TAX REFORM COMMISSION? YEAH ... RIGHT.

Neal's Nuze ^ | Oct. 12, 2005 | Neal Boortz

[groanup]

I've sent e-mails to both of my Republican Senators. Next, I'm on the phone to their offices tomorrow. This crap cannot go unpunished. We need voices in Washington not whitewashers.

[RobFromGa]

We're not going to get serious reform until at least 2007 after the midterms. Before then we need to get the current tax cuts made "permanent". We also need to make some progress on dealing with SocSec. This will be one of the major campaign issues of 2006 so we need to get the Senior citizens paid off and guaranteed so we can solve the mid to lng term problems for the rest of us.

Until we buy them off, they will make it impossible to fix the unfunded liabilities of SocSec and Medicare.

The idea to cap the deductability of home mortgage interest will likely be shot down, or done in steps (like $800k in 2007, dropping $100k per year till it gets to $400k, and indexed for inflation after that. I would like to see the deduction removed entirely over time, and the AMT phased out at the same time.

The $11k cap on medical premiums would have very little impact in raising revenue.

The real solution is to get control of the entitlements before they strangle us, and get them off the regular working budget of the US.

[pigdog]

Nonsense, Robbie. Despite all your self-servicn vanity posts none of the things you mention are "left out" ... they merely do not apply.

I told you at the time you made those idiotic posts that you should hold your fire. That still applies, my friend.

[Purrcival]

I heard about this commission today and I about went through the roof when I heard some of the things they were considering. Are the Fair Tax and Flat Tax reforms on the table at all?

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Reducing deductions is a tax increase (inaccurate, but stay with me).

It is not inaccurate for those who were taking the deduction. If you are saying that this elimination of a deduction is offset elsewhere, considering the whole package, then you should take that into consideration with the NRST also.

If a reduction of deductions is a tax increase, then the elimination of deductions must be a larger tax increase.

That may sound logical but it isn't. It is not difficult to follow what you are saying. It is difficult making sense of it.

Let me try to explain this in the simplist possible way. When I did this on the issue of returning withholdings to employees or lowering prices I discovered I was wrong. Maybe that will happen here.

Let's assume there is an organization which charges all who attend its meetings a twenty-five dollar cover. They later decided that they like red because it is festive and they want to increase the amount of red the attendees wear. They think that will encourage behavior that is good for everyone. To accomplish that they say if you wear red you get in free. So those who wear red get a twenty-five dollar break over those who don't.

The leadership later decides that this has become too complicated because some people wear red caps, others red shirts, still others wear red socks and some wear things that have just a tiny bit of red but insist that it qualifies to get them in free. So, because of the complications, they eliminate the red deduction. For those who wore red that amounts to an admissions increase of twenty-five dollars.

However, because of the past deductions for red the rest of the attendees got unhappy and want to change the whole system. After much thought, they decide to eliminate the cover altogether and let everyone in free.

Because of the loss of revenue they can no longer afford the previous free food and drinks so they decide to charge for it. For those who truly can't afford it they give coupons for one plate of food and one drink.

Now everyone is happy. They all get in free and come out about the same as they did before even though they now have to buy food and drink.

Is that an apt analogy? The elimination of the the deduction for some was an increase in admission for them, but eliminating the cover altogether was a decrease for everyone, not an increase.

I see no problem with that, do you?

[SolidSupplySide]

If you are saying that this elimination of a deduction is offset elsewhere, considering the whole package,

This is precisely what I'm saying. Boortz did not consider a potential decrease in the tax rates. Reagan eliminated many deductions, but did not raise taxes. For Boortz to claim that reducing deductions necessarily results in a tax increase is simply inaccurate.

then you should take that into consideration with the NRST also.

*I* would take that into consideration. But since Boortz (inaccurately) claimed a decrease in deductions was the same as a tax increase without considering other changes to the tax code, Boortz must also argue (inaccurately) that the total elimination of deductions under the NRST is a larger tax increase than what the commission suggested. Boortz does not make this arguement, and, in fact, suggests that the NRST would result in a tax cut.

Again, I state my position. Boortz's arguments are inaccurate because he did not consider the recommendations as a whole. Even if we disregard that Boortz's claims were inaccurate, the remainder of his logic is incoherent because the commission merely wanted to reduce the deductions while the NRST would eliminate them altoghether.

[pigdog]

Tax reform isn't dead at all but just geting going. This should help kick-start it. If you don't think so, read the numerous unedited comments already in to the panel after about a day:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1501413/posts?page=1

The are uniformly displeased with the tax panels cop-out. These voices are just beginning and you can bet they will be heard. Some have some real political heat behind them.

Keep in mind that the Panel sends its "work" to the Sec'y. of the Treasury and not directly to Congress or the President. There are many, many miles to cross yet so get in touch with your Congresscats and give them an earful (or letter or email full).

[pigdog]

Yes, certainly they are - just check the Comments to the tax panel their non-performance has generated in one day:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1501413/posts?page=1

You can play, too, since a comment can be done directly from the panel website.

[pigdog]

You're the one making little sense, not Boortz. Eliminating the deductions is decreasing them (to zero).

In fact the FairTax IS a decrease in the tax rate for many. You're the one not taking things into account because you're blinded by your opposition to the FairTax.

Moreover the FairTax has many other benefits to the US economy that the Tax Panel did not consider at all - nor did they evaluate what the evasion really is under the income tax. Had they done that they would have realized what a loser they have on the things they recommended compared to the FairTax.

I believe the American taxpayer understands things better that you and the tax panel put together.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Boortz's arguments are inaccurate because he did not consider the recommendations as a whole. Even if we disregard that Boortz's claims were inaccurate, the remainder of his logic is incoherent because the commission merely wanted to reduce the deductions while the NRST would eliminate them altoghether.

OK. However, I don't attribute that to malice on his part. None of us yet know the entire recommendation so we should all wait and see.

In addition, what the commission recommends is not likely to be what gets to the President's desk. We will have plenty of time to continue this discussion.

[Man50D]

You can fool some of the people some of the time...

[RobFromGa]

I told you at the time you made those idiotic posts that you should hold your fire.

And I care what you told me because?

Unlike many honest FairTaxers, you still continue to believe that there are no misrepresentations in the book. Even Boortz agreed that the book was not correct on the matter of takehome pay under the FairTax and issued a clarification.

The issue of what will people make and how much will things cost under the FairTax are certainly not things that "do not apply" as you allege. They are the most BASIC of all things to start the economic models and analysis from.

[Purrcival]

Thanks for the link!

[FreeKeys]

Find all 33 ways to listen to BOORtz over the web -- including evenings and weekends -- HERE: http://FreedomKeys.com/boortzcast.htm

Columbia, MO's KSSZ-FM 93.9 has moved THE NEAL BOORTZ SHOW from one hour at 1pm-2pm Central to 3 HOURS at 9pm-12midnight Central. The last of those hours had not been carried before by any of the other 33 streamfeeds. I'm listening to it now; it's coming in loud and strong for me. Find it now at http://FreedomKeys.com/boortzcast.htm#13

Ooops it just quit on me after 30 minutes of listening!

OK, I just eXited and re-clicked on the icon, and it's coming through loud and clear again.

[hripka]

It isn't the rate structure or size of the form you fill out that makes an income tax system a nightmare, it Congress' continual dinkering and redefining income to suit the politcal whims all the time and the bureaucracy behind it . . .

And how does the 'FairTax' change this??

[hripka]

The FairTax, OTOH, eliminates the income (etc.) taxes and cannot be made into a VAT.

Oh really?

Vat benefits (India scraps Sales Tax for VAT due to evasion)
The Indian Express ^ | Oct 07, 2005
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498423/posts

[hripka]

Winners and Losers under the 'FairTax'
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1493038/posts

[hripka]

The Tax Reform Commission is rejecting an NRST based on the estimates of one carefully-chosen economist who is willing to stipulate that such a national sales tax would have to be in the 60-80% range. This is totally fraudulent, of course.

And Boortz/Linder's claim of 23% is just as fraudulent.

No, the 'FairTax' rate will be about 30%.

The feds spend 2.5 trillion. The GDP is over 12.5 trillion. Approximately two-thirds of that (8.25 trillion) is consumer spending. 2.5 trillion divided by 8.25 trillion is an inclusive federal sales tax rate of 30%. To say that government will pay taxes to itself is a circular argument.

Evasion will be massive at a 30% rate.

[ancient_geezer]

You're on the pinger. Welcome aboard.

[ancient_geezer]

No, the 'FairTax' rate will be about 30%.

Actually the current revenue neutral calculations(i.e. taking the bush tax cuts into account) puts it at 23.8% tax-exclusive (expressed in the same manner as state sales taxes.)