Posted on 06/10/2005 11:13:37 AM PDT by Always Right
"29.871029%"?? Try that aaagain. But don't apologize. 29.87% is just fine - as I said 2 decimal places are the most I've ever seen on sales taxes.
1. Employees take paycut in the amount of income tax.
2. 100% compliance with the sales tax.
Both of these assumptions are ridculous on their face. Contractual obligations that have been fiercely negotiated, just don't go away. 100% compliance, give me a break
That's deliberately lying. Neither of those is assumed. It is the position of ttax reform proponents that the contracted wages remain the same.
Lies. Why not try to spread your marxist progressive income tax with truth?
This is all you have left - the death throes of your beloved income tax... like harry reid - never admit anything good about the opponent - no matter how stupid you look doing it.
It won't matter to income tax proponents what happens 7/31. They're be no respite for you socialism mongers.
No, looey, it doesn't ... and that has been pointed out to you definitively 800-900 times.
In your case we KNOW it's ignorance making you claim that. It does not tax state taxes. Read the bill.
"It's increased market share that leads to growing profits. Really? This is a new one on me."
I'm reminded of a time in the late 80s, General Motors had twice the sales of Ford, but Ford had twice the profits. Which would you rather be?
Talk about disingenuously comparing apples and oranges. Sheesh.
Neither of the things you believe are used as assumptions are used by the Fairtax people OR its supporters.
Your claim to the contrary means nothing at all.
The bill requires two lines to be reported ... TWO LINES!!!
Read the bill so you become informed.
OK so your contention is customers will not be resistant to higher prices because the NRST tax will be to blame?
There's about an 85% chance he's merely being dishonest. That's his normal batting average for veracity.
The customers won't like it, but will have to lump it; the 'evil NRST' will take a big part of the blame. There was recently a German guy on one of the FR EU-vote threads bitching about the price-jump when the Euro currency switch was used as cover by the beer companies over there. He still drinks beer, though, at the higher price.
And here's the first 1040 tax form from 1913. Seven lines total if you didn't make more than $20,000 ($380,000 in today's terms).
No more than one page total no matter how much you made. What's to prevent the NRST from growing in complexity as well? Nothing.
And the flat taxers want to take us back to the same form which will be cluster ^^^^^d back to the current system as certainly as the sunrise.
Yup, you're right of course ... and they also throw out that wages will go down but that's just to scare wage earners and those of us who have to work for a lining.
Not to mention their oft stated canard that there has to 100% compliance to make the FairTax sale tax rate work that is one of the favorite bugaboos thrown up by Brookings Institute and their main spokesman on taxes, William Gale.
Of course in so doing they ignore the clear points made in:
And of course they never get around to noticing how calculating a tax rate using a taxbase derived from data which does not include any non-reporting transactions nor provides any estimates of such, results in a taxrate that does not assume the same level of tax evasion as is going on under the income and payroll tax systems today.
When a tax base does not include the current underground cash economy , transactions involving illegal trades or tax evasion for which there are no reports of sales or income to anyone in government for obvious reasons, it totally takes into account same amount of evasion that is going on under the current tax system.
The NRST tax rate is calculated using Bureau of Economics Analysis NIPA data series which has no estimates or inclusions for the underground cash economy, transactions involving illegal trade or evasion at all. As a consequence the tax rate specified in HR25 totally assumes the same amount of tax evasion under the FairTax act as is occurring under the current tax systems it replaces.
You know that might be the first explaination from a fair taxer that makes sense. Gale may be wrong. I assumed Gail was correct because there were no factors in the calculation for evasion, but if NIPA numbers don't include any of the evasion economy, your tax base has effectively been reduced by the current tax evasion rate. That was one point I was unsure about, but trusted Gale's opinion. I still however believe that a 29.870129% sales tax will lead to more evasion especially in the service sector. I am very confident your numbers can only work if employees take a pay cut.
That's a very tough question. If the professionals haven't come up with one, there may not be one that's realizable. It may require a set of measures.
Actually the experts have, just so happens though that opponents to the NRST take exception to the use of that measure.
One of the constants in the system is total Fed tax revenues.
True, however what does that to do with tax plans that do not replace but a portion of total federal revenues and are generally expressed in tax inclusive rates, such as Flat Tax, payroll taxes, any income tax measure, Business Trasaction Tax proposals, and others tax systems rooted in income.
Another set should be the various economc activities; although these could go up or down in fact, they should be constants for this exercise. Then the % of Fed revenues which come from different segments (from business, rich, moderate, and poor individuals, etc.) might be the set of measures.
That's all well and good, but not very useful for discussion of total impact on the citizen.
How do all those factors relate when one wants to equitably compare the rates of tax bills as they impact the citizen per-se. For you are aware that all taxation ultimate ties to the indiviudal through earnings from business ventures, earnings from investments, capital gains, labor income, and interest recieved and other forms of income out of which the individual ultimately pays taxes.
What kind of measure should one use to measure relative burden of taxation in respect to resources aquired by the individual to pay a tax?
Sandbagging me? What is it?
At least your got the t-e number straightened out but you still only need two decimal places.
And, no, the employees won't be taking pay cuts.
What's stopping the FED from printing more money than we need?
At the moment, the Fed's war on inflation. In the future, nothing.
ping...
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.