Posted on 10/10/2006 8:59:26 AM PDT by cryptical
"It takes an act of Congress to change the GRR of 14.91%, but not the other rates. "
You also don't get to select out the word or phrase that you choose to interpret and present as the whole meaning of a statement. My statement about Congressional action to change the rate was in relation to the possible need to lower the rate due to having more than sufficient tax revenue to cover the reduced proportions of the entitlements plus the GRR. Congress would need to alter the GRR upward or they would have excess tax money scattered all over the Beltway with no place to put it.
Can't have that, can we?
The fact you choose to not agree doesn't bother me one bit since that's not the first time - remember???
"It takes an act of Congress to change the GRR of 14.91%, but not the other rates. "
Well, I am glad you understand that is correct. You are still confused about changes to the overall rate though. The overall 23% rate will change (either go up or go down) without Congress acting. The 14.91% rate is fixed by this bill, but the other factors change automatically based on government statistics. You have stated numerous times the 23% rate requires an act of Congress to change (either up or down, it does not matter to this discussion). Do you still think that?
I read you three posts several times, and they are still wrong. You are not a liar for being wrong. But you are a liar when you keep denying what you said.
"You have stated numerous times the 23% rate requires an act of Congress to change (either up or down, "
As I just pointed out to you - I've made no such statement so stop claiming that I have. What I stated was that Congress would have to act to change the GRR as the two entitlement proportions fall and more revenue is "left over" - otherwise the money would have no home.
Your pants are on fire!! (again).
Actually (as you'll eventually come to find out) I can keep at this sort of thing at least as long as you - and in fact I intend to, since I have not "lied" and your efforts to force me into one will not work.
No, but I would hope I could for once shame you into admitting the truth. You are a habitual liar.
In fact, it's amazing you're not called on all the personal attacks you do.
Because I back up what I say. I quote what you deny, then I show you saying exactly what you just denied. I am just calling a liar a liar. If you would stop lying, I would stop calling you one.
I documented in post 475 you making that claim on 4 times on this thread. Why do you keep denying it. Do you have too much pride to admit you were wrong? I really don't understand you.
And let's fact it you will never, ever stop calling as many FairTax supporters as possible "liars", etc. that's your stock in trade and everyone recognizes that - frequently done with coarse expressions to boot.
And I'm certainly not going to "admit" something I haven't done. If you can't understand what is said that's your problem, not mine.
Oh I see, you speak in some sort of a code language. When you say:
"And to change the FairTax rate it would, indeed, take congressional action."
It really doesn't mean you think it will take an act of Congress to change the rate. Or when you say:
"...the statutory rate for all three combined must be 23% (or whatever the rate ends up as in the bill) unless changed by Congress."
Ummm, that's a tough one. Perhaps some IRS agent got a hold of your password and is making these posts to make you look like you are saying this? You should probably tell administators about this and have it corrected. Otherwise you just look like a big fat liar who can't even tell the truth when confronted. At least Bill Clinton admitted it once caught. You just keep lying and lying and lying despite evidence in black and white. Truly sad.
"...you speak in some sort of a code language ...."
Yes ... it's a "code" called English. If you'd bother to learn it and practice it instead of doing your little our of contexts hits it would make you less like what you've become ... or to quote an acquaintance of mine, you're:
"... Truly sad ..."
Oh great master of the English language, would you please tell me what you meant by:
"And to change the FairTax rate it would, indeed, take congressional action."
and,
"...the statutory rate for all three combined must be 23% (or whatever the rate ends up as in the bill) unless changed by Congress."
Just how did all the BS you spewed about before making these statements, changed their meaning? Come on pigdog come clean, we know you can. Just say, "I made a mistake, I then lied about it, I am sorry". I won't hold it against you.
"...the statutory rate for all three combined must be 23% (or whatever the rate ends up as in the bill) unless changed by Congress."Another pigdog lie. The only "statutory rate" after the first year is the 14.91% general revenue rate.
`(1) FOR 2007- In the calendar year 2007, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.It's such a great plan you have to lie to cover up the lies about it.`(2) FOR YEARS AFTER 2007- For years after the calendar year 2007, the rate of tax is the combined Federal tax rate percentage (as defined in paragraph (3)) of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.
`(3) COMBINED FEDERAL TAX RATE PERCENTAGE- The combined Federal tax rate percentage is the sum of--
`(A) the general revenue rate (as defined in paragraph (4), and
`(B) the old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate, and
`(d) OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE RATE- The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be determined by the Social Security Administration. The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 12.4 percent tax on the Social Security wage base (including self-employment income) as determined in accordance with chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code most recently in effect prior to the enactment of this Act. The rate shall be determined using actuarially sound methodology and announced at least 6 months prior to the beginning of the Calendar year for which it applies.
`(C) the hospital insurance rate.
`(e) HOSPITAL INSURANCE RATE- The hospital insurance rate shall be determined by the Social Security Administration. The hospital insurance rate shall be that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 2.9 percent tax on the Medicare wage base (including self-employment income) as determined in accordance with chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code most recently in effect prior to the enactment of this Act. The rate shall be determined using actuarially sound methodology and announced at least 6 months prior to the beginning of the calendar year for which it applies.
`(4) GENERAL REVENUE RATE- The general revenue rate shall be 14.91 percent.
You know pigdog has been abusing you for that 'lie' for a long time. It is very hard for pigdog to have to admit he was wrong and you were right. He would rather keep lying about it. It seems now he realizes he was wrong, he just won't admit it even if we pull his fingernails off with pliers.
The SQL's as he likes to call THEM couldn't ask for a better cheerleader.
""Oh great master of the English language, would you please tell me what you meant by:And to change the FairTax rate it would, indeed, take congressional action."
and,
"...the statutory rate for all three combined must be 23% (or whatever the rate ends up as in the bill) unless changed by Congress.""
Sure, I'd be glad to help out someone who isn't too conversant with the subject ... but flattery really isn't necessary (in fact not even appreciated since I know you're not sincere).
You need to read the three posts in question #334,351, and 368. The discussion was not about whether the rates would change but the point I made (which no one has refuted) is that the change in the two entitlement proportional ratios would be to reduce them rather than increase them. Having those percentages reducing, the additional funds would necessitate a change in altering the GRR (since there would be an overage of funds requiring a GRR rate change or change in the 23% rate) which can only be done by Congress. There is no provision to automatically alter the GRR.
Your and Looey's continual stating that the rate can only go upward is incorrect and the changes you thereby project will not occur.
That's what those three posts say and that's the actual situation. Trying to project some sort of automatic increase routinely as you do is both incorrect and disingenuous. That's why I've disputed the interpretation you both make ... you're incorrectly assuming the wrong direction of change.
If you continue in your insistence that the direction of change can only be in a way unfavorable to the FairTax (and apparently you do) then you are offering up misinformation just as he is. And it matters not how many times you make such a foolish charge; it's still wrong. The continual insistence of both of you that I'm "lying" will have no effect since what I have said is not a lie at all, but quite true.
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.