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 ...
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 itAre you an economist? Aren't you making an economic prediction? Isn't making economic predictions exactly what you've been chastizing RobfomGa for?
Because people who are retired and living off savings will all of a sudden have 20% less purchasing power. They will be paying tax on their already taxed savings. This is why the fairtax will never get the old folk vote and will never pass.
ARe you one of those who will lose some purchasing power in your retirement savings or one who will reap a financial windfall. If you have a lot of retirement savings it is likely you fall into one of those two categories. For that reason, it shouldn't be too great a leap for a one time adjustment between those two extremes. I'm sure it can be addressed in congress.
"And the transitional effects on the value of all capital, and the suppression of consumption in this country would wreck our economy."
I am not an economist, but I believe you are overlooking the advantages of eliminating payroll, income and estate taxes. That would free up tons of capital for investment and purchase. Do you have any articles or cites to support your argument?
I'm sure it can be addressed in congress.The debate is about what we know, not wishful thinking.
Surely the most researched tax bill to ever be presented in Congress has already addressed the points you bring up but choose to ignore them for a reason.
So what does taxing consumption have to do with achieving a generationally equitable fiscal policy? Again, essentially everything. The reason is that the current elderly as well as the baby boomers, who will shortly retire, have one primary economic activity left to accomplish - consumption. And under a consumption tax, they will pay a lot more in future taxes than they would under the current tax system. Although the elderly as a group would share in the burden of a consumption tax, the poor elderly - those living exclusively on Social Security benefits - would not because their benefits are indexed to the consumer price level and are thus guaranteed in real terms.That would apply to every generation including when you retire.
And yet the US has more billionaires per capita than any other country - go figure.
I guess the fact that the FiarTaxers rail against double taxation while creating a scheme that double taxes savings for a class of Americans is irrelevant. Just a minor transitional cost that others will bare. No big deal.
In April of 2000, before Bush was President, before the Bush tax cuts, Kotlikoff, the Fairtax economist said the (income) tax rates need to be 25% higher...He also said the sales tax rate (not the phony "inclusive" Fairtax rate) would have to be 43%...But don't worry, he also said the sales tax rate could be reduced by taxing homeowners on the rental value of their own homes...A classic example of an "expanded base".
Two full days and counting.
My dear lady there would be no double taxing of anything under the Fairtax unlike the communist inspired income tax which it would replace. You know this. Stop being so disingenuous.
Whoever is posting under the name "Bigun" sounds a lot like that other banned guy pigdog. pigdog used the word "disingenuous" twice in his posts over the last week including in #447 on this very thread, while Bigun hasn't used that word in the past year (that's as far back as I checked). Are you really Bigun?
I ran your posts through an authorship super-computer and it came back:
Bigun's posts analyzed for content and vocabulary:
Authorship summary
88% likely banned poster pigdog
7% likely Bigun
5% likely Pee-Wee Herman
pigdog, your slip is showing. You are going to get your friend Bigun in trouble.
did you see #1071, I think he is trying to get Bigun in trouble.
Keep it up Rob. I hope you never stop with your childish B.S. as it creates a lot of converts to the FairTax.
Bigun is that you?
No, that is just Bigun. He has used that 'communist inspired' bit in the past.
You are right, that is one of his favorite phrases, so maybe it really is Bigun. If so, I'm sorry for doubting you Bigun.
Seriously Rob, you and I make a GREAT team. Last Saturday morning, while you were pinned down here playing on the internet and making converts to the Fairtax, I was making a Fairtax presentation to several hundred American Legion members at their regional convention. GREAT bunch of people!
Do either of you doubt that?
If so, I would suggest that you read up on it a little. That is if I thought you could actually read I would suggest that but as it is I guess you'll just have to take my word for it! ;>)
Except for the fact that I wasn't posting here last Saturday morning on FairTax threads, and that I don't make converts to the FairTax, I say "Good for you"!
I am glad that you are fighting for what you believe in, although I'd imagine that your sales pitch, like all FairTax pitches, is full of double-counting misrepresentation. But I'm sure it all sounds good when you get to the part about the free money, AND THE FREEDOM!
Too bad the plan doesn't work like they say it will work.
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.