| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/18/2008 10:17:33 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 02/16/2008 3:30:21 PM PST by xcamel
One solution to the nation's long-term fiscal problems that has gained support in recent years is the idea of replacing all federal taxes with a 23 percent national retail sales tax called the FairTax. Unfortunately, the administrative problems inherent in this proposal make it impossible to take seriously, says Bruce Bartlett, former deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the U.S. Treasury Department.
For example, under a FairTax scheme: A worker now netting $800 per week would immediately get a $200 raise and start taking home the full $1,000 gross wage that he is paid; instead of paying income and payroll taxes, workers would pay their taxes when they buy things.
The FairTax would impose a 23 percent tax on all goods and services (this is not really correct, but for now we'll accept it at face value for analytical purposes).
Whether he is better off or not depends on what his effective tax rate is: Assuming he spends all his income and no more than that, he will be no worse off if he now pays 23 percent of his income in taxes. That is, his effective tax rate is 23 percent; in this case, the FairTax is a wash, the worker is no better off or worse off in terms of taxes than he is now.
But what if the worker is now paying less than 23 percent of his income in federal taxes? In this case, he is clearly worse off, says Bartlett: The prices of the things he buys will rise by more than his income rises from the elimination of income and payroll taxes. Conversely, if one is wealthy and in a tax bracket above 23 percent, that person would be much better off. His income and payroll taxes would fall by much more than the prices of goods and services he consumes would rise.
Source: Bruce Bartlett, "Why the FairTax Won't Work," Tax Notes, December 24, 2007.
For text:
When they imply it is a 23% sales tax, that is extremely misleading to the common understanding of what a sales tax is.
I’ve seen the math both ways but does it matter? I have not ever heard anyone stand up and say what a wonderful program the IRS, is.
Just 200 more to go....
For every dollar you have in retirement savings, the IRS takes 0%. FT will be great for parasites looking forward to the monthly FT entitlement check and it will punish people who have saved their whole lives.
Won’t you have to report your retirement savings as income, when you start using it?
Math is whatever makes you feel good, Antonello.
Why would it go away? If I sell something, I’d keep the money. Or, will that be legislated, as in price controls or windfall taxes?
No taxes are “tacked on” - taxes are embedded in the price - ie: a $100 item under the FT is really $77, plus the tax. Which is really something like 28.97%
No. Where did you get that?
And perhaps once the fairtaxers get to the point where they honestly sell their program, they might go a lot further with their arguments. But they lie about the embedded taxes are and they mislead about their rate and they create phony tax revenues by having governments pay themselves taxes. It is not about doing math a certain way, it is a matter of correct and incorrect, and their math is far from correct.
Of course the leeches and parasites of society love the present system, which hides, supports and panders to them.
If everyone, including welfare and "disabled" types, pays the same percentage, no matter how small or how large, it is hard to argue that it is unfair, except for the extremely hard core socialist types.
If it's not voluntary, it's not charity; it's robbery or extortion.
Prices might fall, over time. Markets don’t work immediately nor all at the same pace. Some companies might find there’s more demand for their product than they thought, and just keep the money. Say, for example, oil companies or drug companies. Also, companies with patented products would keep the money, thank you very much.
Well unless we are talking about just a regular savings account or stuffing your mattress...isn’t that the purpose of 401Ks?. You don’t have to pay taxes until you retire. Your income should be lower , requiring you to pay less taxes and the government still gets tax money from old folk after they quit working.
Funny math. Corporate taxes are under $400 billion, which amount to only about 3% embedded tax. To state that corporate tax somehow adds up to 23% embedded tax is outright lying.
If haven’t read this book then you can’t really say much about the fair tax.
http://www.amazon.com/FairTax-Book-Neal-Boortz/dp/0060875410
Get informed before you say no!
I’m assuming you’ve read both of Boortz’ books and that neither of them addressed your concerns adequately.
Do you have any alternative proposals?
Or do you actually prefer the current system and IRS?
So would you rather pay 23% in hidden taxes (as you are today)or 23% in embedded taxes (as you will with the FT)? Either way the people who have already paid taxes are still paying the same amount for an item. The only difference is how many and what you choose to buy in order to fund the federal government.
Don’t they call those groups Circle Jerks?
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.