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.
I prefer a tax on money.
See my previous post.
You have been warned.
I take it then that you understand HOW tax law is written? What goes in, and what comes out, are two different things.
Oh I see... your exact words were different, but pay no attention to that eh? LOLWTF are you talking about? You are total mental nut case. You said I "fabricated what CC said" when I most certainly did not. I simply asked her [exact words] "Any specifics of this report you want to point out as being biased?"
By the way, what is 25 more than ZERO?!!!!Oy. You remember seventh grade? The best two years of your life. Try to remember what they tried to teach you in math class about multiplying by zero.
Then let the goddamn government find a way to cut back, just like Normals have to do.
Stop remodeling Frist's office, stop restocking Ted Kennedy's liquor cabinet.
And fire a couple hundred thousand of those stupid fat cows behind the gray steel desks.
This is just another positive reason to support NRST/Fairtax. :D
Certainly they collect the tax, but they are in no way an "arm" of the government - and they are paid for their efforts.
Indeed I saw your previous post but is seemed to fund only one year out of 10 which seems odd. Perhaps, though, you're trying to say the revenue neutral rate is 20% rather than 23%,
It would be interesting to see your arithmetic.
And you, sadly, haven't read the FairTax bill.
Please do that.
The FairTax will indeed do away with the income tax and, BTW, I don't go to casinos (can't afford it since the income tax has all my spare change.
The FairTax when passed will no doubt kick off the biggest spending boom in years from those in your position unless they decide to invest their money and get even richer - which would also boost an economic boom.
You worried you might have to start paying taxes?
On the third post you say that?
Golly. You're very upset.I'm not upset. I actually enjoy catching you in your lies (although it's becoming less of a challenge all the time).
You were called for your misquote, and you won't own up to it.
It's the same pattern. Like the time you quoted parts of a paper to promote the idea that the FairTax rate was too low. But you left out the part of the paper that actually backs up the Fair Tax rate. What's 25% more than 0%? Remember that li'l gem?
May s/b many and it is "set the stage"
But when people are educated on the NRST HR 25, 70% (or something in the 70s) go for it.
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.