Posted on 01/31/2005 7:12:16 AM PST by bmweezer
The Fair Tax proposal is written in english.. We should be able to agree on the actual tax rate proposed on a $100 purchase.
Is it 23% ? Or -- 29.86% ?
Hopefully, we can disregard the 40/50% imaginings of the fringe.
What say you?
804 jones
The NRST people look at the National Retail Sales Tax and treat it like a National Retail Income Tax. That is: The retailer had an "income" of $100 and paid a tax to the government of $23. The retailer paid a $23% income tax. Get it? 23% looks smaller than 30%, so they use that percentage.
I get it. - At least you've discarded your BS about "50%".
Now, here's my opinion on this whole NRST debate. If the supporters have to result to this kind of subterfuge, what else aren't they telling me?
The Act is all written out.. Do you have problems reading?
Lastly, we're told that retail prices will drop 20-30%, our paychecks will be about 25-30% larger (no withholding), AND we'll get a monthly check from the government of around $500. Uh huh.
You're back to playing the exaggeration game again. -- To bad you can't argue the issue on its merits.
True, but remember that workers will have substantially more take home pay immediately. The tendency for Americans is always to spend, not save.
Nor are they exempt....
gross payments' means payments for taxable property or services,
What else would they be for?
including Federal taxes imposed by this title"
It has to say that because it includes the fairtax in the "gross payment"
I challenge you to show me where the NRST bill authorizes a tax on state or local sales taxes,
I've already done that unless you can show me how to get to "gross payments for taxable property or services" and exclude state/local taxes...If the "gross payment" doesn't include everything it isn't a "gross payment" ...is it.
I chalenge you to show me an example of the total (gross) cost of a product in a state with a sales tax, that excludes state sales taxes...
That's compelte circular logic. You're saying that it says whay you say, because you say it says that, despite the fact the bill itself says that it is not to be interpreted to do what you say it does. Then you ask me to show a concrete example of something that doesn't exist yet, and so has no concrete examples. You're even loonier than usual today.
The fair tax website has a very open explanation of the tax rate in its faq'.
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#47
have you bothered to figure out how much you pay in taxes now?Yes.
Have you bothered to add up your income tax, the embedded taxes you pay, the salary hit you have b/c your employer pays half of your SS tax and a bunch of payroll taxes for each person that they have working for them?Am I taking a salary hit because of my employer's half of the SS tax or is embedding them in the price of goods I pay?
Do you know what you pay, what this country pays, in compliance cost each year?I know what I pay ($29.95 for TurboTax plus an hour and a half in time). We can only estimate what the country pays.
Do you understand the 20,000 page tax code that we now have?No. Why would I want to?
What is the cost to this country and to you to have Washington full of lobbyists and special interests groups?I don't know, but do you really think they would all just pack up and go home if the FairTax were passed?
Have you bothered to read HR25/S25?I've read H.R. 25 from the 108th several times. The related Senate bill for the 108th was S. 1493. I haven't been able to read H.R. 25 or S. 25 for the 109th because they haven't posted it yet.
See post # 915 for the specific language from the bill. It would require that the 23% rate be printed on receipts even though the customer paid a 29.87% markup on his purchase.
Its a proposed bill. This wacky 'requirement' would not stand.
Welcome to the Wacky World of the FairTax. Question everything they say.
That's exactly what I'm doing here. -- I'm also questioning the Wacky World of those, like you, who over-zealously oppose the FairTax.
True. And if this thing were to actually happen, we would find out.
Now I know what all of the unemployed IRS workers and tax accountants are gonna do...they will all be opening up booths in flea markets... and running continuous garage sales.
The NRST due on that item would be $23, which is 29.87% of $77 (as well as 23% of $77 + $23). The state sales tax on that item would be $3.85 (5% of $77, or 4.76% of $77 + $3.85). The final item price would be $103.85, of which combined federal and state taxes would be $26.85.
As for why tax-exclusive forms definately make the implementation easier, note that $26.85 is 34.87% of $77, and that the 29.87% NRST and 5% state sales tax add up to 34.87%. On the other hand, adding the inclusive rates (23% + 4.76% = 27.76%) doesn't work, because the actual tax-inclusive rate is 25.85% ($26.95/$103.85 = .2585).
That's exactly what I'm doing here. -- I'm also questioning the Wacky World of those, like you, who over-zealously oppose the FairTax.More than anything I zealously oppose the FairTax supporters misleading people like they misled you.
"The FairTax rewards the frugal contributor to society and punishes the spendthrift. Stated differently, it seeks to tax NOT what you contribute to our society, but what you take from it."
BEST COMMENT I HAVE EVER READ REGARDING TAXATION. You truly are a Goddess!
Based on the latest estimates, I'm going with 60% (40% inclusive).
Why do these threads degenerate into a 30% vs 23% argument? Can't we discuss the relative merits or downside of this proposal?
"Oh, and the sofa is made in China while the people that work at the starbucks, which closed due to the lack of business of people saving to buy a sofa, are now displaced american workers."
Yep, what you forget is that under today's structure the sofa made in china is $500, while the sofa made in the US carries a cost of $650. The disparity is caused by imbedded taxation. Of course, the NRST will tax both products equally so any true difference in price will be a reflection in the actual manufacturing efficiency. What better to drive the free market than the customer having the ability to chose the most efficient provider of products and services?
To be truly non-distorting to the economy, a tax system should not reward or punish anyone for their preferred economic activities. That would mean taxing savings and consumption equally. That would be an true personal income tax (the current system is not a true income tax)."The FairTax rewards the frugal contributor to society and punishes the spendthrift. Stated differently, it seeks to tax NOT what you contribute to our society, but what you take from it."BEST COMMENT I HAVE EVER READ REGARDING TAXATION. You truly are a Goddess!
More than anything I zealously oppose the FairTax supporters misleading people like they misled you.
How noble of you.
I'm not "misled", and never have been. The Fair Tax idea is sound, even though the written proposal is flawed in some specifics.
Catch 22. Zealotry blinds those who myopically focus on nitpicking details.
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.