study, which builds on Gale’s (2005) analysis, shows that a 23% rate is eminently feasible and suggests why Gale and the Tax Panel reached the opposite conclusion.
This paper begins by projecting the FairTax’s 2007 tax base net of its rebate. Next it calculates the tax rate needed to maintain the real levels of federal and state spending under the FairTax. It then determines if an effective rate of 23% would be sufficient to fund 2007 estimated spending or if not, the amount by which non-Social Security federal expenditures would need to be reduced. Finally, it shows that the FairTax imposes no additional real fiscal burdens on state and local government, notwithstanding the requirement that such governments pay the FairTax when they purchase goods and services.
(Excerpt) Read more at people.bu.edu ...
Or Kool-Aid.
No Rob they wouldn't. Where do you get the idea that a tax on consumer goods would include real property? Real porperty has never and never will fall under consumer goods related taxes. If you are so sure, please show me in the provisions of the Fair Tax where real property would be included.
You are wrong, new houses and rent are both taxed under the FairTax bill-- I'll let the FT proponents straighten your thinking out on that issue.
I can only assume that you are new to these discussions and the FairTax.
The 29.87% FairTax does indeed apply to new home sales as well as new car sales. The tax does not apply to used items except when the purchase was initially made for business purposes and then is converted to personal use. The 29.87% FairTax rate is then applied to the value of the property at the time of sale. (did some research and answered my own questions)
Rent is absolutely taxed at the 29.87% FairTax rate - each and every month.
No, I never talked about a home being taxed, and then taxed again. Rent is taxed each month, and a new home is taxed at the time of sale except in the case where a new home is purchased as a rental (tax free) and later converted to personal property (first time tax). After the initial tax is paid, the resale of the home is not taxed.
I don't blame you for wanting to believe these statements are due to my ignorance rather than yours. It all is a little hard to swallow.
Excellent point- the FairTax is a wonderful plan for those Americans who don't "need to buy things". I've even heard it called a "voluntary tax" because buying things is not a mandatory behavior. (Of course under this definition, the income tax is also voluntary)
There is no way to analyze how the FairTax would impact anyone's financial situation, because it is all pie-in-the-sky guesstimates based on faulty assumptions to begin with.
And the transitional effects on the value of all capital, and the suppression of consumption in this country would wreck our economy.
Bigun: No Lewis. That is only ONE of several possible scenarios and certianly NOT the one I personally subscribe to.
One of you did. Then why did you post it?...With an exclamation?
And the income tax is an excellent plan for those who don't need to make any money. What deception.
Yeah, I made the point in my post that the whole talk about "voluntary taxes" is a stupid one for both tax plans, since neither is voluntary.
Bigun is having trouble remembering who he is today so you should cut him some slack. I think he's posting for two. He seems to be channeling another FairTaxer, and doesn't sound at all like himself.
Sorry but I disagree. And the voluntary part isn't the most important. Creating wealth is more important and the income tax deters that. BTW, is anyone on this thread other than you and me? I'd rather rip into you with an audience. LOL.
Creating wealth is more important and the income tax deters that.
If creating wealth is SO IMPORTANT to you going forward, why does the FairTax plan severely punish anyone who has created wealth in the past by destroying a large portion of the value of their wealth? Surely anyone who had overcome the evil Income Tax and managed to accumulate wealth in spite of it should be looked at as some sort of superbeing, not someone to tear down their net worth.
I really can't fathom this aspect of your argument when you seem to agree previously that accumulated after-tax wealth takes a severe hit.
Well thanks to a link you gave me I was able to dispel much of that myth. How convenient that you are bringing up this argument now. Did you ever consider the wealth enhancement brought about by the removal of taxes on retirement accounts? Do you have any idea (of course you do) the increased compounding effect of the removal of taxes? Don't you want your children to be able to take advantage of that? Why do you insist that it be done only in government approved vehicles? I sure don't.
Here's a question for you. What if we just reformed investment? No more of this ten different retirement accounts, one for annuities, one for teachers, one for small business owners, one for employees, one for gov't employees. What if we just made all retirement accumulation tax free? Would you go along with that? No more tax on any investment income of any kind? No limit on how much we can put into those accounts tax free and no taxes ever? Even when we cash out?
You can't ask me any more questions until you answer mine. You asked for two days, and I granted your request.
And I asked about the people that already have created wealth, why do you want to punish them? Not whether it will be relatively easier or harder to create new wealth. That is a different discussion, and worth having, but it is not more important than what happens to the wealth that people have already created.
Your question is pre-textual and misleading. "Why do I want to 'punish' people who a have already saved?"
That makes the assumption that: A: they will be punished and B: that I want to punish them. Both points have to be proven before we can even address your ridiculous question.
I'll just ask you at exactly what point did you stop stealing from the collection plate? Same thing.
robfromga to groanup: "I've said on this very thread that prices would go up about 18-25%, and explained why. And I've said that dollars saved after-tax would therefore see a deflation in value of the same amount. Do you dispute that this would happen under the FairTax at least initially?"
My earnings go up by 20%, my cost of living goes up by 20%. Okay. I have spelled that out so many times ad nauseum and you know it. What is the deal? Surprise me with a nugget of wisdom.
I would expect no less from the likes of you.
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.