....Never mind the fact the joint committee on taxation claims it would have to be 57% to be "revenue neutral"
Of course such an estimate would have nothing to do with the fact the JCT that owes it very existence and purpose to that sameInternal Revenue Code that would be repealed under HR25,
==> Title 26 Internal Revenue Code Subtitle G - The Joint Committe on Taxation.
and JCT may have slightly adjusted their assumptions and estimates totally outside anything representing the the FairTax legislation as proposed, in favor of maintaining the status quo, hidden taxes and all.
Prepared for Americans For Fair TaxationPrepared for Americans For Fair Taxation This report responds to Ken Kies letter to Chairman Archer of January 12, 1998. In his letter Mr. Kies propounds several objections to the Americans for Fair Taxation (AFFT) FairTax plan (FairTax) as raised by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) staff. This memorandum addresses those objections with respect to three basic issue areas. They are:
I. The Revenue Neutral Rate The JCT, through Mr. Kies letter, posits that the FairTax would be revenue neutral only at a 30 percent tax-inclusive rate and a 42 percent tax-exclusive rate, and possibly higher (if other factors are considered (see pages 1-2)).
However, the JCT estimate goes against the weight of authority and is difficult to explain on analytical bases. Not only AFFT but many highly regarded researchers disagree with the JCTs opinion. For example, Dale Jorgenson (Harvard) has found that the AFFT plan is revenue neutral at 22.9 percent.1 Jim Poterba (MIT) has found that the AFFT plan is revenue neutral at 23.1 percent.2 Laurence Kotlikoff (Boston University) found that the revenue neutral tax rate was 24 percent.3 Researchers at Stanford, the Heritage Foundation, Fiscal Associates and the Cato Institute have reached similar conclusions (22.3 percent to 24 percent). This memorandum demonstrates why the JCT analysis is incorrect and why the Jorgenson, Poterba and AFFT analyses that the AFFT plan is revenue neutral at an approximately 23 percent tax-inclusive rate. A. From a Macroeconomic Perspective, the JCT Calculation of the Rate Is Substantially in Error.
One way of viewing the revenue neutral rate needed under the FairTax replacement plan is to consider the effective rate to be equivalent to the following: Federal Taxes That Must Be Raised / GDP The proportion of the taxes raised under the FairTax should bear the same ratio to GDP as the taxes to be replaced by the FairTax bear to GDP. To arrive at our numerator, the taxes to be raised are the AFFT-repealed taxes; namely, the payroll taxes, income taxes, self-employment taxes, corporate income taxes, capital gains taxes and transfer taxes (death and gift). These replaced taxes, for fiscal year 1998, account for 17.8 percent of GDP. 4 That is because Federal receipts, as a percentage of GDP, are approximately 19.1 percent, and the FairTax plan would repeal 93 percent of current federal taxes and fees. 5 As for the denominator, since investment accounts for 14.6 percent of GDP, the FairTax base can be estimated to be about 85.4 percent of GDP.6 17.8 percent divided by 0.854 is 20.8 percent, the required revenue neutral AFFT tax rate (before the rebate is considered).7 From this aerial view, the conclusion reached by the JCT is clearly off target. In order for the JCTs 30 percent tax-inclusive rate to be correct, the AFFT tax base would need to fall to 59 percent of GDP. In other words, the correct base would be about 31 percent less than the base we estimate. Likewise, in order for the JCTs 42 percent tax-exclusive rate to be right, the AFFT tax base would need to fall to 42 percent of GDP.8 B. Detailed Analyses:
*** Snip ***
*** Snip ***
|
And continues for another 36 pages of detailed analysis of errors both factual and procedural of the JCT "analysis".
"...were you saying something about it has to be "revenue neutral" to pass muster?
Hmm seems you missed that news in #166 above. But that's understandable, not everyone manages to keep up with the fast pace of changes going on in Congress now days.
Seems the way Bush got his tax cut past the Dims, is the Repubs allowed PayGo rules and the Budget enforcement act expire. Guess what, neither have been re-instated in any form much less the original:
Ersatz Congressional Budgeting
Jack Kemp, June 14, 2004
And since the Fair Tax estimates of revenue neutral rate were made before those Bush tax cuts, well golly, that 23% NRST rate may actually be abit too high and not be "revenue neutral" anymore afterall, especially if Bush manages to get any of his taxcuts made permanent, as he seems well on his way towards doing. Lets see Gift/Estate tax headed out the door, 10% lower bracket rates even them Dems love ....
Taxcuts means lower rates on a larger tax base as the economy grows. Even for an NRST the current revenues collected by government.
refer Tax Freedom Day 2005 PDF: http://www.taxfoundation.org/sr134.pdf
Total Effective Tax Rates by Level of Government |
|||
Year | Federal | State | Total |
1997 | 21.8% | 10.3% | 32.1% |
1998 | 22.4% | 10.4% | 32.8% |
1999 | 22.5% | 10.4% | 32.9% |
20000 | 23.1% | 10.4% | 33.5% |
2001 | 22.2% | 10.5% | 32.7% |
2002 1 | 19.6% | 10.2% | 29.8% |
2003 2 | 18.8% | 10.1% | 28.9% |
2004 3 | 18.4% | 10.2% | 28.6% |
2005 | 19.0% | 10.1% | 29.1% |
Notes: Leap day is omitted to make dates comparable over time. 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. 0 Last year of Clinton administration when the HR25(Fair Tax Act) rate was estimated 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. |
Of course such an estimate would have nothing to do with the fact the JCT that owes it very existence and purpose to that same Internal Revenue Code that would be repealed under HR25The FairTax does not repeal the Internal Revenue Code. Specifically, Subtitle G is just re-designated as Subtitle E.
and JCT may have slightly adjusted their assumptions and estimates totally outside anything representing the the FairTax legislation as proposed, in favor of maintaining the status quo, hidden taxes and all.I guess you'll have to come up with another reason for their estimate.