Posted on 07/19/2006 7:26:18 AM PDT by Arcy
The FairTax was on the primary ballots in three Georgia counties yesterday. I have the results of the voting! Here you go.
Gwinnett County:
Total Votes: 35,755 Yes - 31,068. 86.9% No - 4,687 13.1%
Cobb County:
Total votes: 39,458 Yes - 33,598. 85.15% No - 5,860. 14.85%
Fayette County:
Total votes: 11,517 Yes - 9,828. 85.33% No - 1,689. 14.67%
According to Boortz the results of this vote will be personally handed to President Bush today via a Washington insider. The purpose of which is to convey the FACT that there is great support for this solution to current tax system and that this is a plan that can get the voters to the polls. Many of which called and e-mailed Boortz to say that they had no plans of voting yesterday until they learned that the Fair Tax was on the ballot.
.
(Excerpt) Read more at boortz.com ...
Easy. Send it out first.
Since you know that folks will spend up to the poverty level, you can provide them the tax on those necessities so that they don't have to come "out of pocket" for them.
Of course I'm sure that if the rebate were sent after spending, you'd complain that is was cruel to make people wait for the rebate.
You're so predictable.
A tax refund is a tax refund. That's why it's called a tax refund. Some people, though, call it a tax refund while others call it a tax refund.Though the official title is "Family Consumption Allowance" ...Not "tax refund"
Read the bill-fool.
M:By the entitlement payments?
No, by expanding the tax base. If under the nrst tax is collected from people who currently do not pay taxes, then all of us who currently pay can pay less.
All of them will. Just look at the link! It'll make you embarrassed yo continue along this line!
Whatever you call it, it's still a prebate.
Shhhh!!! Don't wake him up!
But lewis, everyone pays taxes under the nrst.
Look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics link above.
With that information in hand you can finally read the bill and help us pass the FairTax.
If you don't tell us, we'll just have to guess and you wouldn't want that, now, would you??? C'mon ...
SHOW US THE MONEY!!!
Though the official title is "Family Consumption Allowance" ...Not "tax refund"
Read the bill-fool.
Indeed, "read the bill-fool" !!!
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
`SEC. 301. FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE.
|
That's just more of his selective reading/interpretation of things - does it all the time.
A common failing among some denizens of the back waters of the internet.
1) government won't need more income than now in order to maintain purchasing power and
2) there will be no reduction in the revenue base due to the addition of a large sales tax.
Both are incorrect, and to determine the real FairTax rate, you need to multiply the rosy 23% times (100% plus percent additional revenue needed to pay FairTax on its goods and services, including salaries and benefits) and then divide by (100% - amount of evasion and reduced consumption which will be caused by the FairTax).
Using 15% additional revenue needed, and 15% evasion/base reduction, the 23% times 1.15 divided by 0.85 gives you 31.1% inclusive which is 45+% exclusive, which will make the government revenue needed go higher, and the evasion go higher and after iterating a few times with the higher and higher tax rates, you'll be over 50%.
Well before this point, the purchasing power for most people will no longer be positive.
That's why it is important to get a straight caclulation of the FairTax rate before there is any value in caclulating purchasing power.
And, since I'm being quoted in this thread, I said 8-10% maximum cost reductions due to removal of the employer half of FICA and minimal compliance cost reductions...And I've since lowered that to 8%.
No, you're wrong. THe "pre-bate" as you call it is a pre-imbursement of taxes to be paid in the following month on necessities.
Unlike the income tax where so many simply underreport earnings to end up with negative tax rates, the nrst reduces the number of individuals with negative tax rates because regardless of income reported, people spend up to the poverty level.
You can see in the BLS data that no matter what someone reports as earnings, they spend up to (or beyond) the poverty level.
Just look at two lines: Income before taxes and Annual expenditures.
See?
You are being intentionally dumb.
1). If I earn $100 and pay $23 of it in tax, what is the tax rate?
2). If I keep $77 after paying $23 in taxes, what is the tax rate?
Sheesh!
But mojave, taxes are always paid on necessity level spending.
This link from Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that regardless of reported earnings, people spend up to the poverty level.
It could be they spend savings, or spend gift money, or spend charity given to them - but they spend.
Go ahead and look at Income before taxes and Annual Expnditures. It shows that even someone who reports 8k in earnings actually spends 16k.
Look. I dare you.
"A rose by any other name...."
w-e-l-f-a-r-e.
Show us all how smart (or something else) you are by pointing out which people in the data will end up with a negative rate!
If you can find anyone (and I'm not sure you could even if you knew how), the number of people would be drastically less than the number of people who end up with negative rates today.
Go ahead! We're waiting. Really. I swear.
Only YOU with all your omniscience know that the rate must be "over 50%". Clearly you've got a screw loose.
But now that you mention it, let's look at you own purchasing power under the income tax and under the FairTax. Let's even say you're the hotshot you think you are and have an income of $184.500 placing you in the top quintile.
This means that under the income tax a $100 slice of your earnings would be able to buy $75.50 worth of stuff - and that's even ignoring the 8-10% embedded taxes which the FairTax supporters believe is too low. $75.50 ... got that???
Under the FairTax, assuming you're (M0K - or married no kids) your purchasing power worst case - with the same $100 and assuming that all you earn would be spent (which understates your purchasing power since it overstates your effective tax rate) for taxable things - would be $86.35 (more than a 14% increase in purchasing power). $86.35 ... got that???
So worst case you'd have much more purchasing power and that's without even thinking about the hidden tax that swallowed up some of your $75.50 under the present tax system and that is way overstating the amount you would spend for taxable things under the FairTax since things such as existing loans, donations to churches or charities, purchases of used hings, savings or investments squirreled away, state and local taxes, education expenses, etc. would work to reduce your effective tax rate
Oh, and yes - also that's using your (even further lowered) 8% number as savings on prices when the FairTax becomes law even though it is clearly too low. Even considering ALL of those things unfavorable to the FairTax purchasing power, there's still a sizable boost in purchasing power. In fact, if real numbers were used to take the items I mentioned into account you'd easily be well over 15% or more better off under the FairTax.
You don't get to alter the provisions of the bill merely because you like to see it be forced to have a higher rate. Many others with better economic credentials that you have tried that and they've failed also as have you. The rate as stated is 23% and it's revenue neutral.
Well, really it's NOT intentional ... it just is!!!
This link from Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that regardless of reported earnings, people spend up to the poverty level.Let me ask you a straight forward question. Do you believe there are people in America that spend below the poverty level of income?
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.