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.
Further, the savins and retirement will grow tax-free under the nrst. It'll grow faster. And it will be easier to save without having anything withheld or having to pay income tax BEFORE the earnings can grow.
In New England we have a word for you, BULL'.
In your last sentence you are talking to those who have yet to save for retirement. A lot of voters ahve already set aside hundreds of thousands for retirement. The weak and poor X'ers are jealous and desire to tax us "rich" Boomers and the get a BIG for their retirement. Not gonna happen.
If we go to an nrst, there will be not reduction in purchasing power of saved dollars.
THis is a good question, and fundamental to understanding today's prices and future prices - irrespective of taxing system.
Prices are where they are in an attempt to maximize profits. Business always strives to maximize profits.
What's the reason any gallon of similar milk (or any similar good or service) is priced about the same?
Maximum price does NOT mean maximum profit in a competitive industry. What about non-competitive industries? .. Well, they already charge whatever they want.
How is you misquoting CG catching me? You were called for your misquote, and you won't own up to it.LOL! I just asked a question, I didn't even quote (or misquote) her. You're grippin' hard! I love it. Caught in a lie and you just keep squirming.
But you left out the part of the paper that actually backs up the Fair Tax rate.Got a post number?
What's 25% more than 0%?Jeez, 25% more than 0% is 0%. You are caught in another lie and you are trying to change basic mathematics. Pathetic.
LOL!
LOL...Sorry to destroy your free market example by exposing even more of your ignorance, but milk has government price controls...
Sorry, but that doesn't matter. Just like 100-22=78.
You're right, government price controls couldn't possibly be the reason all of the prices for milk are the same.< /sarcasm >
They aren't all the same.
Your first phrase, "There are no taxes that are good taxes," is true enough but from there things go downhill rapidly. Any tax bill that becomes law will have to be revenue neutral - and a 3% NRST (even though it's undefined as to particulars) is certainly a lot short of revenue neutrality.
Additionally, the FairTax is not regressive and seniors will be better off since not only are their savings & investments not taxed but also prices will decline. I might note that they will no longer be tied to a "crunch-date" of April 15 which some set aside as "not go anywhere or do anything; just work on taxes" day.
Don't forget that the seniors also get the prebate and that often their lifestyle choices are quite different in that many are willing (prefer, even) to buy used goods which are not taxed. Also with some types of IRA, any withdrawal is untaxed which can also help them. Think also of their stake in the home asset; no longer taxable when sold,
All of these sorts of things add up to helping it be likely that the FairTax rate will actually be lowered in years to come or at least the mandated SS & Medicare benefits will be paid for much more easily without cutting them as is currently discussed.
Any "revolt" will come once ALL taxpayers will be able to see on each and every receipt just how much their government is costing. And do you thing very many politicians would have the political guts to agitate to raise such a single tax rate which cannot now be hidden in a myriad of ways as at present?
Actually, you'd have a lot of incentive. After that time period of time the US economy would have boomed so much - and hopefully your own business, too - you would hardly recognize it. In the interveneing time, you could have invested the retained $$ you're concerned about and earned completely untaxed money from those investments,
You would also have been receiving a prebate each month - unless you chose not to; it's optional - and you would be paying no more (and probasbly less) for the things you buy. If you wish to really get "well-er to do" during that 15 years you could economize to some degree by purchasing used things sometimes. The "30% premium" you mention only applies on certain types of purchases - I'd suggest you check a more realistic OVERAll marginal rate you might actually have by visiting the FairTax website or any of the otheer representative charts that have been posted all over these threads.
In other words, become well informed about the FairTax and how it can help you.
You might also see #194 of this thread for more on seniors - or even ask the 98.7-year old himself (ancient_geezer). If he's got his hearing aid on, he'll probably respond.
"BULL" or not (whatever that might mean), if you're so concerned about all the old folk robbing you, just SPEND less snd invest your ill-gotten (or other) gains since investment earnings aren't taxable. IRA withdrawals are not taxed under the FairTax and certain types are taxed at present when withdrawn.
If you're one of the elderly rich as you seem to infer, you should do quite well under the FairTax and easily get even richer since investment earnings are not taxed. With the present system, anything you buy will already have the tax cost embedded into it and you have no opportunity to invest tax free as with the FairTax.
Even if you wish to continue your business you should do even better since it will not be taxed (nor will he things it buys) and that will lead to even increased earnings for you.
It's obvious you have not read the FairTax bill. I suggest you do so and think about it.
The IRS is abolished along with the income tax and the 16th amendment is identified for repeal. States must decide independently what they will do, but if you think most states will try to build up a state IRS and state income Tax Code to replace the huge federal one you obviously have no idea what that would cost and logistically how difficult that would become. Most now piggyback their income tax off of the federal by adding and removing a few things here and there. Some even require the submission of a copy of the federal return which they use internally.
It seems more likely that most states will give up the income tax and choose to conform to the FairTax provisions. That is not required (can't be as I understand the law) but would certainly be the easiest and cheapest course for them. Then too, the states are paid to collect the FairTax (as are the retailers).
If a given state decides to retain an income tax and beef up their bureaus for that, then brace yourself as you "wealth" may take a huge hit to pay for it and you might wish you had read the FairTax bill with more understanding.
Looey doesn't know that ... the arithmetic escapes him (never was his strong suit as we have repeatedly seen).
Even in your absence, he's still shown that "little arithmetic problem".... one in which he based an entire thread on the "fact" that 100 - 22 = 88. Really. I'm not kidding.
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.