Posted on 10/21/2004 1:45:31 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis
FairTax-related bump!
It's interesting that at the bottom of the page it states that he wrote this for AFFT. So this appears to me that AFFT is floating the idea of a partial NRST.
Plan Bs are always a good thing, A_G.
In political tactics; when you think about, if Bush changed S.S. so it was funded by a sales tax, he would be able push through to have illegal immigrants get S.S. more easily because they would be paying their share when they bought something and the issue would not cause anywhere near the poltical firestorm that it currently causes now.
NO. This is simply a scam to continue to tax the heck out of the largest and highest tax paying group in the country...the Boomers. WE've paid enough. LEt's take it out of the pensions of the politicians who have stolen all those trillions we've paid in.
ALL law abiding taxpayers should LOVE an NRST. Under an NRST, paying your fair share is unavoidable - unless you live like a hermit. Illegal income, cash businesses, illegal immigrants, etc., would all pay their freight.
Not a chance! No NST until the 16th amendment is repealed. No way, no how!
And HERE is the problem with it. NO part of the federal bureaucracy is eliminated. Instead of this continuing government boondoggle, invest the money in REAL IRA's, and get the government out of it.
Not a chance! No NST until the 16th amendment is repealed. No way, no how!
Damn good point!!! The Dems will go into a spending frenzy during transition and then when we try to stop the SS tax they will be screaming, "Who's going to pay for the tax cut?!!!"
Teach folks how to save for their own retirement properly and be done with social security completely.
less than $100 a month through your working lifetime invested will make you a millionaire.
If I'm reading him right then the money that I'm currently paying in Social Security would go into a savings acount to be managed and invested outside of the government. OK, I don't have a problem with that. But in addition I have to pay a new sales tax to fund existing Social Security recipients, probably along the lines as the same percentage as my current Social Security. So that means my Social Security costs double. I'm supposed to sign on for a massive tax increase. How reasonable is that?
It's interesting that at the bottom of the page it states that he wrote this for AFFT. So this appears to me that AFFT is floating the idea of a partial NRST.
Then it would be good to ask them. I'll be back on that.
Plan Bs are always a good thing, A_G.
Not when they fail to serve the primary purpose. To eliminate the income tax.
So the idea is to have a National Sales Tax in addition to the National Income Tax.
Just as many of us predicted. Once a sales tax is introduced, we'll have both and the fairtax clowns will cheer it them on.
Yep, fools and their money are soon parted.
Statement of Laurence J. Kotlikoff,
Professor of Economics, Boston University, and
Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic ResearchTestimony Before the House Committee on Ways and Means
Hearing on Fundamental Tax Reform
April 11, 2000
Chairman Archer and other distinguished members of the Committee on Ways and Means:
I'm honored by this opportunity to discuss with you the nation's need for tax reform and the role that consumption taxation, particularly a federal retail sales tax, could play in enhancing the economy's economic performance and improving its distribution of resources.
Our nation's economy has been performing remarkably well in recent years, but our economic success is no reason to be complacent about a tax system that is extraordinarily complex and highly distortionary and that plays a critical role in an overall fiscal system that is likely to visit enormous burdens on our children and grandchildren.
The complexity of the tax code doesn't just drive taxpayers crazy. It also costs them a significant amount of time - time that could be spent working or time that could be spent enjoying life. Having just spent three days doing my taxes, I have a refreshed sense of the substantial costs to the man in the street and the nation as a whole of complying with the federal income tax code.
The distortions of our tax system also diminish the nation's well being, but in ways that are less transparent. Today, almost all American households are in combined federal, state, and local marginal income tax brackets of roughly 50 percent. Because governments are collectively confiscating half of every dollar most workers earn, most workers work many fewer hours than they would were their tax payments independent of their labor earnings. And since the government is confiscating half of every dollar of income most savers earn on their non tax-favored retirement accounts, many Americans choose to spend today rather than save for tomorrow.
Tax Reform's Importance for Fiscal Sustainability and Generational Equity
Eliminating complexity and distortions would be cause enough for reforming the federal income tax, but there is a much more pressing reason: notwithstanding recent wishful projections about future government surpluses, our fiscal house is not in order. Indeed, getting it in order would require not cutting federal income taxes, as some in this chamber advocate, but immediately and permanently raising them by over 25 percent. That assessment comes not from academia, but from the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. A joint CBO-Cleveland Fed generational accounting study, to be published next month in the American Economic Review, shows that such a tax hike is needed to achieve generational balance - a situation in which our children and grandchildren will face tax rates that are no higher than those we face.
The 25 percent or greater requisite tax hike is derived under the assumption that growth in federal purchases of goods and services keeps pace with growth in the overall economy. This responsible assumption can be contrasted with the irresponsible one underlying the projection of very large surpluses over the next few decades. The irresponsible projection, whose surpluses are routinely cited by advocates of tax cuts and spending hikes, assumes that, as a share of GDP, federal spending will decline by 20 percent by the end of this decade and by 30 percent by roughly 2040.....
Go to THOMAS to read the rest.
Having just spent three days doing my taxes, I have a refreshed sense of the substantial costs to the man in the street and the nation as a whole of complying with the federal income tax code
Funny thing is, even with this latest payroll tax to sales tax scam he'd still have to fill out those income tax forms.
No thanks. If AFFT is behind this, they need to seriously re-think it. The whole point of the NRST is to eliminate the income tax -- having a national sales tax plus the income tax simultaneously will simply ensure that we're saddled with both permanently.
Wrong again, lewis (why am I not surprised). Looks like the majority of FairTax supporters are against this idea.
But when has a fact ever stopped you?
Laurence J. Kotlikoff is chairman of the Department of Economics at Boston University. He wrote this on behalf of the non-profit organization Americans for Fair Taxation to distribute to newspapers.
You're just running from this article like scalded dogs because it exposes what many of us already know as your real agenda.
ancient_geezer and myself have already come out completely against this idea
Don't cry to me about it.
You two are some of the biggest AFFT enablers here. If you've been stabbed in the back by frauds you thought were friends (it's not like you haven't been warned) you're crying to the wrong person.
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.