Posted on 05/12/2005 7:46:54 PM PDT by Your Nightmare
Members of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform on May 11 expressed concerns over the FairTax national retail sales tax, a plan that has emerged as an alternative with a major grass-roots push.
Panel chair Connie Mack, vice chair John B. Breaux, and other members worried the plan would be difficult to enforce, would be regressive, and would require a high rate in order to take in enough money to fund the government.
Breaux raised concerns that the proposed 23 percent (tax-inclusive) rate would not be sufficient to raise the revenue necessary to fund the government. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would take as much as a 57 percent (tax-exclusive) rate to be revenue-neutral. Further, Breaux said he thought exemptions that would be carved out to make the sales tax progressive would also complicate it.
Mack, who raised concerns similar to his fellow panelists', said he was "intrigued" by the plan. "But if it's such a great idea, why haven't other political entities around the world pursued it?" he asked.
Americans for Fair Taxation Executive Director Tom Wright emphasized that the plan emerged after "thorough academic research" and "thorough polling" The strong grass-roots push has resulted in some of the group's 600,000 members appearing at each of the panel's hearings and has inspired a large comment-writing campaign to the panel in support of the plan.
Sales tax advocates were among the 20 witnesses who gathered before the panel for a full day of testimony on tax reform proposals. Although the group has held several other hearings in Washington and around the country, the May 11 meeting was its first hearing on specific reform plans since Bush appointed the panel in January. The panel has been charged with identifying tax reform proposals that are progressive, encourage charitable giving and home purchases, and are revenue-neutral. The proposals are due by July 31.
Among the tax replacement and reform plans presented to the panel were the value added tax, consumption-based tax, and the flat tax, as well as proposals that would use the current income tax as the foundation.
Witnesses generally claimed that theirs was the fairest, simplest, most flexible, most transparent revenue-neutral proposal that would improve economic growth and savings while meeting the president's criteria of encouraging charitable giving and home buying. Witnesses presenting consumption-based plans praised their overhaul as taking millions of low-income taxpayers off the rolls, being easy to transition to on a worldwide basis, and including safeguards to prevent new loopholes that would result in increased complexity down the road.
Tax reform panel members, who agree the current tax system needs to be fixed, grilled witnesses without revealing whether they will ultimately endorse a consumption- or income-based tax or a different mixture of the two.
"DugwayDuke, you remind me of a beaten dog who expects to be beaten everytime someone approachs him."
It's been said that the first to resort to name calling loses the argument.
As regards the income tax it is a deduction from total income whereas a sales tax is an ADDITION to the price.
A sales tax can be either, there are many cases of sales taxes collected on the basis of tax included pricing.
Vending machine sales are most common example of such, as well as the fact that many states allow tax included pricing as an election of the business.
Anothre good example being, the resteraunt down the hiway from me uses tax inclusive pricing on it meals and products sold there. All that is required is for the business to anounce the fact that all prices include the tax.
They are completely different and this method ignores that difference.
The method of calculating the amount of tax has nothing to do with the difference between income taxes and sales taxes. A sales tax is often on the basis of the total value paid for an item, such as an item purchased from a vending machine for one. You may never see a receipt for it, but many locales and states charge collect that sales tax from the vending maching owner regardless, and then have the gall to tax him again on his profits from that same sale as an income tax.
It's been said that the first to resort to name calling loses the argument.
You misunderstand, I am not calling you a dog, I am saying you have been abused by government to the point where you expect only the worst from government.
It's really easy. If your exclusive tax rate is 4%, you could have kept $100 after earning $104 - the other $4 going to tax. Your exclusive rate would then be 4/100 or 4%. If you want the inclusive rate, simply divide by the total including the tax, or 4/104 = 3.85%----
By expressing the tax rate as a ratio of tax paid to dollars remaining.
You couldn't be more wrong.
I pay 38% (inclusive) on 10% of my gross....I have 96% "remaining".
Using your own idiocy that's 4% tax exclusive.
Several wonderful, wonderful points all rolled up into one post.
EXCELLENT!
I think there are far fewer risks economically than you apparently. In adition as pointed out by #1337 the REAL risk is continuing speeding down the dead-end alley where we now are.
Think about what p_w displays so clearly in that post. It is clear that the Tax Panel is going to recommend something to change the present system and I think those changes are likely to be far more that just tax code tinkering again.
You have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Of course, you never have.
Risk can be defined in a lot of ways. You can risk your money on a stupid investment, you can risk your financial well being by not buying insurance, you can risk your money by doing something stupid and get sued. You can also take a big risk by not doing anything. Huh?
I have retired clients that just barely have enough money to live on if they last until age 80 and not enough to live on if they last until age 85. Can they do nothing? Hell no. They have to take a little "risk" (read NRST) with their money to make it grow or they will be old and infirm and become wards of the state. If they don't take that "risk" they are sure to become poor. If they do take that risk they have a good chance of having their money last their lifetime.
Which is where we are right now. The risk of doing nothing is dire. The risk of acting to upend the entire taxation system is much lower.
Agreed!!!
You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
That's because you don't know from what income taxes are calculated...you think you do, but you don't.
20/80 or 25%I'll play your silly game...25% of what?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of the total excluding tax, retard!
Wait! Retard? You better look in a mirror. Are you sure it excludes the tax? Is your state sales tax rate excluding the tax?
Use the same formula 23/77 for your exclusive sales tax rate... Does it exclude the tax or the price of the product? 23/77 = .2987 or the tax minus the price of the product.
Conversely your 20/80 doesn't exclude the tax, it excludes the income already taxed...
Your answer of 25% is less than worthless because there is no tax ON what you have remaining.
Give it up louie. You aren't even part of the debate anymore. Your math hasn't been invented yet and, when it is, they'll kill it before it multiplies.
Give it up louie. You aren't even part of the debate anymore
Then stop responding with your idiocy.
ll, RIP.
I have a question for you louie, how do calculate a tip? Do you do it "inclusive" or "exclusive"? Do you calculate "of" or "on" your dinner tab? Do you think the waiter gives a s...?
You'd better get back on your medications before you do irreversible damage to yourself.
(maybe you already have?)
I have a question for you louie, how do calculate a tip? Do you do it "inclusive" or "exclusive"? Do you calculate "of" or "on" your dinner tab? Do you think the waiter gives a s...?
I wouldn't expect anyone not willing to put their clients best interest first by putting the last dollars of their clients retirement at risk to understand the difference.
Do you make a percentage of or a percentage on your roll of the dice, Vegas style retirement plan for the elderly?
It's just an example of more of your idiocy.
What? 14? Maybe 15.
Looey is the epitome of the word "dunderhead" and he wants to make sure everyone realizes it ... matter of pride with him it seems.
Well, louie, if you must get personal, (did you read the little ditty about no personal attacks?) I put my clients on a pedestal. Too bad you can't say that about your progeny. If you have your way they will continue into the K Street morass of more taxes and more regulations and a grim, grim future.
Wait, do you own or run anything but your own checkbook? How often do you bounce checks! LOL!
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.