Posted on 08/20/2004 11:11:23 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
Hello!
With the recent national media attention on tax reform alternatives we believe we are quite close to the tipping point on fundamental tax replacement. Our website has taken thousands of hits. Our 800 number is ringing off the wall. There is no question the time for positive action is now. We are working with both Presidential candidates staff and expect to get a senior surrogate speaker from both Bush and Kerry. The American people demand a fair and simple federal income and Social Security tax system. Come to Florida and make your views known.
We intend to keep this fire alive.
So we are having a conference, in Florida, in September, when the press will be crawling all over the state due to the hotly contested presidential and senatorial elections. And we'd like you there with us.
2004 Tax Policy & Jobs National Leadership Conference
September 17 through 19, 2004
Orlando, Florida
An invitation to attend
Why? Grassroots leadership is the key to actually moving reform forward. This conference brings together the top national, regional, and state leaders in tax policy, job growth, and economic development. We will examine the current alternatives to educate the grassroots and Congress in tax systems that make our country's goods more competitive at home and abroad, and provide sufficient funding for the reform and assurance of our Social Security system, while ensuring economic opportunities and stability for, and the welfare of, low-, lower middle-, and fixed-income Americans.
Our current tax system exports American jobs rather than American products.
The current income tax system drives up the cost of American manufactured goods and agricultural commodities, to say nothing of its complex, intrusive, inefficient, special-interest-driven nature. Not only does the current system decrease our competitiveness overseas, it increases domestic prices for those who can least afford to pay. Funding Social Security reform is almost as daunting as reform itself. The Social Security system is supported by a narrow, regressive payroll tax, levied heavily on low- and lower middle-income Americans. While Social Security system reform is clearly necessary, this is not the purpose of this conference. Determining a responsible, long-term funding solution for Social Security reform is a purpose for this conference.
Result? Bring job creation and Social Security reform-friendly tax policy to the forefront of our national economic debate.
Who? The Tax Policy & Jobs Conference is sponsored by National Tax Research Committee.
When? September 17 through 19, 2004
Where? Gaylord Palms Resort & Visitors Center, Interstate 4 @ Osceola Parkway East (Exit 65), Kissimmee (Orlando), Florida, right across the freeway from Disney World
Data for attendees
Very best regards,
Tom
Thomas A. Wright
Executive Director
FairTax.org
tom@fairtax.org
www.fairtax.org
1-800-FAIRTAX
Contributions to Americans For Fair Taxation are not tax deductible because we lobby for you in Washington, D.C.
"There is alot more going on with the present system then the mere collection of revenues."
Indeed there is. You may consider this social engineering essential to the smooth functioning of our republic and our economy. I don't. However, even if you do, I am sure you will agree with Dr. Donald Ratajczak, noted economist, who says that it is much more efficient to provide these incentives through direct subsidies, rather than via the tax code.
".... those compliance requirements provide the basic metrics by which we gage our economy."
I have no idea what you are talking about.
"Money saved/invested that isn't deferred would be taxed twice."
As it is now. Somehow I missed your complaints about that aspect of the current system. As you know, when you consume using after-tax money to purchase, you are paying the imbedded costs of the current system. The biggest difference is that, with the FairTax, the taxes would be explicity broken out. I also don't recall you complaining about the injustice of estate and gift taxes in that regard.
"Most all products are foreign born. There aren't any US taxes built into foreign products."
And just why do you think our manufacturing base has eroded so much over the last few decades as our tax system has gotten more and more burdensome?
"Take a tax class or call IRS if you don't beleive me...
And good luck getting an accurate answer from the IRS!!
Your income would still be required to be reported with a nst.
My 20+ yrs. in business doesn't count?
And you for how long?
You assume the NRST rate would be 29.87%. It would be much higher.
The only one making an assumption of any kind is yourself.
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
`SEC. 101. IMPOSITION OF SALES TAX.
|
You also assume my state sales tax doesn't have to go up to cover the cost of the NRST on their purchases (governments don't pay taxes, people do). It will go up.
Once again, you merely assume then assert your opinion based on something other than the bill, and certainly not on any qualitative study based on the parameters of the the legislation.
I really don't care what a AFFT-paid economist thinks.
Obviously! However that may be, it does not change the essentials no matter who pays for advice from professional consultants.
Besides, Dr. Jorgenson has stated that the FairTax rate is way too low and "must be increased substantially above the levels proposed by the authors of the plan."
Hmmm
From an arbitrary NRST specification set by someone else, not even close to the HR25 proposal.
"Since taxes distort resource allocaton, a critical reequirement for a fair comparison among alternative tax reform proposals is that all proposals must raise the same amount of revenue. It is well known that the ST and AFT sales tax proposals fail to achieve revenue neutrality and tax rates must must be increased substantially above the levels proposed by the authors of the plans. 15"
15 For example see Aaron and Gale (1996), and Gale(1999)
Gale (1996) Neither AFFT nor the Fairtax existed until 1997.
Gale (1999) based on assumptions and paramenters of an NRST not even close to the proposed legislation of HR25.
And is definitely not in agreement with even Jorgenson's own estimates Americans For Fair Taxation’s analysis of the revenue-neutral rate has been generally confirmed by many of the leading public finance economists in the country. For example,
Dale Jorgenson, Professor of Economics at Harvard University and past President of the American Economics Association estimated the rate to be 22.9 percent. The Economic Impact of the National Retail Sales Tax, Final Report to Americans For Fair Taxation, May 18, 1997.
Likewise, Jim Poterba of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found a rate of 23.1 percent. Letter to Americans For Fair Taxation, April 15, 1997.
Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University also found a rate of 24 percent. Furthermore, researchers at Stanford University, The Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute, and Fiscal Associates have reached similar conclusions (found rates from 22.3 to 24 percent).
All of the above rate as “serious” economists, using the parameters of the legislation rather than arbitrary specification of hypothetical sales tax proposals.
BINGO!
So effectively, the only thing you would accomplish is the imposition of a new layer of federal sales taxes.
What isn't being said is that only wages are being reported by employers to Social Security for calculation of SS benefits under the NRST proposed by HR25.
Get rid of Social Security, wage reporting for benefits goes away.
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
`SEC. 903. WAGES TO BE REPORTED TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
|
What is to keep Congress from imposing a new income tax a week after you pass an FTA?
The same thing that keeps Congress from imposing a sales tax on top of income taxes today. HR25, repeals all income and payroll taxes, disbands the IRS and mandates the destruction of income tax records. No infra structure left, and the impediments of enacting a bill.
It seems to me what you really would need to do is to repeal the 16th Amendment. Anything less is just going to result in more taxes.
Interestingly, proposals to repeal the 16th have been around since the day it was ratified almost 100years now. Guaranteed as long as we have an income tax on the statutes, the 16th is not going away. Proposal to the states for amending the Constitution requires 2/3rds of both houses of Congress. Ain't going to happen without a vial system to replace the income tax inplace and the income tax statutes repealed.
That is one of the clear accomplishments of H.R.25, providing an environent where its sister bill, Sam Johnson's amendment to the constitution, has a chance at enactment & ratification:
H.J.RES.61
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Federal income tax.
Sponsor: Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] (introduced 6/24/2003)
The only one making an assumption of any kind is yourself.You're assuming the rate won't be changed in the bill or that the bill will get passed the talking stage at the proposed rate. Either would be a very bad assumption.
Once again, you merely assume then assert your opinion based on something other than the bill, and certainly not on any qualitative study based on the parameters of the the legislation.Qualitative study based on the parameters of the legislation? Letsee...the parameters of the legislation require my state to pay an extra 29.87% on it's expenditures. It is a fact that my state doesn't pay a tax, I do through state sales taxes (we have no income tax). So it is logical that I would pay for the increase in state expenditures due to a NRST through an increase in my state sales taxes. How's that for qualitative?
From an arbitrary NRST specification set by someone else, not even close to the HR25 proposal.Golly, for someone you are willing to bet the entire economic future of this country on, this Jorgenson guy must be really gullible to fall for that Gale guy's BS. If he's not smart enough to recognize what you believe are Gale's errors, maybe he's not smart enough to recognize his own. Can we trust anything he believes?
Dale Jorgenson, Professor of Economics at Harvard University and past President of the American Economics Association estimated the rate to be 22.9 percent. The Economic Impact of the National Retail Sales Tax, Final Report to Americans For Fair Taxation, May 18, 1997.
The Jorgenson quote I posted was from 2002, not 1997. I assume he got smarter, not dumber about the NRST during those five years. Also, this is from an unpublished report to the AFFT. Why won't they publish it?
Likewise, Jim Poterba of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found a rate of 23.1 percent. Letter to Americans For Fair Taxation, April 15, 1997.
Hmmm...another unpublished source being held by the AFFT. Why don't they want us to see it? How do we know it's a "qualitative study"? And 23.1% seems low considering in 1997 he said the rate would be 17.2% without replacing payroll taxes and without a demogrant. source
[What a coincidence! I was just checking my mail and Jim Poterba happened to send me a letter stating that the required rate for a NRST was well over 40%.]
Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University also found a rate of 24 percent. Furthermore, researchers at Stanford University, The Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute, and Fiscal Associates have reached similar conclusions (found rates from 22.3 to 24 percent).
Did any of these economist factor in the Transitional Inventory Credit? How about the increase in Social Security payments required in the bill (and you said it wasn't a spending bill)? No? Hmm...If they did then maybe they would realize that the FairTax rate "must be increased substantially above the levels proposed by the authors of the plan."
Get rid of Social Security, wage reporting for benefits goes away.Is that all? Just get rid of Social Security? Why didn't we think of that before?
Did you ever have employees you had to pay, or were you always on the other side receiving that paycheck ? Have you run a business with millions of dollars of sales, responsible for the liability of those sales ?
From your postings it sounds like you are a self-employed individual that used to work for a business and felt they were the ememy always cheating you.
And you for how long?
33 years. But quanity it not what counts, it's the experience received in that time.
You're assuming the rate won't be changed in the bill or that the bill will get passed the talking stage at the proposed rate. Either would be a very bad assumption.
Not at all, I assume the rate will be decreased to 20-21% reflecting making the Bush administration tax cuts permanent.
Qualitative study based on the parameters of the legislation? Letsee...the parameters of the legislation require my state to pay an extra 29.87% on it's expenditures.It is a fact that my state doesn't pay a tax,
Not at all, every state as well as every individual pay the corporate income & payroll taxes embedded into the price of all goods and services today.
I do through state sales taxes (we have no income tax).
Ahh great then you will perceive you entire tax bill with no problems. That is afterall a primary advantage of an NRST to assuring visibility of taxation by the individual who pays all taxes in the end analysis.
So it is logical that I would pay for the increase in state expenditures due to a NRST through an increase in my state sales taxes.
Only problem is there is no increase in state expenditures, because every state will see a decrease in the prices paid (20-25%) for not only their consumption, but expenditure for non-consumption products as well. Producer prices decline approximately 22% as well as consumer prices. So even with an NRST on government consumption, the cost to government as well as individuals reaches an equilibrium at the current level of expenditure or less according to Jorgenson's general equilibrium models applied to RSTs.
How's that for qualitative?
About standard with your usual cursory glances.
Thanks for the clarification. What constitutes the disconnect from $12 to 8.8 Trillion? What is the basis for the FCA reduction of $1.8?
Based on your updated numbers, the NRST would be 31.43%. Obviously some disconnect is still occuring.....
Does a church or charity pay federal income taxes? I always understood that the tax on the church or charity was deferred at the state and local levels, as their only exposure was property tax or other local taxes. Now, their employees may be affected as they have an income, but shouldn't every employee be treated equally, regardless of their employer?
Does responsible for the production of products each costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce count?
"quanity it not what counts, it's the experience received in that time."
You sound like the AMT bit you and you're hoping the same people who happen to love the AMT for all it is (They won't repeal it) are somehow going to do you a favor...HA!
The words "revenue neutral" mean nothing to you?
We can talk about corporate AMT then we can talk about the Enron's who paid NO tax for 5 yrs.
Many corporations are nothing more than individuals who incorporated. I know of one with the owner, his wife, one employee and a service van.
33 yrs. in business, millions of dollars in sales and you still haven't been able to show me how prices can be reduced 20, 30, 40%?...I've shown you my example, now lets see yours.
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.