FairTax Summit in Florida

August 20th, 2004 | AFFT

[lewislynn]

If the total of that savings in under the poverty level

Generaly people with after tax savings aren't below the poverty level.

You sales tax shills speak out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you say it will help the economy, move business back to this country, create jobs , blah, blah, blah, on the other you're encouraging people to buy used to avoid your exorbitant tax...

[EternalVigilance]

Sheesh, lewie...now you're anti-thrift?

You don't even realize you're highlighting one of the best aspects of the FairTax...the ability of people to decide when and if they want to pay taxes.

[ancient_geezer]

Besides, Dr. Jorgenson has since realized that the FairTax rate is way too low and "must be increased substantially above the levels proposed by the authors of the plan." So your "price of consumption" BS no longer applies.

As has been discussed as well here, and continuing here with you, as the "revenue neutral" measure applied by him in no way relates to requirements of enacting a bill, much less the conditions and rate of the current legislation HR25 itself, which should be adjusted for even lower rate comensurate with the Bush tax cuts, in a political environment providing the room for tax reduction in replacement tax bills.

As Dr. Jorgenson pointedly indicates, his use of revenue neutrality is for rhetorical of avoiding discussion of the effect of government deficits on the economy not for fundamental economic purposes:

"The third issue in the debate will be the economic impact of the federal deficit. Nearly two decades of economic dispute over this issue has failed to produce resolution. No doubt this dispute could continue well into the next century and preoccupy the next generation of fiscal economists, as it has the previous generation. An effective rhetorical device for insulating the discussion of fundamental tax reform from the budget debate is to limit consideration to deficit neutral proposals. "

Jorgenson 1999, PDF page 19 (regards taxreform debate issues)

 

In fact the lower rate of the NRST allows the fall ot the price of consumption to be greater than that presented in his papers as he assumes a higher tax rate burdening the economy more than the NRST does with lower rate and repeal of a greater portion of the tax law, (all income and payroll taxes as well).

We will see if the supporters of this bill are brave enough to invite the good doctor back for the next round of hearings so he can clear up these myths that have arisen from his statements.

I see no reason why not, as he would asked to discuss the provision of the bill as they stand, not the effects of an NRST that induces a heavier tax burden than HR25 does, thus dispelling all the myths introduced by you and all your friends.

My guess is they won't, but my hope is they will.

Indeed I hope they will. For he will provide a clear and unbiased statement on the bill as it is actually written and not some artificial construct that has been warped beyound recognition for purposes of demogoguery.

[ancient_geezer]

Sheesh, lewie...now you're anti-thrift?

You don't even realize you're highlighting one of the best aspects of the FairTax...the ability of people to decide when and if they want to pay taxes.

Hmmm,

 

FairTax and Wages

Virtually all economic models project a much healthier economy if a federal sales tax replaces the current tax system. These models typically project that the economy will be 10 to 14 percent larger in 10 years.[2] A dynamic, growing economy will provide more and better paying jobs. Employers will need more and better-trained workers.

FIGURE 1: This figure shows the positive correlation between real wage rates and capital investment per hours worked, from 1947 to 1992. During this time period, the amount of capital per hour worked increased steadily and
these increases led to increases in real wage rates over the same time period.

*** snip ***

[2] See, "The Economic Impact of Fundamental Tax Reform," Dale W. Jorgenson, Testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, June 6, 1995; "Looking Back to Move Forward: What Tax Policy Cost Americans and the Economy," Gary Robbins and Aldona Robbins, September, 1994, Policy Report Number 127, Institute for Policy Innovation; "The Economic Impact of Taxing Consumption," Laurence J. Kotlikoff, April 15, 1993, Cato Institute Policy Analysis. Also see "The National Sales Tax: Moving Beyond the Idea," Tax Notes, March 21, 1996, David R. Burton and Dan R. Mastromarco.

[Badray]

If everyone paid more under that NRST, but we still got rid of the IRS, returns, audits, harassment, class warfare, corrupt government that is for sale to the highest paying lobbyist, and the mess that we have now, I'd say it would be well worth it.

[smokeyb]

Well, no. I don't think people pay income tax on tax exempt investments.

Well, let's see....they draw down tax-free funds, then use those funds to purchase goods with so many taxes built into them....

[lewislynn]

You don't even realize you're highlighting one of the best aspects of the FairTax...the ability of people to decide when and if they want to pay taxes.

That's pure bullshit. Nothing resembling that kind of scenario would ever make it past Congress...Dream on.

[EternalVigilance]

Me: "You don't even realize you're highlighting one of the best aspects of the FairTax...the ability of people to decide when and if they want to pay taxes."

lewislynn: "That's pure bullshit. Nothing resembling that kind of scenario would ever make it past Congress...Dream on."

Proving once again that you either haven't read the FairTax proposal, or that you lack basic reading comprehension skills.

[smokeyb]

Generaly people with after tax savings aren't below the poverty level.

How about that retired couple that has saved for their retirement and now live off of social security and the small amount they could put away tax-free? Their are lots of them out there ? You would rather they continue to pay taxes on their retirement funds and social security then buy products with all those taxes built into them.

[lewislynn]

You would rather they continue to pay taxes on their retirement funds and social security then buy products with all those taxes built into them.

You're another one who needs to take a tax class.

The people in the class you're describing probably aren't even required to file...You described a perfect example of someone in my family. Hundreds of thousands in the bank, own their home outright and receive SS checks every month...They haven't been required to file a tax return for 15 yrs.

Some people are easily fooled. Most all products are foreign born. There aren't any US taxes built into foreign products.

[lewislynn]

Proving once again that you either haven't read the FairTax proposal,

A propsal in Congress for umpteen yrs. and one that's made it past Congress aren't the same.

Were you saying something about comprehension?

[CSM]

"Forget about a "fair tax" and start thinking about what we can do to reduce the size of government at all levels. It doesn't matter what scheme you come up with to fund it; the basic problem is that we can not afford to carry that much overhead."

The FairTax would be a wonderful tool to get every American on the same page to drive a reduction in the Fed Government. As of this point in time about half of the country only benefits from the current taxation scheme, while the other half funds it. Without equalizing the burden, and making the burden evident to everyone, no effort will be made to reduce spending. Instead, the half that only sees benefits will continue to be bought by spending increases!

[Your Nightmare]

Some people are easily fooled. Most all products are foreign born. There aren't any US taxes built into foreign products.

What's also forgotten is that this mythical 22% drop in producer prices is on products, not services (eg. health care). So there wouldn't be a 22% drop in the price of our consumption even if producer price drops were seen in consumer prices.

Also, a lot of the medicine the elderly are taking are the type of products that won't go down in price because there is no competition. Look at the price the US customers are paying compared to other countries for the same drug!

[CSM]

"That's why the repeal of the payroll tax can't lower prices. They'll have to give it directly to the employee, then report that to SS...(Were you saying something about compliance costs?)"

Can you explain this to me? I seem to be getting the same SS deductions confiscated from me, yet the statements I receive have told me my benefit has been maxed out. Is the pay out supposed to be based on the amount we earn in our lifetime, instead of maxing out after about 15 years of stealing from us?

[tutstar]

bttt for later

[Your Nightmare]

You would rather they continue to pay taxes on their retirement funds and social security then buy products with all those taxes built into them.

Right. The ace in the hole. The mythical embedded taxes that jacks up consumer prices a gazillion percent even though total corporate income taxes are less than 2% of GDP and ~3.5% of the NRST base.

What flavor Kool-Aid they serving these days?

[lewislynn]

Can you explain this to me?

No, you'll have to talk to SS.

SS payouts would have nothing to do with the repeal of the SS tax...The tax isn't repealed, the language of the law is changed so the tax is shifted directly to consumers with the present income caps removed.

[CSM]

If it is shifted to consumption, why is there the need to declare an employee's income? Or am I misunderstanding your post? Isn't your position that compliance cost would still be high because income, for SS purposes, would still be required to be reported to the Feds by the employer? Given the fact that a person's income while working doesn't determine the benefit they receive, why would the income of any employer need to be reported?

[lewislynn]

If it is shifted to consumption, why is there the need to declare an employee's income? Or am I misunderstanding your post?

No, you aren't misunderstanding my post. You just aren't as informed about the nst as you think you are.

Isn't your position that compliance cost would still be high because income, for SS purposes, would still be required to be reported to the Feds by the employer?

Yes, not only reported by the employer but paid to the employee.

Given the fact that a person's income while working doesn't determine the benefit they receive, why would the income of any employer need to be reported?

So the bureaucrats at SS can detrmine the tax rate as required by the bill to fund their scam...

Get informed, be careful what you wish for.

[lewislynn]

From the fairtax bill:

`SEC. 903. WAGES TO BE REPORTED TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.

`(a) IN GENERAL- Employers shall submit such information to the Social Security Administration as is required by the Social Security Administration to calculate Social Security benefits under title II of the Social Security Act, including wages paid, in a form prescribed by the Secretary. A copy of the employer submission to the Social Security Administration relating to each employee shall be provided to each employee by the employer.

`(b) WAGES- For purposes of this section, the term `wages' means all cash remuneration for employment (including tips to an employee by third parties provided that the employer or employee maintains records documenting such tips) including self-employment income; except that such term shall not include--

`(1) any insurance benefits received (including death benefits);

`(2) pension or annuity benefits received;

`(3) tips received by an employee over $5,000 per year; and

`(4) benefits received under a government entitlement program (including Social Security benefits and unemployment compensation benefits).

`(c) SELF-EMPLOYMENT INCOME- For purposes of subsection (b), the term `self-employment income' means gross payments received for taxable property or services minus the sum of--

`(1) gross payments made for taxable property or services (without regard to whether tax was paid pursuant to section 101 on such taxable property or services), and

`(2) wages paid by the self-employed person to employees of the self-employed person.