Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Your Nightmare

Actually it looks like the economists figure for a takehome pay increase greater than 20% when only the employer's half of SS/Medicare tax is accounted for in price decreases.

Kotlikoff figures a real wage increases on the order of 19% in excess of the base income/payroll tax case.


83 posted on 02/10/2006 9:06:23 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]


To: ancient_geezer
Right. Average take home increase for wage earners = 20% ... but the range is pretty substantial: from about 4% (for high EITC recipients) to about 26% for high earners with the median centered at about 14%

Average take home increase for SSI, Pension and other transfer or annuity recipients = 0% ... with a range of 0; median of 0.

Average after-tax price increase = 23.5% ... with a range of 15% to 30%.

As always, your mileage will vary; you net gain/loss depends on who you are and what you buy.

Oh, and even Kotlikoff says that old-capital owners, and short-remining-life individuals get screwed.

86 posted on 02/11/2006 2:13:29 AM PST by Dimples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

To: ancient_geezer; Dimples
Kotlikoff figures a real wage increases on the order of 19% in excess of the base income/payroll tax case.
AFTER 100 YEARS! That's one of those details the AFT (and you) seem to forget to include. The first year, Kotlikoff shows a real wage decline. And these are the closed economy results (no foreign capital), the last I checked the U.S. was an open economy. The open economy results show real wages increasing 11% by 2100. The first year they decline 1% and after 16 years they are only 5 percent larger.

There is also this little tidbit from Kotlikoff's paper:
"In implementing the FairTax we also impose an 18 percent permanent cut in government purchases of goods and services starting in our 2004 base year."


So it looks like Kotlikoff agrees with Gale that the FairTax rate is too low to keep the same level of real government spending. It also looks like his base case was skewed by not cutting government spending to match the FairTax level. You know, apples to apples. (Who paid for this crap? Oh, right. The AFT.)


[BTW, he also show the FairTax rate as increasing to 29% inclusive by the end of the century. And that's with the decline in government spending.]
90 posted on 02/11/2006 5:45:05 AM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson