Posted on 12/01/2004 8:25:22 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
...President Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (search) have both said the idea of a national sales tax deserves a serious look. For many, the idea of a world without the Internal Revenue Service is very seductive.
"We spend about $400 billion a year complying with the tax code. We spend $200 billion a year just filling out IRS paperwork," said Rep. John Linder (search) , R-Ga., who has proposed a bill that would create a national sales tax.
Proponents have spent millions on research and have concluded that a national sales tax can replace the income tax, payroll tax, estate tax and corporate tax. Advocates say the new tax would lower the cost of manufacturing and job creation and attract foreign investments, among other things.
"If we were to get rid of the sales or the income tax and the payroll tax and all compliance costs, we would be so ferociously competitive in a world economy that corporate America would not be competed with unless foreign corporations started building their plants in America," Linder said.
Proponents seek a 23-cent national sales tax on all retail goods, everything from groceries to clothes, cars to electronics. Everyone would pay the same rate, which critics argue is part of the problem.
"If you consume $40,000 a year and you make $50,000 a year, would you feel it is fair if a guy who made a half a million dollars a year but spent $40,000 a year paid the same tax you do? I think you wouldn't feel it's fair," said Buck Chapoton, former assistant treasury secretary.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
"BTW, I've often wondered and asked, if my posts are such a boost to the cause, why am I not on the ping list?"
Probably because you haven't asked to be on it .... that is a question for AG.
national sales tax. sounds like an advertisement for "Bad Idea" blue jeans.
It just might be alot safer just to keep the taxing method we have now. It benefits investing, and medical expenses, food, housing, and local taxes are exempted.
It's nice to have this on line!
You owe me!!!, I had to manually transcribe that from the *.pdf it was sent to me in ;O/. I hate it when they put scanned documents into pdf's.
The black market exists now, has always existed, and will continue to exist. But even black marketeers have to eat, wear clothes, drive cars, and entertain themselves. The amount of revenue lost to to the black market is negligible compared to the revenue lost under the current system.
The income tax does not benefit investing - to the contrary. Indeed that is one of the major reasons tax reform is a topic these days.
As far as the income tax exemptions you cite, their purpose is to allow the individual to pay for those items with pretax/untaxed dollars. Under the nrst, all medical expenses, all housing, all food and all local taxes and all everything are paid with pretax/untaxed dollars.
The nrst doesn't eliminate the deduction for these items, it allows everything to be paid with pretax dollars.
Basics of HR 25 and FAQ.
Indeed! You're a much better typist than I! or do you have one of your secretaries do it??? LOL
And have you tried re-scanning the printed PDF's into jpg's? That works for my field documents.
Screen captures work too, but I prefer text for use on FR whenever possible, graphics is painful on phoneline bandwidth.
The particular document was rather poor scan to begin with so my character recognition software to do conversion for me barfs all over the place. Easier to transcribe for no more than is there.
You're a much better typist than I! or do you have one of your secretaries do it??? LOL
The wife doesn't know how to type, and she would kick out any secretaries I might hire ;O(.
I've been using the biblical method of typing for over 30yrs now, guess she figures I'll manage without one.
The imposition of the NRST would produce a sharply higher tax rate on consumer goods and services, but the tenth chart shows that the initial consumption tax rate would be twenty-three percent at both federal and state and local levels or only 18.4 percent at the federal level. This would gradually rise over time,but remain below thirty percent or 23.8 percent at the federal level.So this wasn't the FairTax. It's not admissible, remember.
You may be interested in the Jorgenson '97 Fair Tax Act test summary results I received.The FairTax rate is 18.4%?
national sales tax. sounds like an advertisement for "Bad Idea" blue jeans."Normally I wear protection, but then I thought, 'When am I gonna make it back to Haiti?'" ... Bad Idea!
"C'mon guys, let's shoot some hoops. You wanna put a hundred on it? Let's make it two!"
So this wasn't the FairTax. It's not admissible, remember.
Nice try but no cigar.
For, it certainly was the FairTax provisions, run to calculate revenue neutral tax rates for incorporation into the legislation.
Cover page says:
Final Report to Americans For Fair Taxation 4200 Westheimer Road,Suite 230 Houston,TX 77027-4426
Page 2 intro paragraph
"The purpose of this report is to analyze the economic impact of substituting the National Retail Sales Tax (NRST)for individual and corporate income taxes,the Medicare,Social Security, and FUTA payroll taxes,and the estate and gift taxes.1 I consider a revenue neutral substitution-one that leaves the government deficit unchanged. Finally,I focus on the impact of this fundamental tax reform on economic growth over the next quarter century."
Page 2, footnote:
"1. The NRST is described in detail by Laura Dale (1996)"
Laura Dale was the head economist in charge of the Fair Tax Project of AFT at the time.
The imposition of the NRST would produce a sharply higher tax rate on consumer goods and services, but the tenth chart shows that the initial consumption tax rate would be twenty-three percent at both federal and state and local levels or only 18.4 percent at the federal level. This would gradually rise over time,but remain below thirty percent or 23.8 percent at the federal level.
Guess what, we are now in 2004, not 1996( the initial year of the study). The NRST rates are calculated out to 2020(25yrs later) based on '96-'97 Clinton administration tax law.
It's also interesting that he shows the federal rate increasing by 30% over time. That puts the FairTax at 38.8% exclusive! Is this the dirty little secret the AFT has been hiding?
LOL, can't read very well can you. 30% with state/local sales tax included.
The imposition of the NRST would produce a sharply higher tax rate on consumer goods and services, but the tenth chart shows that the initial consumption tax rate would be twenty-three percent at both federal and state and local levels or only 18.4 percent at the federal level. This would gradually rise over time,but remain below thirty percent or 23.8 percent at the federal level.
23.8% max federal, 30% max total @ 2020.
Legislation is currently set at Clinton tax law rates.
But then Bush has changed the whole revenue neutral picture my friend. Too bad for your arguments.
from Tax Freedom Day 2004 PDF http://www.taxfoundation.org/sr129.pdf
|
Total Effective Tax Rates by Level of Government |
|||
| Year | Federal | State | Total |
| 1998 | 22.4% | 10.4% | 32.8% |
| 1999 | 22.5% | 10.4% | 32.9% |
| 2000 | 23.1% | 10.4% | 33.5% |
| 2001 | 22.2% | 10.5% | 32.7% |
| 2002 1 | 19.7% | 10.2% | 29.2% |
| 2003 2 | 18.5% | 10.1% | 28.6% |
| 2004 3 | 17.9% | 10.0% | 27.9% |
| Notes: Leap day is omitted to make dates comparable over time. Positive and negative percentages in parentheses after legislation indicate the first-year fiscal impact of the bill,measured as a percentage of NNP. Since depreciation is not available to pay taxes, GDP is an overstatement of spendable income for the purpose of measuring tax burdens. Depreciation is netted out of NNP. 1 Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001 Sources: Office of Management and Budget; Internal Revenue Service; Congressional Research Service; National Bureau of Economic Research; Treasury Department; and Tax Foundation calculations. |
|||
Nice try but no cigar.Yes, cigar. The proposed FairTax is not 18.4%. This model has no bearing on the current proposal. Besides, Dr. Jorgenson has since realized that the rate would have to be much higher than even the one proposed.
Efficient Taxation Of Income by Dale W. Jorgensen and Kun-Young Yun, November 15, 2002
Since taxes distort resource allocation, a critical requirement 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 [Americans for Fair Taxation] sales tax proposals fail to achieve revenue neutrality and tax rates must be increased substantially above the levels proposed by the authors of the plans.11
11 For example, see Aaron and Gale (1996) and Gale (1999)
LOL, can't read very well can you. 30% with state/local sales tax included.ROTFLMAO! 23.8% is 30% higher than 18.4%. The proposed FairTax rate is 23% ... add (30% * 23%) = 30%!
23.8% max federal, 30% max total @ 2020.
But then Bush has changed the whole revenue neutral picture my friend. Too bad for your arguments.I'm curious, it looks like federal revenues as a percentage of GNP have gone down 20% in the last 7 years. With the embedded taxes being reduced, shouldn't we have seen a drop in prices?
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.