Posted on 05/12/2005 7:46:54 PM PDT by Your Nightmare
Members of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform on May 11 expressed concerns over the FairTax national retail sales tax, a plan that has emerged as an alternative with a major grass-roots push.
Panel chair Connie Mack, vice chair John B. Breaux, and other members worried the plan would be difficult to enforce, would be regressive, and would require a high rate in order to take in enough money to fund the government.
Breaux raised concerns that the proposed 23 percent (tax-inclusive) rate would not be sufficient to raise the revenue necessary to fund the government. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would take as much as a 57 percent (tax-exclusive) rate to be revenue-neutral. Further, Breaux said he thought exemptions that would be carved out to make the sales tax progressive would also complicate it.
Mack, who raised concerns similar to his fellow panelists', said he was "intrigued" by the plan. "But if it's such a great idea, why haven't other political entities around the world pursued it?" he asked.
Americans for Fair Taxation Executive Director Tom Wright emphasized that the plan emerged after "thorough academic research" and "thorough polling" The strong grass-roots push has resulted in some of the group's 600,000 members appearing at each of the panel's hearings and has inspired a large comment-writing campaign to the panel in support of the plan.
Sales tax advocates were among the 20 witnesses who gathered before the panel for a full day of testimony on tax reform proposals. Although the group has held several other hearings in Washington and around the country, the May 11 meeting was its first hearing on specific reform plans since Bush appointed the panel in January. The panel has been charged with identifying tax reform proposals that are progressive, encourage charitable giving and home purchases, and are revenue-neutral. The proposals are due by July 31.
Among the tax replacement and reform plans presented to the panel were the value added tax, consumption-based tax, and the flat tax, as well as proposals that would use the current income tax as the foundation.
Witnesses generally claimed that theirs was the fairest, simplest, most flexible, most transparent revenue-neutral proposal that would improve economic growth and savings while meeting the president's criteria of encouraging charitable giving and home buying. Witnesses presenting consumption-based plans praised their overhaul as taking millions of low-income taxpayers off the rolls, being easy to transition to on a worldwide basis, and including safeguards to prevent new loopholes that would result in increased complexity down the road.
Tax reform panel members, who agree the current tax system needs to be fixed, grilled witnesses without revealing whether they will ultimately endorse a consumption- or income-based tax or a different mixture of the two.
Income taxes are NOT a "cost" of production and cannot be included in them. It is the complete lack of understanding of such matters (or the discrete silence about them) which causes many of us who DO understand to have little faith in this theory.
Income taxes are calculated on Profit and that is ONLY known after sale. They are NOT like Payroll taxes which ARE part of the costs of production.
Even if they were included that would not mean they were major components of cost. Corporate income taxes are a tiny part of total taxes.
WHere to begin... the costs in hard taxes passed along is 10-15% according to literature, but your 8% is fine. That's only the cost of taxes themselves. THe other income tax-related expenses bring to 20-25%. So they're not lying, you just misunderstand them to mean that the cost of taxes is 20-30%. That's not what they're saying. They're saying the cost of taxes plus the other income tax related costs come to 20-30%.
Now what part of this don't you get?
rotflmao
Go back and read it a little slower. You will see that you're wrong.
And you vendor question is about something TOTALLY different. That involves interest costs which ARE part of production/distribution. Hence when a vendor allows a longer time to payment he is paying more interest on the product.
More confusion which does not help your case.
That question and answer has been explained so many times. You are just too friggin ignorant to comprehend it.
Ahh, a demurrer instead of answering the direct question.
Fact is taxes remitted by business from sales revenue and overhead costs attending them, are counted quite separately for determining producer price decreases, from taxes paid out of one's gross wages and earned income.
Under an NRST only system, businesses no longer file for or pay income taxes oremployer excises for SS/Medicare.
Obviously businesses are able to lower prices by the amount of tax related overhead and taxes repealed, maintaining their optimal net profit. At the same time the wage earner receives his full contracted gross wage, with no income or FICA tax witholding take out of it. Meanwhile the entire NRST, replacing the federal income/payroll tax system, is collected at the retail sales counter.
Once again, where is double counting of taxes occuring that you are claiming is going on?
The same way it would be tax fraud if you presented a false business expemption form to be exempt from today's state sales tax. Except it would be a federal offense.
No they are "bad" because complications are introduced when the scheme is sold as simplification.
And all taxes are "bad" anyway.
I am not looking for perfection but just something which makes sense and does what it is claimed to do. This scheme does neither.
Having studied economics for almost forty years I am burdened by conclusions which theory produces. Thus, I can't pretend this scheme is better just because I hate the IRS.
Existing home prices already include taxes and tax costs of a nearly equivalent amount.
I used hard numbers that are accurate from NIPA and IRS. You want to add your fluff numbers that are pulled out of the asses of your hired guns. Their fluff numbers are pure lies that have no basis in reality.
He went on to say that the present tax system isn't fair, which he can't say for everyone as it is a subjective concept, but he would like a system to tax consumption.
From Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, it is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income.
Seems like a very good measure of tax fairness to me.
His purpose clearly is to massively shift the burden to "rich" folks so the poor can be taken care of. Much like the new Methodists preach (UMC).
ROTFLMAO!!!
What part of:
[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:]
- "A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person."
--Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.
"a free people that pays slave taxes to its government is willingly training itself for bondage."
---Alan Keyes 1999
Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:
- "the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."
"If direct taxes upon the wages of labour have not always occasioned a proportionable rise in those wages, it is because they have generally occasioned a considerable fall in the demand for labour. The declension of industry, the decrease of employment for the poor, the diminuation of the annual produce of the land and labour of the country, have generally been the effect of such taxes....
Absurd and destructive as such taxes are, however, they take place in many countries."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776.
Do you fail to understand?
"A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the federal inspector will be in every man's counting house....The law will of necessity have inquisical features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it men will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the tax payer. An army of federal inspectors, spies, and detectives will descend upon the state."
-- Virginian House Speaker Richard E. Byrd, 1910, predicting the consequences of an income tax.
You said earlier that personal income taxes were NOT in prices. Which is it?
Immature nonsense deserves nothing better than patronization since it cannot be taken seriously.
Governments from time immemorial have decided what citizens can do with their lives. That can never change since you have impact on what others can do with their lives. As long as you live in a society you will pay a portion of the costs of that society like it or not and there is no "rhetoric" in that it is a fact.
Pay as you go justice means that the rich and powerful would get away with anything they wish because the poor cannot afford the legal help the rich can. Thus, any rights you believe you have would soon go the way of the dodo should they come up against one who can hire lawyers by the gross. Maybe you haven't figured it out yet but this equalization of power is one of the principle reasons governments were established in the first place. And equality before the law was one of the principle aims of the Founders.
And you are mistaken as to the reason the Constitution was established. It was established to WEAKEN the powers of the States and to INCREASE the power of the federal government. A review of American history might clue you in here particularly of the events leading up to the Constitutional Convention.
Cain also claimed not to be his "brother's keeper" but his argument didn't go very far.
Well friggin DUH! THe nipa and IRS numbers are for actual taxes, NOT THE ADDITIONAL COSTS OF THE INCOME TAX SYSTEM!
Now, if you want to pretend that there are no costs other than the tax itself, go ahead. But that would be really stupid.
Your advocates have claimed there would be no sales taxes on existing homes while there would be on new homes. This would be a disaster for constuction.
Existing home prices already include tax (and tax costs). It's just not visible. The nrst makes it visible.
ANd who is advocating me? lol
Therefore, the overall compliance cost surcharge alone amounts to nearly 20.4 cents for every $1 collected by the federal income tax.
tax foundation
"The complexity generated by the growth and constant change of the tax code creates two general types of economic cost: overhead and opportunity cost. Overhead can be divided into three principal activities: the economically sterile exercises of tax planning, compliance, and litigation, all of which act like tax surcharges on taxpayers.
• The first type of overhead is tax planning, which in this context refers to all the economic decisions that individuals and firms make to maximize their benefits in the tax code.
• The second type of overhead, tax compliance, refers here to the basic actions required to file the federal income tax, including record keeping, education, form preparation and packaging/sending.
• The third type of overhead is tax audits and litigation, referring to the cost of the IRS and the Tax Court, as well as all the legal costs that taxpayers incur while dealing with these two government institutions.
Of these three costs, the second, tax compliance, is the only one estimated in this report. It is for this reason that the data presented here should be viewed as extremely cautious estimates of the federal income tax compliance burden on taxpayers.
"Of these three costs, the second, tax compliance, is the only one estimated in this report. It is for this reason that the data presented here should be viewed as extremely cautious estimates of the federal income tax compliance burden on taxpayers."
So the rest of your supposed "compliance costs" add up to $0.80 on the dollar?
Not at all, as "compliance costs" only make up a small piece of the pie. Total tax related Overhead costs( "the economically sterile exercises of tax planning, compliance, and litigation") add up an amount of 50-80 cents on the dollar by multiple sources estimating those aggregate costs.
Sure, whatever.
One may lead a horse to water. Fortunately those that are thirsty will drink, the few that feel satisfied with the way things are, don't and suffer later.
That's economic loss, not compliance costs. Jeez.
Once again substituting your words in-place of what the author states. naughty naughty
Hmmm:
Remove the overhead burden from business, under market competition producer prices fall commensurately while optimal business profits are maintained with growing demand for lower cost products that come with efficient and productive business operations."Christian says the true burden on the U.S. economy is probably closer to $1 trillion"
Release the economic burden from business, growth of retail sales (i.e. GDP, the U.S. economy) follows.
So my purchasing power will incease under the FairTax (see, I told you, CG).
Certainly purchasing power must increase, when business overhead costs are reduced. That's just simple straight forward economics. When something costs less to produce purchasing power to aquire it increases through price reductions, increased profits returned to investors, increase wages singly or through any combination of the foregoing.
Taxes per-se on businesses are only a fraction of the relief of costs a business experiences and ultimately their customers with the repeal of business income and payroll taxes.
I never said anything about the powers of the states, I was talking about individual rights. I also never said anything about not paying to live in society. If it is my choice to voluntarily pay into some system then so be it. In fact, I would argue that it's in MY interest to do so. It is not up to you or some government official to decide what is of value to me.
I also made no claim whatsoever as to why the Constitution was established. I simply made the point that the document recognizes a priori rights, not grants them.
Cain's argument was correct. Just because you don't like it or "it didn't go very far" doesn't make it incorrect. I respect the man that has the guts to ask by what right another has over his life. The simple fact is that there is no right to such actions. So any action that usurps the rights of the individual is not only an illogical denial of reality, it is evil.
Do not dismiss my affection for individual rights as immature. I understand the reality very well that our current system imposes upon individuals. Those of us that pay quarterlies to the IRS are well aware of the pilfering of our personal property and the usurping of our liberty. It is not immature or un-serious to have the guts to call a spade a spade. It cannot be disputed that the use of physical force of some individual against another to pilfer their property (an extension of their life) is completely evil.
Those, like yourself, that believe societal priorities trump the rights of the individual are embracing a collectivist philosophy. To me, and other patriotic Americans, this is the evil that has wrecked our nation, and consider those that believe individual rights are secondary to any other arbitrarily conceived notion to be enemies of freedom.
For those who question that I might be a Libertarian or Anarchist, I am not. I am a Capitalist that believes that no other man has the right to initiate force or fraud on another man. I believe in freedom and its potential to bring out the best in men. I don't take the status quo for granted, and I also understand that change takes some time. We need a move by our government to again recognize that nothing trumps the rights of the individual. I do not accept this is "the way it is". I will not grin and bear it. I will fight it with as much energy and fervent diligence as I can muster.
WHere to begin... the costs in hard taxes passed along is 10-15% according to literature,What literature? Give me a link.
You said earlier that personal income taxes were NOT in prices. Which is it?They aren't. That's the point.
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.