When did you stop beating your wife or girlfriend, huh?
I try to only beat one at a time he he
I generally try to get out of their way and let them beat each other up myself.
Guy could get hurt otherwise.
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.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!
You certainly haven't come up with anything but clinkers so far - but lots of those.
If you think you can form a cogent argument, please do so and tell us why we should retain the present tax system ... or are you going to do the Nightmare Tax bob-and-weave also?
Hopefully you're a bit more honest and will actually identify the detailed vast tax plan you are "fighting" to uphold (if not the present one) rather than just a vague concept of some half-vast tax principle like your counterpart.
Hey Bigun Seen this ?
"You said I infered. I can't infer when I write to you, but if you wrote, I infered from what you seemed to imply, then your useage would be correct."
Did you infer that I implied that he insinuated that I have lied?
Sorry Pig you got it wrong. ;-)
First, prices will not increase by the amount of the sales tax. Existing taxes and tax costs amount to some or all of the sales tax premium, depending on who you ask. The general consensus is prices remain about the same, even with the nrst added. There won't be any bigger a difference in new vs used under the nrst. Why would there be? If I'm selling a used home, I am dang sure going to recover ALL of my costs of purchase - including either an nrst or hidden taxes we have now. House prices currently contain the taxes and tax costs of EVERY stage of production - just like house prices contain the cost of EVERYthing in the chain of production.
"Business taxes", are actually hidden taxes to individual consumers in prices, lower wages to individual workers, or reduced ROI to individual investors. ONe thing is sure - it sure isn't a tax on business - it's a tax on individuals.
When "business taxes" are eliminated, prices fall at each stage in an attempt to maximize profits (maximum price does not mean maximum profit in a competitive industry). Then when the retailer buys his stuff to sell to us, it's 20-25% cheaper. Add the nrst and we're back to today's prices.
But, we won't have any withholding or any income tax to pay.
THe size of the tax base is much, much larger under a consumption tax.
This benefits US exports - which will leave our shores costing approx 25% less. ANd imports will have to pay the nrst...all allowing US companies to reduce the advantage that China, etc currently enjoy.
And if you think you can defraud the gov't by opening a false business - good luck. But it will be easier to get caught than now... a lot easier. How wise would it be to fake a home office and take deductions for everything you buy now? Sure, you could try it. Some always will.
What if enforcement were focused more than now? Say the number of tax collection points will reduce by 90%. That leaves enough enoforcement to minimize cheating. Besides, why would you cheat if it's fair and you have some control over your tax decisions?
Home prices don't rise. INdeed, the more stages in production, the more tax and tax costs are currently hidden in prices. So it is reasonable to think home prices may even decline....after tax.
Interest rates will drop to the tax free level (a 25% decrease) making it easier to qualify for a loan. Taxes and tax costs are included in everyone's sales price and mortgage now, and plenty of folks are buying homes. You seem to think that there is currently NO federal tax or tax costs paid at purchase. That's wrong.
ANother thing making it easier to buy homes is that you'll get your whole paycheck free of any federal deductions. Youll have more money available to save (remember prices don't rise). And the money you save grows tax free.
You're premature on thinking this will kill any industry. It'll be great for every industry in the US. Which is why companies will relocate here after we go nrst. Plants, HQ, you name it. Profits aren't taxed in the US under an NRST.
Take a quick look-see.
What are you implying?
What prevents you from imferring when you write? Does the inference portion of your brain shut down when you write? What are you implying with this anyway?
I told the other geek that I wan't going to pursue the issue with him - and I certainly won't with you.
If you'd like to talk about tax issues, though - be glad to.
In post 205 you stated, "We got the votes and the so-called farttax will never be".
You are against any change in the tax structure at the federal level of the U.S., therefore you are protecting the IRS.
WRT 274, is that all you got? Lame!
I doubt you even clicked the link. I find any organization (google in this case) who considers the Democratic Underground to be a 'news' source to be very questionable about their creditablity.
Good, succinct post my man.
I don't know if you remember the big 'sugar crisis'circa 1980.
World sugar prices went through the roof.
One of the first price increases was soft drinks. Lots of sugar in soft drinks.
But lo and behold, artificially sweetened drinks went up also.
And when sugar prices returned to low levels a yr. or so later, guess what. Soft drinks stayed at high levels.
I am skeptical of industry passing along any savings they may get from the new tax system.
And your explanation doesn't answer the amortizing the 23-30% tax on a new house.
A person would pay 3,4+ times the tax over a 30 yr. period.
The one thing I find attractive is that many people that now pay no tax would pay some, or would they? What with some sort of 'rebate' check from the gov every month.
I have many other questions concerning the NRST, such as Roth IRAs.
I believe you may misunderstand what is involved in the home buying situation. Please check the first couple of links in #277 above.
The prebate is also covered in the FairTax FAQs but basically is an amount based solely upon family size and everyone gets it - even Bill Gates - unless he opts out. All (even those receiving the prebate) pay the sales tax but those with the lowest incomes are protected up to the poverty level of income.
You might read the bill itself as it is quite understandable.
When did you stop beating your wife or girlfriend, huh?
I try to only beat one at a time he he
I generally try to get out of their way and let them beat each other up myself.
Guy could get hurt otherwise.
They aren't all the same.
But to use your own words they are all "about the same".
It doesn't change the fact that there are government price controls on milk and there's nothing in the fairtax bill to change it...
Do you know who David Gale is? Maybe you could clue me in.Who does David Gale work for and what does he have to do with this?BAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!
I find any organization (google in this case) who considers the Democratic Underground to be a 'news' source to be very questionable about their creditablity.Google doesn't consider anything when they put a site in their "News." If you have original articles, you're in.
Probably would be a higher and higher rate after democrats and Rinos get through with it.. Nah!.. no probably about it.. that is if it didn't become a virtual VAT.. I don't trust this Congress especially this Senate any farther than I can throw Hillary Clinton's broomstick OR vibrator.. Connie Mack spilled the beans implying don't cut gov't back to match the revenues.. BUT do we have enough revenue to match SPENDING.?..
First, try getting the almost 50% of the people in this nation who DON'T PAY ANY INCOME TAX to go along with it.
And the constitutional amendment that is necessary to abolish the income tax, would be next to impossible to pass.
IMHO the chances of a NRST is 0%!!!
Do you know who David Gale is? Maybe you could clue me in.
Squeally should know, he knows everything there is to know about never before tried, non-existent federal sales taxes...just ask him....
What he doesn't know he can make up. Like the name "David Gale".
Then there's always principled, 'you lie and I'll swear to it', to back him up.
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.