Posted on 12/05/2005 2:36:33 PM PST by Eaglewatcher
Just like today's income tax system reduces the purchasing power of regular savings accounts and Roth IRAs - the income tax system negatively impacts those who has saved already taxed monies - and those who have saved pre-tax monies. And the income tax system makes US made goods less competitive. And the income tax system puts every individual in the position of proving his innocence.
Wouldn't it be better to make US goods more competitive by making our taxes border-adjustable? Wouldn't it be better if individuals no longer had to prove innocence, but were instead presumed innocent until proven guilty?
It takes a lot more than some people have, apparently. Not to mention the dearth of intellectual honesty.
The price of the shirt without the tax was 15.40. THe price inlcuding tax was 20.00.
You can't really be this stupid. You're pretending, right?
Amount of tax is 4.60. 4.6/20=23% tax inclusive. Tax of 4.60
Amount of tax is 4.60. 4.6/15.4=30% tax exclusive. /tax of 4.60.
yes they get a credit.
under today's system the get a credit w/o paying any federal taxes (besides payroll).
the two are not equal.
the poor person on fairtax has to get a 30% pay raise to stay equal to today's system (see post 113).
i know it is welfare - i'm not defending that aspect, i'm looking for honesty in the math.
i fully understand how tax inclusive/exclusive work. i've been a follower of fairtax in the past, and have studied it on and off for 2 years. what i've found is a lot of intellectual dishonesty and risky/misleading assumptions.
make it clear for the common-man (name one state that applies their sales tax the way fairtax proposes the feds do it) and stop promising the world and i'd consider jumping back on board.
yes, i think the current system needs overhauled (understatement) but i'm no longer 100% on board with the 'fair'tax doublespeak.
THat's not what revenue neutral means.
The money "added back" is money that will no longer be spent on non-productive activites (compliance; planning, litigation, and costs of choosing not to produce due to tax consequences. I don't know that it would be trillions though - certainly hundreds of billions.
That the nrst is revenue neutral means roughly is that the gov't will be able to do exactly what it is currently doing - some think of this as collecting the same overall amount... close enough for gov't work he he. It does not have a lick to do with where the money goes as you posit.
"I for one want to fix our Entitlement programs-- SocSec and Medicare, and cut income tax rates further to spur economic growth."
Amen to that! How's this for an idea...get rid of them. Make me sign a form that promises I'll never be a charge to the state and then simply return my Social Security and Medicare contributions (plus the employer's contributions) to me. That way, I don't have to live 137 years to break even on the deal.
IMO this is by a long shot the best alternative. And I'm a pretty regular guy and I see very well the reason to use two methods to express the rate.
Sign me up!
i don't have a huge problem with the inclusive/exlusive terminology either. where both are stated clearly in the argument that is fine w/me. those that do have a problem are the ones that get attacked here the most, so i choose not to. my problems w/fairtax are in other areas.
Heck, I'll even let them keep what they've already collected and promise to never ask for a nickel back, if I don't have to pay any more going forward.
In fact, I'll even pay 5% (instead of 15%+) going forward to help bailout the current mess and pay for the retirement plans of those who are within ten years of retirement.
"It would negatively impact almost everyone who has saved already-taxed monies..."
That is incorrect. The FairTax would cause a significant increase in the market price of US equities. To the extent that pre-taxed monies are invested in US equities, the appreciation in value would far outweigh the changes in the cost of consumption, even for those consuming far more than the poverty level.
And I say that you can't possibly prove that.
"Just because they had a focus group of Kool-Aid drinkers to come up with a neat marketing name doesn't make that name indicative of anything."
Another misleading SQL assertion. The focus groupS were held before there was a FairTax proposal. Therefore, if the randomly selected members were drinking any "Kool-aid", it wasn't FairTax Kool-aid. The "neat marketing name" was thus the result of a concerted effort to find out what the American people wanted in a tax system and BTW, what they wanted to call that tax system. Obviously, that approach is problematic for many SQLs who don't think the American people should have any sayso in the manner in which they are taxed.
"This tax is no more fair than the one we have now, esp. for those people who have played by the rules and organized their financial lives in such a way to be optimal with the present system."
Would "those people who have played by the rules and organized their financial lives in such a way to be optimal with the current system" include illegal immigrants? Certainly they are optimizing the current system! We certainly wouldn't want to eliminate the preference that they have, would we?
"large families have large expenses - medical, food, etc. and under the current system receive large breaks/incentives for such, not so under the fairtax."
So you believe that it is the federal government's responsibility to subsidize large families?
"That's a contradiction right there. If it's 'revenue neutral' then trillions of dollars will NOT be added back to the American economy. It will go where it goes before the fair tax."
In a sense you are correct, since the house rules require that the FairTax (and all other tax reform proposals) be scored statically, rather than dynamically. If the FairTax were to be scored dynamically, it would be revenue positive based on the significant economic expansion that would be created, including the repatriation of trillions of $$$ of capital stranded offshore by our current tax system.
If they came up with the name FairTax before there was even a proposal, how does that prove that it is "Fair"?
For most people, "fair" cannot be defined without injecting their own personal bias. If they come out ahead, it is "fair".
"We've been over this a hundred times and you still insist on the lie. It is exactly the same. You are not capturing one penny of the illegal economy. The drug dealer and prostitute are not submitting 23 percent of their gross sales to the government. They are evading just as much as they do today. When they buy things legally, taxes are paid. No different than today. But I know you will continue to make this false point."
Much of the underground economy today consists of illegal immigrants who do not pay Social Security, Medicare, or personal income taxes. Those people would pay at the register (just like the rest of us) but, unlike the rest of us, would not receive the rebate or PCA. That would mean that they would pay disproportionately more than their legal counterparts. This is a major advantage for the FairTax, which means that you will continue to ignore it.
BTW, a study released by Bear Stearns at the beginning of this year indicated that the illegal population may be twice as large as previously estimated (20M vs 10M).
"For most people, 'fair' cannot be defined without injecting their own personal bias. If they come out ahead, it is 'fair'."
We may have a thread of agreement here. "FairTax" is not the moniker that I would have chosen. I would have preferred something like "The Job Creation Tax" or "The Economic Stimulation Tax". However, unlike you, I do agree that polling the American people to find out what they wanted was extremely valuable. I am willing to live with a name for the proposal that is not according to my personal preference if that is what it takes to get rid of a tax system which is such a huge economic albatross around our necks, as well as an affront to our Constitutional liberties.
"The FairTax would cause a significant increase in the market price of US equities."
"And I say that you can't possibly prove that."
Not until the FairTax passes. Then it will be obvious for all to see. It is, in fact, my opinion, as well as the opinion of many economists and market analysts.
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.