Replies

If you'd like to put some numbers on that, in 2003, States and Localities spent $1,323 Billion on Consumption, Compensation New Structures and Equipment. Of that total, Compensation was $795 Billion. Of Compensation spending, $37 Billion was the ER portion of payroll tax.

After adjustments, $914 Billion would be taxable under the FairTax. Of that, $501 Billion would be taxable Compensation.

Total FairTax due on that spending at 19.3% (inclusive) is $214 Billion of which $79 Billion could be paid by cost reductions (repealed FICA tax, pre-tax cost reductions) for a net Deficit of $135 Billion. Of the total FairTax due, $119 Billion is due to Taxable Compensation alone (as compared to the $37 Billion paid today as ER payroll tax.)

If States and localities reduce spending to balance the budget, the Federal government doesn't collect enough FairTax to be revenue neutral.

Otherwise State and Localities will have to raise their taxes by 10% to 12% to make up the difference.

Of the total FairTax due, $119 Billion is due to Taxable Compensation alone (as compared to the $37 Billion paid today as ER payroll tax.)
That's a 320% increase. BTW, I'm not so sure employers would get to retain the employer paid half of FICA. That would be a battle to be fought and I think employers would lose that one. The bill calls for adjustments in the sales tax rate to equal 15.3% of wages and self-employment income. Without the employer half, the wage earner would only be getting his 7.65% but paying the hidden 15.3%...that's another (hidden) tax increase.

If States and localities reduce spending to balance the budget, the Federal government doesn't collect enough FairTax to be revenue neutral.
Otherwise State and Localities will have to raise their taxes by 10% to 12% to make up the difference.

Either way you look at it the Fairtax is a state AND local tax increase.

Total FairTax due on that spending at 19.3% (inclusive) is $214 Billion of which $79 Billion could be paid by cost reductions (repealed FICA tax, pre-tax cost reductions) for a net Deficit of $135 Billion.

According to the AFT's own "revenue neutral" calculation for 2003, states would pay $271 billion in FairTax.

 $ 1,058.5  state and local government consumption
  +  213.4  gross purchases of new structures, state/local
  +   51.5  gross purchases of equipment
  -  414.7  government education expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------
   $ 908.7 billion
    x 29.87%
------------------------------------------------------------
    $271.4 billion in FairTax

Of course, in typical AFT fashion, there is an error - and it just happens to be in their favor [gasp]. They subtract all of government education spending when only the wages of "employees directly providing education and training" wouldn't be taxable. Everything else would be (e.g., books, supplies, administration, etc.).

The Statistical Abstract of the U.S. shows teachers' salaries for 2003 were ~$140 billion. Make this adjustment and the state and local governments would be paying $353.7 billion in FairTax. Which is right in line with what this paper that studied the consequences for the states of the FairTax concluded.

You've amply and repeatedly demonstrated that you're no economist Dimp-Dimp, so why do you keep on putting out these analysies of vast situations using half-vast numbers.

Most readers have seen enough of your Chicken Little nonsense to realize that your "stuff" is biased, convoluted, and intentionally intended to attempt to distort and discredit anything FairTax. Your pattern is to make gross malasssumptions of things that are not true and then claim they are and to "overlook" things favorable to the FairTax and try to claim any such benefit is minimal - not matter what it might be.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about - and don't present it in an unbiased manner in any event. Biased data presented in a biased manner is your speciality it seems.