Posted on 06/10/2005 11:13:37 AM PDT by Always Right
To hang their hat on the 23% rate is just plain silly and dishonest.Truthfully, have you ever run across a more dishonest bunch? Dishonesty is their forte.
You're wasting your time -- he's not going to catch on.
Are you trying to claim that you understand t-i and t-e now after only, what, 10 years of misusing it?
I know what the website says but that was not the point being made, looie. The description is simplified so as not to confuse. That doesn't mean it is accurate, nor does it mean the rate will be 23% t-i when passed.
Whatever the rate as passed is, it should be calculated and used correctly to two decimal places, if necessary for t-e. The website explanations are so that people will learn (though it certainly didn't do you much good).
Apparently neither does the fairtax website, who readily admits that their 23% tax rate is really a 30% rate at the counter.
Yeah, I know. But I figured if I pointed him to the FairTax website where they clearly state their rate is 30%, he would at least start to scratch his head.
The "sticker shock" is the same on the same thing priced the same. There is no price advantage or disadvantage caused by the FairTax.
None.
Well sticker shock does has effect on whether someone purchase, and it certainly has effect when one is chosing between paying a 30% tax on a new car or home or buying an existing home or used car with no tax.
Good luck! I'm beginning to figure out who to ignore if you want to avoid a headache from their obtuseness or avoid abusive comments.
Darn, I am sorry, I should have said 29.871029% instead of 30%. I feel so dirty....
Well, d'uh. It's because they are not in the same market segment. But Chevrolet, Saturn, Toyota and Honda will certainly compete.
The fairtax taxes the "gross payment" A 7% state sales tax would also be taxed in the "gross payment".
$1.00 plus 7% state = $1.07 plus 29.87% "gross payment" tax = $1.39 or 39% total.
Making the "fairtax" 32% tax exclusive not 29.87%...
"If you did it right now, you would stick out like a sore thumb, and get a lot of customer resistance."
Is the above what you mean?
Now you're starting to catch on! There are more ways to compete than racing your competitors to the lowest price to see who goes bankrupt first. A competent businessman will differentiate his product into a separate market segment from the rest so he doesn't have to compete on low price (selling his car for the price of a Hyundai). That's why Toyota formed Lexus, and Honda formed Acura.
Yes. Glad you found it.
...what you figure the revenue-neutral number to be.
Why ask me? -- I don't have the slightest idea, or care.
I do, and others do. But I will accept you don't care how the FairTax rate would hit your pocket book.
For informational purposes, do you hold the same opinion about current income and payroll tax rates?
However, if you tell me its 23.0% and not 23.1%, as Schweinhund tried to do by quarreling with 30 vs 29.9, then you are wrong.
I say nothing other than I figure the "revenue neutral" rate ought to be much lower, and the rate stated in the bill is what HR25 states for a tax rate.
What I see you and pigdog wrangling over different things, he is arguing the bills legislated rate is 23 percent, you are arguing the an estimate revenue-neutral rate is probably different from the bill's 23 percent.
Since HR25 itself states explicitly "the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments", that issue is decided. The FairTax rate provided is "23 percent" nothing more nothing less, nothing behind the decimal point.
You have cross argument lacking communication.
pigdog is stating one thing, a fact, the bill states 23 percent as the NRST tax rate and that is absolutely true.
You are stating another, a fact, the actual revenue neutral rate, whatever that may be, cannot be 23 percent exactly for we don't have the official number from CRS, CBO or Congress Critters deciding with Ouji boards.
As I see it what we should be interested in, if we are to discuss rates at all is, what a revenue-neutral rate for the bill should be be under the Presidents criteria for a revenue neutral policy given current tax cuts, economic conditions, and what political expediency will allow for to assure enactment.
For that purpose the 23% of the bill can be considered nothing more than a place holder and starting point for political negotiation and is useful only for discussions in relation to other tax reform proposals competing in the legislative pipeline.
It certainly cannot be accepted as the definitive last word nor should anyone be satisfied to leave it that high given current revenues generated by the tax laws to be replaced by HR25.
However that still leaves the second question I put to you unanswered, which really is more fundamental and import to any discussion of relative rates between tax reform proposals:
1) What common measure should be used to specify tax rates so they can be fairly and accurately compared between the different proposals out there, whether they be NRST, Flat Tax, VAT, or some lesser modification of the graduated income tax?
I look for you answer here as well.
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. Their experts are certifiably nuts.
For God's sake.
Do you not see the difference between a complicated return under today's system compared to a simple calculation of 'sales' times 'rate'?
If you really believe that ANYONE is claiming one hundred per cent compliance with the FairTax, I want some of that rope you're smoking.
As usual, you're making things up.
(BTW, your posts are too long for my small brain to deal with in one swing. You might consider giving me one question at a time.)
What common measure should be used to specify tax rates so they can be fairly and accurately compared?
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.
One of the constants in the system is total Fed tax revenues. 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.
And who to ignore when you have no argument. The scalp you see used to belong to expatpat.
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.