Posted on 06/10/2005 11:13:37 AM PDT by Always Right
Seriously, I apologize if I came across too much that way. However, you are posting on a thread where many participants call other posters liars, so you need to have a thick skin here!
Your response is a lot more generalized hand-waving than mine.
"As I challenged you before in #249, quantify it across the broad economy as has been done by others."
I'm afraid I don't have the time or inclination to carry out the large project you propose,
Its been done for you in #249 by Dale Jorgenson.
especially since you and your FT co-religionists would reject it, anyway.
Inspite of the fact that you SQL co-religionists reject it anyway.
Take your fingers out of your eyes.
The prebate is voluntary - you may simply choose not to get it. That's why it is voluntary.
If you choose to receive it however, there are requirements: recipients must be legal residents and have a valid SSN. If you volunteer to receive the prebate, it is required that you be a legal resident with a valid SSN.
You would prefer that there be no requirements to receiving the prebate?... then you could complain about there being no requirements. It doesn't matter what bill it is or what's in the bill - you will fight any tax reform.
"As I challenged you before in #249, quantify it across the broad economy as has been done by others."Do we get to cut people's wages like Jorgenson and Wilcoxen did in their simulation?
The actual value is what the market will pay for the home.
If you buy a house for $260,000 are you going to sell it for less than that? Of course not. Nobody will (excepting distressed sales).
Your position that people will begin selling there homes for less than they paid for it is absurd.
I'm more than aware of this.
Alabama does this because they can't stand the proposition that people might go out of state in order to get a better deal.
You'll never get me to support sales taxes, especially when the guy I'm supporting in the Mayoral election is promising to lower our sales taxes.
See #253.
Other than the rate for the first year and everyone who wants one would get a check from the government, there isn't anything about the outcome of your sales tax that isn't wishful thinking, hope, conjecture and lies.
We could couple it with a repeal of all campaign finance laws.
As politicians, if it was politically tenable, they would love to repeal every campaign finance law on the book because it makes their jobs that much harder. If you had any sign of public support for such a thing, they'd do it.
Do we get to cut people's wages like Jorgenson and Wilcoxen did in their simulation?
If you don't want any employees, go ahead.
Leaving the simulation equations open to express a potential of higher or lower wages, and lowering them are two enterly different conditions.
The first is the general characterisation of the simulation. The later is a result not found in the conclusions.
Nice try though.
But aren't you one of the guys that claims that cutting prices will increse sales? To be consistent, you have to admit that raising gross house prices will reduce house sales.
Read this:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109LMUkMo:e68906:
They want you to compile and file monthly tax returns! You think the IRS takes a lot of your time -- you ain't seen nothing until you look at what the NRST people want you to do.
Why would you sell the ... house for less ...?
LL: I thought you said there would be 20 to 30% price reductions? A $200,000 home purchased today would be worth only $140,000 in your world.
Lots of people say 20-35% price reductions - especially on a product with so many links in the production chain.
Under the nrst, a the same home could be built free of the costs of our income tax system for about $150,000. Then at sale for retail the tax is added for a $195,000 sale price. The more links in the production chain, the more embedded tax costs are in the price.
Do you seriously expect a teenager mowing lawns in the summer for spending money to file all the proper paperwork and remit the NRST? Who's going to enforce that? Talk about an intrusive taxman!
just as medical services today contain a 25% tax cost component.
...so every penny a hospital or independant doctor receives they must remit sales tax.
Medical services are taxed today to the same extent by way of the income tax on business, the employer payroll tax, and associated tax costs. When those costs are eliminated and the nrst is added, price comes right back to very near today's price....but we have no more withholding in our paychecks...
"Doubt very much you will find much concensus as to mode of taxation...This thread is a good example of the entrenched attitudes that exist on the subject...Basically it comes down to those who believe they have an economic haven in the current system want to maintain it, those that perceive a disadvantage to themselves or families in the current system want a major change away from how taxation is accomplished today."
You are right of course. That is why my comment about 'concensus on this forum' was followed with :)
We could probably get 90+% agreeing that spending should be significantly reduced. We probably could also get 90+% agreeing that the IRS should be 'abolished'. Concensus on how to accomplish these two items would be difficult to get.
Change the Congressional Budget Process - it's broke.
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.