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.
Do you agree with it?
Do you really think I would want more progressivity? I want less tax, for all. The only way to do it is to eliminate all broadbased taxation.
Interesting statement, where do the pressure come from to reduce taxes when taxes are only paid by a minority of voting citizens.
Broadbased taxation, is the only way to assure the spending constitutencies decrease rather than grow larger.
"It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?"
Walter Williams
"If non-taxpayers become a majority in society, what would restrain them from voting for ever higher taxes on others?"
Milton Friedman
The Honorable James DeMint (R-SC)
United States House of Representatives
APRIL 5, 2001
- "There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government.
And yet we continue to ever narrow that taxbase assuring an ever growing supply of voters to push for more government.
Bush touts relief as tax day looms
Another 3.9 million Americans will have their income tax liability completely eliminated, officials said.
That's 3.9 million Americans more added to the spending constituency of 70% of the public clamoring for more from government, believing someone else is footing the bill.
Since we won't and won't eliminate the income tax
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2005 (Introduced in House) TITLE I--REPEAL OF THE INCOME TAX, PAYROLL TAXES, AND ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES
|
It makes very good sense to add a NRST as Greenspan has offered the Congress to consider.
If we expect to see control of government spending, we had best look to make the burden visible to the whole of the electorate, not just the few designated as the token guy behind the tree.
That my friend is one of the bottomline purposes of going to the NRST, make the cost of largess perceptible to the entire electorate, even the lowest most rungs of the economic ladder.
Well those costs certainly isn't close $1.3 Trillion, even by the grossly exagerated estimates by fair taxers.
The hard costs are closer to 8% by government statistics.
They aren't. That's the point.
Sometimes you say pit are not in prices, other times you say they are in prices.
That's the point.
WHo says? You? bwahahahhahaha
"Don't hold your breath for the committee or any opponent to actually read it."
"Maybe they did read it but decided it, like the Fairtax, isn't the last word on the subject."
Maybe not, but it is pretty clear that the panel has gotten an earful from Americans across the country about how bad the current system is.
Here is the panel's report on Phase I of their assignment:
http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/04132005.pdf
Senator Mack said last Wedneday at the hearing that not a single respondent suggested that the current system is just fine and that no reform was needed.
Didn't you send in your comments, Louie? Sure looks like the chairman isn't paying attention to you, doesn't it?
Yes, i do. If you claim that compliance cost us more than 10% of our entire economy you need to be locked up as insane.
Do you agree with it?The literature I've never seen? How could I agree with it? Give me a link and I'll look at it.
Why is it that sometimes you say PIT are in prices, and sometimes you don't?
Hardly,
Half of payroll taxes are paid by the employer from his gross sales revenues on wages he pays to employees.
Title 26 US Code Subtitle C Sec. 3111. Rate of tax
- (a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section ) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section )— ***
- (b) Hospital insurance In addition to the tax imposed by the preceding subsection, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section ) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section )— ***
Half of payroll taxes are paid by the employee out of gross wages received.
Title 26 US Code Subtitle C Sec. 3101. Rate of tax
- (a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section (b)) - ***
- (b) Hospital insurance
In addition to the tax imposed by the preceding subsection, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section (b)) - ***
The SS/Medicare excise employers that is repealed is a reduction in costs on the employer and releases funds for reducing prices to optimize sales for optimum profit in competitive markets.
The SS/Medicare tax on income employees pay out of their wages is repealed by the NRST, and will no longer be withheld out of there gross wage due them.
Then your hired gun economists tell us all taxes are embedded in the cost of goods, this includes the payroll tax that you already accounted for as being paid by the employee.
Once again wrong, only the employers excise and business income taxes that are repealed with the lower tax relateed overhead costs that result in repealing those taxes are credited toward any reduction in prices.
If the employee is counted as paying his taxes and gets to keep that money,
He does, as that is indeed a contractual wage for an overwhealming majority of folks.
then much of the so-called embedded costs will still be in the costs and prices will not come down nearly as much
The reduction in prices comes from lower business taxes from repeal of business taxes, and lower tax related overhead costs that are associated with minimizing & avoiding, accounting and reporting, research, litigation and legal costs, costs all associated with the federal income/payroll tax system that businesses are now burdened with.
as your paid for whores say they will.
adhominen when nothing substantive to say I see.
If you assume all taxes are embedded (which is the only way you can claim a 20-30% embedded costs),
No producer prices can fall by 20-30% as a consequence of lower tax related costs, no tax on business, increased productivity as resources now expended in economically sterile execises are release to productive use.
then you can not simitaneously tell us that employees get to keep all most of their payroll taxes.
The employee certainly can and will get to keep all of the payroll tax he now is liable for:
Title 26 US Code Subtitle C Sec. 3101. Rate of tax
- (a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section (b)) - ***
- (b) Hospital insurance
In addition to the tax imposed by the preceding subsection, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section (b)) - ***
As that tax will be repealed.
Employees must take a pay cut or their model is bogus.
Or the alternative is that your representation is totally bogus. And the Employee keeps there full contracted gross wage as it shows up on their pay stubs with no withholding for federal income or SS/Medicare taxes either one.
For an employee's gross wage on the pay stub is not only a contractual commitment between employer and employee, business costs and taxes fall as a result of repeal of the federal income/payroll tax system, just as the individual in no longer required to pay federal income or payroll taxes he is liable for today.
I thought the Treasury printed paper that funded the government?
Why is it that sometimes you say PIT are in prices, and sometimes you don't?Where did I say PIT are in prices? I believe I was discussing the FairTax position that implies they are.
Pure BS. Give me some numbers. Business taxes are under $200 Billion. One-Half of FICA/Medicare is another $350 Billion. The other crap is just exaggerated fluff. If you are lucky, the fair tax might save $100 Billion and that is being generous. That only brings us to about $650 Billion in savings for Businesses. That will result in an 8.1% reduction in the costs of goods, which comes no where close to the 30% tax you are adding on. Certainly income will go up for those making money, but those on fixed incomes are absolutely SCREWED.
Now you say what?
Half of payroll taxes are paid by the employer from his gross sales revenues on wages he pays to employees.That speak nothing of the incidence of that tax. The ideas on pricing coming from FairTaxers is laughable.
Says who? You???? lmao
If you are lucky, the fair tax might save $100 Billion and that is being generous
So you don't really know what might be saved, do you?
You said a majority of taxes in wages are also in prices. Ambiguous as that sounds, you finally clarified to a large portion of taxes in wages are also in prices. When I pressed you for which ones, you said PIT is in both wages and prices.Pathetic.
Now you say what?
Says who?That reminds me. I'm still waiting on that literature. Any ETA?
YOU'VE been nailed in lies so many times everyone is parsing what you say!
Your ambiguity leads to lies. Shoot straight, and we can all get somewhere.
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.