Posted on 05/28/2004 12:27:11 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
LOL, your */~rdavis whoever he is, constructs a strawman, and does a lousy job of analysis.
rdavis is a fellow Freeper named Remember (AFAIK). You can take up his analysis with him. He seems to have done a good job to me.
Good then he will be able to explain his methodology used to isolate the effects of changing marginal rates on avoidance behavior that causes the laffer curve to turn down as the maximum tax rates approach 100% and how tax avoidance behavior decreases as the marginal rates decrease providing higher revenues as marginal rates decline toward providing a nominal peak of revenue.
For the Laffer curve is a composite of two effects arising from limiting conditions on a taxed population, tax rates interacting with tax avoidence, limiting revenue extraction. The more you tax a thing the less it will be indulged in by those who are taxed.
High marginal tax rates hitting the most prolific earners increases their propensity to avoid the or shelter from the tax, set rates high enough taxpayers cease to produce or depart for a more tax friendly environments.
"Didn't the admins tell you to stop accusing people of multiple accounts just yesterday?"
Nope.
"Instead of making up crap about multiple accounts, why don't you use your head and answer my question?"
Because you have no interest in objectively evaluating the proposal, you are only interested in playing "gotcha". I have neither the time nor the interest. Perhaps other posters will play your silly little games.
"Nevertheless you are omitting the elimination of billions of dollars of compliance costs in your 'zero-sum'."
He is also ignoring the fact that illegal immigrants will be paying taxes at a rate that is disproportionate to the rest of us, as will foreign visitors.
"Congress folks derive their power from special favors they can grant through the complex tax code; and it is also in their best interest to hide the taxes in as many shadows they can create."
You forget one thing and that is that the ultiamte source of power for elected officials is the ballot box. When their exalted positions are threatened by obstructing such a well crafted proposal, they will come around.
Here in Ga, we have both senators and 8 of 13 House members (all Republicans)on the bill. By th end of the year, we will have at least 1 or 2 Democratic House members.
"I believe the sales tax proponents will offer bills in congress to fund certain government programs such as Medicare and prescription drugs. They will suggest a tax rate of 2 or 3 percent and say that this won't be a burden as they will suggest tax credits for the "poor" to offset such additional taxes. Now can one see the problems?"
I can certainly see the problem with your prediction. You have stated that economists cannot predict the economic impact of policy changes with a level of accuracy that satisfies you. You, on the other hand, can predict that tax reform advocates will change their proposals in ways that are contradictory to the principles that they are fighting so hard for.
Why don't you stick to bashing the proposal that has been made, rather than setting up straw man arguments?
Did they factor in this tax credit for goods in inventory when the NRST goes into effect?
Revenue neutrality is a comparison of the capacity of the tax law being replaced to generate revenue under normal conditions (i.e. non transition), against the capacity to generate revenue under the new law under the same conditions and nothing more than that. It is a theoretical measure adopted as a check of capacity not an absolute measure or crystal ball of the future.
The conditions for "Revenue neutrality" are established by CBO methodology which specify equilibrium conditions (i.e. after transition). CBO tasked with the determination of "revenue neutrality" under the Budget Enforcement Act ,transition rules or credits associated with such do not impact the "revenue neutral" rate of the NRST or any other revenue bill.
At 23% the NRST meets the BEA "revenue neutral" requirement as measured by CBO and that is all that is necessary to allow a revenue bill onto the floor of Congress for a vote.
Frankly the "revenue neutrality" condition can be waived (that's how we get tax cuts) under
PAYGO RULES: CRS Rules 98-20006
Refer 2 USC 900-909
House Point of order waivable by unanimous consent
Senate Point of order waivable by 3/5ths vote.
May be waived under Sequestration Rules on declaration of War or
conditions of <1% real economic growth for 2qtrs.
So we could even see an NRST rate below 23% if Congress is so inclined even with liberal opposition, while WOT/IRAQ provisions are still in force, and ignore the "revenue neutrality" conditions.
If you want a higher tax rate, go find a democrat, they say they will be happy to accomodate you.
What, you're income is so low that you qualify for the EIC? Congratulations, you just admitted that you prefer to use the government as an instrument of plunder. Well, it's me and many others like me that you're stealing from, thief. What a fine conservative individual you are.
The fact that you phrased your question thusly tells a grat deal about your philosophy of government. It doesn't 'cost' anybody anything, unless you are thinking in the paradigm of government programs.
I question your conservatism. Last time I checked, conservatives were in favor of reduced government. You're a troll and you probably don't even know it. I'll add you to the list of phony big government apologists who infest this site.
Who's serving the Kool-aid?
You got it right! The o-n-l-y tax proposal that meets all the tests of Simplicity, Openess, Effectiveness and Fairness is the FairTax Act (House = H.R. 25 and Senate = S.1493). Check out the websites shown below.....
Forget VAT and FLAT... both fail the test of openess and fairness. Both would be as bad as the Income Tax System of today, or worse.
Here ya' go... read, believe and be thankful!
[1] A QUICK LOOK! [2] INFO! [3] FAQs! [4] PETITION!
FairTax! = FAIRNESS & FREEDOM for America!
Cliff Cofer - WW-II Vet
I wrote the following email to Bruce Bartlett regarding his commentary on consumption taxes:
Dear Mr. Bartlett,
Regarding your commentary "More Bad Tax Ideas", there are a few points I disagree with. While I 100% agree with you regarding gasoline taxes, I do not agree on payroll taxes. In Fleming v. Nestor (1960), The Supreme Court ruled that there is no Constitutional right to Social Security benefits. Social Security benefits can legally be cut or eliminated at any time, and beneficiaries have no recourse. The Court held that, "To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustments to ever changing conditions which it demands."
To read the complete court ruling, go here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=363&invol=603
My take: The SCOTUS ruling stated that the Social Security System is in fact a welfare system. And if we were to implement a consumption tax to replace the Payroll Tax, what would prevent us from indexing benefits to income the same way we do now? What's more, most Americans, especially low-income americans, have no idea that employers pay an attitional 7.65% in payroll taxes that doesn't even show up on their check. And as you, I, and most economist concede, the employer share comes out of the employees check.
But I am totally on the same page with you regarding replacing the income tax with a consumption tax. But, why don't we replace both with a consumption tax, as called for in HR 25 and S 1493, also known as the FairTax Act. I have read some of your commentaries regarding the unfeasability of encorcing such a large sales tax. However, such enforcement problems may not be as bad as you think. After all, those enforcement problems arose in areas where there were other taxes already in place. Under the FairTax, a large sales tax would be the only tax. Furthermore, more than 90% of retail sales are through large businesses, where evasion wouldn't be an issue. The issue would only be with small retailers, who "do their own books". But, this would no be more than 10%, wher eevasion under the income tax system may be as high as 25%. More can be lerned at http://www.fairtax.org.
I enjoy reading your insughtful commentary at National Review and Townhall, and I believe the endorsement by a man of your stature would help bring the debate over fundamental tax reform back into the public and bolster the National Retail Sales Tax (NRST) "Movement". Over 50 congressmen have "signed on" and recently Tom DeLay came on board, which was a big win.
Sincerely,
No it doesn't. I will be at least $140 billion short because of this credit.
What Congress does with appropriations and the budget side is entirely a separate issue for an appropriations bill, ability to collect a tax is what counts against the rate under the BEA/CBO methodology.
The ability of the NRST (a revenue bill) to raise revenue, given constant (equilibrium) conditions in comparison to the tax law it replaces(which is a equilibrium), is the essential criteria set by CBO under the BEA. That is the essential criteria the NRST and any revenue bill must meet, given conditions for a waiver for setting a lower rate(i.e. tax cut) cannot be achieved.
PAYGO RULES: CRS Rules 98-20006
Refer 2 USC 900-909
House Point of order waivable by unanimous consent
Senate Point of order waivable by 3/5ths vote.
May be waived under Sequestration Rules on declaration of War or
conditions of <1% real economic growth for 2qtrs.
Justify your claim that the NRST is crap.
That would be dramatic if it wasn't pure bullshit.
Where does it say "consumption spending" is exempt?...More bullshit.
First of all, the idea of a National Sales tax has been around for quite some time. However, they were never implemented becasue they were regressive: if you only pay taxes on items consumed, the poor pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes because they save less. Well, the FairTax gets rid of that hang-upy instuting the Family Consumption Allowance (FCA), which pays every american a rebate to pay enough taxes to consume up to the poverty line.
There are multiple reasons why other consumption taxes have not caught on. the #1 reason is because of those who benefit from the current system: "old money". Under the current system, the burden of taxation is spread throughout investment, labor, and consumption, with consumption being barely taxed. As a result, anybody with a net worth over $30M can essentially make a million dollars a year without paying taxes (live off of the interest on tax-free bonds). Their money works for them, as it has for generations. They have no need to invest, no need to work, but only to consume. The upwardly mobile, however, must do all three. They must work hard, save and invest massive amounts of money, and keep consumption to a minimum to get ahead.
Why do you think it is that billionares and "hundred millionares" are Democrats but the upper middle class and early millionares are republicans???
Under a NRST, the upwardly mobile will be able to succeed easier. Every American will find it much easier to improve their lot in life. The losers in the NRST: Old money.
Theresa Heinz made $5M last year and only paid 15% in taxes. Why? She's "old" money.
America's uber-ruch will no longer be able to freely spend vast fortunes without consequence. If they consume, yet do not work and do not invest, they will see their fortuned slowly evaporate.
That, my fried, is the story of why rich democrats love high taxes: they don't pay them! The "New Rich", whom the bloe-bloods detest, pay all the taxes.
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.