Replies

Our basic disagreement is over the level of taxes paid by the rich and by the middle class at present and then projecting that into the changed tax system with the NRST.

The figures you quoted from Limbaugh's site are the accepted wisdom of the day. I don't argue with them. What is not said in those figures, and what will make the difference in the transition, is that only about 50% of all of us pay taxes at all. That certainly includes me, I get an undeserved earned income credit, and possibly you.

There are many, and not just the rich, and again even you, who use legal means to avoid taxes. That includes a fair chunk of the middle class, especially the entrepreneurial middle class. So, when we look at the percentage of total taxes paid by the rich we are not looking at them as a percentage of taxpayers but of taxes paid. That may seem a non difference but it is not when we consider the transition. Those non payers will become payers and that is a lot of folks, 50% more in fact. With a 50% increase in the tax base, not even including the underground and the cheats, the ability to reach revenue neutral is easily understood.

When we mention the poor, the poverty level, and fairness, we must include the other benefits the poor get. In addition to their income (often unknown and unreported), many get food stamps, welfare checks, and subsidized, or free, housing. Those government programs take care of their basic needs which the prebate supposedly covers. Because of that, those prebates in many cases will become discretionary income and will be spent on taxable items. That broadens the tax base.

In addition, many people like you will become larger contributors to the tax base. Even if your business is tax exempt by it nature, you aren't. There are millions like you. (That is probably your true objection to the change.)

The tax shelters for the rich will be gone, the business decisions now being made for tax purposes will be unnecessary and counter productive, as many are anyway except for the tax angle, the poor will be better off but also contributing to the tax base, more of the middle class will be participating in the tax base but will be better off, and on and on.

In your case and of those like you, you ignore the costs that are now part of everything you buy. You think, erroneously in my opinion, that you will suffer if the system is changed. I think you are wrong, you will be better off. Ask yourself whether you would even be in the business you are if it weren't for its tax niche? If you would that is great. The transition will be even easier.

Dear Mind-numbed Robot,

"The figures you quoted from Limbaugh's site are the accepted wisdom of the day. I don't argue with them. What is not said in those figures, and what will make the difference in the transition, is that only about 50% of all of us pay taxes at all. That certainly includes me, I get an undeserved earned income credit, and possibly you."

No, that's wrong. The Limbaugh figures actually speak to the fact that precisely 4% of federal income taxes are paid by the bottom 50% of households.

But that will mostly stay the same under the new system, as FOLKS WILL GET PREBATES, and those prebates will add up to most, if not all, of the taxes paid by folks in the same bottom 50% of households.

That's how the NRST retains progressivity.

"That certainly includes me, I get an undeserved earned income credit, and possibly you."

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you talking about the Earned Income Tax Credit, the EITC? Do you receive that? I certainly don't, and never have.

"There are many, and not just the rich, and again even you, who use legal means to avoid taxes. That includes a fair chunk of the middle class, especially the entrepreneurial middle class."

Yeah, I agree. And that's part of WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO SAY FOR A LONG TIME. Even though nominal income tax rates are high, most folks don't actually pay anything close to the nominal rates, even in their brackets.

I mean, heck, the nominal rate for the rich is 35%, not 27.5%, right? And remember, starting around $150K, most deductions, and even many "tax-free" sources of income start getting taken back by the tax code. By the time you get to the median of the top 1% (which, if I recall correctly, is about $400K), folks can't even deduct their state taxes from income to reduce their federal income tax burden. Only a narrow range of "tax-free" bonds remain tax-free, with most of them becoming entirely taxable.

So, the bottom line is, the top 1% of folks get 17.5% of the national personal income (by the way, if this doesn't represent something close to ACTUAL INCOME, not just TAXABLE INCOME, then the top 1% get an even HIGHER level of the national income). But these folks pay 34% of the personal federal income taxes. And they pay at a rate of 27.5%.

"In addition, many people like you will become larger contributors to the tax base."

I already AM a large contributor to the tax base. I work hard to minimize my federal income taxes, but I pay plenty, still.

"Even if your business is tax exempt by it nature, you aren't. There are millions like you. (That is probably your true objection to the change.)"

There you go again, ascribing evil motives - I'm selfish, I just don't want to pay more in taxes, that's why I'm opposed to this edenic program.

Nope. Completely wrong. I just think it's a bad idea at the levels of taxation we currently have.

"The tax shelters for the rich will be gone,..."

Sorry, Rush's numbers show that the "tax shelters for the rich" are modest, at most. The rich currently pay 27.5% of their income in federal income taxes. That will fall to an absolute upper ceiling of 23% under the NRST, and probably to half that amount - closer to 12%.

"In your case and of those like you, you ignore the costs that are now part of everything you buy."

No, actually, based on my own research, I think that the costs to which you refer are very modest. I look at my own experience, the experience of other small businessmen I know, and the actual financials of large corporations. The costs are real. In absolute terms, they're in the many billions of dollars.

But as a percentage of GDP, as a percentage of the cost of goods and services sold, it's very, very modest. Low single digit percentages.

"Ask yourself whether you would even be in the business you are if it weren't for its tax niche?"

You know, that's a pretty insulting question, Mind-numbed Robot. You don't know a thing about my business, and you should keep your fingers off your keyboard rather than make asinine assumptions like that.

My business would exist no matter what the tax laws were.

My views of the NRST aren't about what happens to me, but what I think will happen to the country. I think, with current levels of federal spending, the NRST will harm the country, harm the economy.

Would that you weren't so caught up in your own delusional system that you could ascribe decent motives to those who disagree with you.

Perhaps you're projecting.

sitetest