Posted on 11/10/2005 3:18:48 AM PST by Man50D
Fair Tax Ping!
Please add me to your Fair Tax ping list. Thanks
Consider yourself pinged.
So when these costs are abolished, the FairTax is added and returns the prices of consumption goods to - you guessed it - exactly where they are today. The difference is, of course, that people who are purchasing these things keep every last penny of their paychecks. For low-income families, this would mean an immediate average increase in pay of 25-30 percent.
One "little" problem. Dr. Jorgenson's study which calculated the 22% embedded tax included the employees' income and SS taxes (both halves) as expenses for the employers. Therefore for prices to stay the same after the Fair Tax is added, each employer will have to keep the pay the employees would have paid in for income taxes. Employees will keep their entire paychecks, but those checks will be smaller than their current ones.
I expect that pay will be harder to change than prices, so employees will continue paying employees their current salaries and pre tax prices will drop by a few percent (for reduction of corporate income, the employers' half of SS and reduced compliance costs) and the post tax prices will be about 20% higher than the current prices.
I like the Fair Tax, but I don't pretend that it is some type of water carburetor where you get something for nothing. The feds still extract about 20-25% and there is no way to do that painlessly.
And so are you going to abolish Congress so the fairytax code does not grow 500%?
Run, run, run, the sky is falling. Cluck, cluck, cluck.
The FairTax Bill HR25 and S 25 the most important legislation since the Constituion. Fax your congressman today and ask him/her to support it, protect it, get it passed without watering down.
I too like the idea in principle but agree that the transition would be, shall we say, awkward. The feds taking your money will never be painless but it could be made less painful and more fair.
Part of the unfairness: People who get a lot of their incomes via cash, e.g. waiters, tend to pay less than their fair share. Also, some of the rich are able to underpay because they keep huge sums offshore and don't pay income taxes on this money.
Yes I agree we need a change.
I like the fair tax also.
However;
Without removal of the Income tax from the constitution we WILL end up with both. Not today, not tomorrow, but eventually.
The fair tax is a dead horse with out the removal of the constitutional incometax.
The only fair tax is a tax on everyone. IOW we all pay our share of the upkeep, and it cannot be based on income. Lets just call it a personal tax, beginning at age 16 for as long as you are alive, It might be called the breath tax, a minimum that all pay without exception.
There are no folks who don't pay, period. The breath tax will be large enough to strike unemployment fear in the hearts of every man and women in the country, and after the breath tax there will be the income kicker, paid by all, no exceptions, of up to 10% but no more than 10%.
This should have the positive aspect of getting rid of a host of organization feeding off the indigent, loafers, and leaches of the land, because everyone will be busy working instead of having time on their hands for wierd mischief, and they will be so busy paying their taxes, they won't have time money, or energy for destructive behavior.
I'm sure that most folks will remember what the income tax was to begin with, around 1% and affected a very narrow percentage of the population, and very quickly rose to levels exceeding even todays tax structure.
Expanding to a larger and larger portion of the population, but dividing the earners from the leaches, but continuing to expand the ability of the leaches to vote and therefore control the earners through the ballot box to the point today that the haves and supposed have nots are at political war with one another.
My tax system would solve this problem and adequately fund the government at everyones expense, but you will notice there is a lot missing, as with the proposed fair tax, there are so many unanswered questions, so if we are going to do it, have a one year or two year test, and get on with it.
I will be paying approximately 13% more than I do now, but put a sunset clause in the test and lets try it. At the very minimum, we would have an alternative or choice, and who's not for choice?
Apparently there was not quite enough wierd humor in my post to get your attention, and you missed the two paragraphs where I was supportive of at least a test of the fair tax despite the sheer stupidity of having a fair tax passed by the congress, and an established income tax in the Constitution of the Unites States of America.
The one must be gotten rid of before the other will have any validity what so ever. I also contend that there are so many unanswered questions regarding the fair tax, that there are, at the moment, far more important issues at hand.
It won't take long. Soon after the new tax system is passed—perhaps during the transition period—Congress will impose a "supplemental" or "emergency" surcharge on the incomes of the "wealthy." Despite all assurances that this will be a temporary measure, it will never go away. Instead, it will grow to include more and more people who do not think of themselves of wealthy. (Remember the AMT?) We will be stuck with the worst of both systems.
Ok sorry if I did not pick up on that - what issues are not resolved? I disagree about "more important issues at hand".
I see no greater issue for our country than the passage of HR 25 - it touches everyone of ours lives and the lives of generations to come and not in just the tax we pay or how we pay it.
The removal of the method for legal bribery from our government cuts deep into the very future of the US and it's security.
The removal of all 501c3 will bring into balance the Green Goofy movement that feeds off this sytem.
These and many more "improvements" are at hand with the FairTax bill.
HR 25 www.Fairtax.org is full of information I would be interested in see anything you have that concerns you.
To me this is a "no brainer" and I would seriously question and judge the motives of those in government that do not support it.
Anything, yes I do believe anything, that puts 501c3's in their place, can't be all bad. I'll have to look at the site to see what else is amix.
If anyone would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25) offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and SS/Medicare payroll taxes outright and replace them with with a national retail sales tax administered by the states.
H.R.25,S.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.Refer for additional information:
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
One "little" problem. Dr. Jorgenson's study which calculated the 22% embedded tax included the employees' income and SS taxes (both halves) as expenses for the employers. Therefore for prices to stay the same after the Fair Tax is added, each employer will have to keep the pay the employees would have paid in for income taxes. Employees will keep their entire paychecks, but those checks will be smaller than their current ones.
Essentially correct in that the NRST replaces the current income & payroll taxes, an in that it is wash overall.
There are gains however in the overhead and deadweight costs associated with the income/payroll taxes system that are substantially reduced under a retail sale tax system providing increased cost efficiencies allowing some lowering of prices with tax that otherwise would not exist. That provides an overall increase in the individuals purchasing power.
What I see as the most likely scenario is that gross wages stay pretty much the same as most are earned under contract and not subject to change on a whim.
I would expect total amount paid (accounting for tax) for consumption would fall 5-10%, while we receive our full checks with no withholding plus whatever FCA sales tax rebate provided for in the bill a household qualifies for.
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.