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

Skip to comments.

A Battlefield for Tax Reform - Vanity
vanity | 9/17/06 | Principled

Posted on 09/17/2006 8:03:05 AM PDT by Principled

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 341-348 next last
To: groanup

Sorry Groanup - I pinged you but forgot to tell you I was asking you about the pre-tax savings vs post tax savings figure. IIRC you are in that arena professionally?


161 posted on 09/20/2006 4:05:46 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Principled
I don't have the link to back it up but in my experience, managing money for folks, the vast majority of retirement savings is in pre-tax accounts such as 401(k), 403(b), SEP, IRA etc. MOST people you and I know that have a regular job have almost all of their savings in a 401(k).

The nitpickers say that the retirees that have all of their savings in after tax money will be hurt. In a stretch that COULD be right for the wealthier ones. If so, it should be easy to do some Peter/Paul type of thing with the legislation since the pre-taxers will receive such a HUGE bump in their buying power.

162 posted on 09/20/2006 4:51:32 PM PDT by groanup (fairtax.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: groanup
I've looked at quite a few scenarios (and I suspect Principled has too) with both taxed and untaxed savings and I honestly think the magnitude of this supposed effect is greatly overstated by the opponents (of course).

If you'd do some rational examples using reasonable numbers for the tax free part of spending under the FairTax to get to the likely effective tax rate, I believe you'd find things much less alarming.

163 posted on 09/20/2006 5:29:41 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Principled
Nowhere in there lucy will you find a negative tax rate. Why's that?

I can't answer that question because I don't have enough information.

164 posted on 09/20/2006 10:43:16 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
But Lucy, you said that the rebate is an entitlement. How could you say that if you now say that you don't have enough information to determine whether the rebate results in anything other than refund of taxes paid?

You're backtracking severely? Why's that?

It's because you know the rebate is a refund. Your assertion that the rebate is an "entitlement" is empty scare.

What's your real reason to object to the nrst?

165 posted on 09/21/2006 3:28:12 AM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Principled
But Lucy, you said that the rebate is an entitlement. How could you say that if you now say that you don't have enough information to determine whether the rebate results in anything other than refund of taxes paid?

If someone receives regular gifts of food, clothing, and housing from a charity, who pays the tax? If a church gifts a destitute member with a used car, who pays the tax? If the rental value of a home one owns is counted as an expenditure, who pays the tax?

An in kind gift may be counted as an expenditure when measuring certain economic activity though no money has changed hands, and I assume, no tax would be paid even under the FairTax.

What is interesting, is that FairTaxers make the claim that even the impoverished "spend" up to the poverty level when justifying the prebate, and present tax free purchasing opportunities (legal evasion) when promising the tax "will be good for you too".

What's your real reason to object to the nrst?

Economists can therorize what the effects of the FairTax will be, but without actual experience, nobody knows.

For instance, experience in other countries has shown the sales taxes over 12% are difficult to collect, a fact poo pooded by the FairTaxers.

166 posted on 09/21/2006 8:07:56 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
So please present a link to the definitive study or studies that show this magical "12% cutoff" ... oh, and be sure to indicate the specifics of the "sales tax" involved since most are replete with exemptions and exceptions rather than being like the FairTax.

You apparently do not know the origin of this particular urban legend, but since you choose to promulgate it, let's see your background material.

167 posted on 09/21/2006 9:10:09 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
And, presumably then, it's quite all right for you to theorize just the opposite since YOU are also one of those with no practical experience who knows nada also.

Since you oppose the FairTax with every peculiar reason you can dredge up, your position seems to be that your opinions hold more credence than, say, an economist who has studied things of this sort for his life's work???

Interesting!!!

168 posted on 09/21/2006 9:24:41 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
"An in kind gift may be counted as an expenditure when measuring certain economic activity though no money has changed hands, and I assume, no tax would be paid even under the FairTax."

Had you actually read the bill, you'd have known the answer to this "assumption".

169 posted on 09/21/2006 9:26:32 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
Sorry Lucy. No sale.

You said you rejected the rebate because it represents an entitlement. But there will be fewer negative rates under the nrst than the income tax as evidenced by the BLS data link above.

So your reasoning is faulty. If you really were concerned about minimizing negative tax rates, you would be in favor of the nrst because it reduces negative tax rates to a negligible number. See the BLS data above.

So why do you pretend to want to minimize negative tax rates?

170 posted on 09/21/2006 9:27:24 AM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: pigdog

I've already posted it.


171 posted on 09/21/2006 9:45:11 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
Since you oppose the FairTax with every peculiar reason you can dredge up, your position seems to be that your opinions hold more credence than, say, an economist who has studied things of this sort for his life's work???

All economists do not agree.

172 posted on 09/21/2006 9:51:43 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Principled

I don't understand your argument. Perhaps you would restate it with examples.


173 posted on 09/21/2006 9:56:03 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom

I must have missed it since I've not noticed it on this thread. Please post a link to the information I requested.


174 posted on 09/21/2006 9:56:44 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom

LOL!


175 posted on 09/21/2006 9:59:52 AM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
No one claimed that they did agree so your post stating that they do not makes little sense. The discussion was about your pretense to have a better informed opinion than economists who make their living considering these sorts of things.

You have not, after all, presented any economists showing (using the actual specifics of the bill itself) that the FairTax will be deleterious to the country in some fashion.

176 posted on 09/21/2006 10:14:31 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
I don't understand your argument. Perhaps you would restate it with examples.

BLS data.

There's an example. Enjoy.

177 posted on 09/21/2006 12:39:45 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
I can't answer that question because I don't have enough information.

The information you need is in the BLS table and the rebate table for the nrst. The information isn't the problem. It's all there.

The reason you don't answer is because your reasoning has betrayed your true position IMO.

If you were opposed to people getting negative tax rates, you'd favor the nrst because it has fewer. But you don't favor the nrst.

So then you were not truthful when you said you thought the rebate was an entitlement and that's the reason you object to the nrst.

Can't have it both ways. Which is it?

178 posted on 09/21/2006 5:29:22 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Principled
If you were opposed to people getting negative tax rates, you'd favor the nrst because it has fewer. But you don't favor the nrst.

Oh jeez Louise! Now your claiming that the FairTax catches more poor people in its net than the income tax? Unbelievable!

179 posted on 09/21/2006 8:12:12 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
You have not, after all, presented any economists showing...

That seems to be a matter of opinion.

You might want to read A National Retail Sales Tax: Consequences for the States

(The authors ask not to be quoted or cited without permission)

180 posted on 09/21/2006 8:16:19 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 341-348 next last

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.

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