Posted on 06/10/2005 11:13:37 AM PDT by Always Right
No, the retailer collects a total of $130 from the customer. The retailer keeps $100 and sends $30 to the taxing authority.
What happened to 23%?
The 23% is the after tax percentage. 23% of the $130 is roughly the $30 tax.
What did you say was your major in school again?
An electrical engineer. Never got below an A in any math course including a year calculus and statistics. Can't say that for any of my other classes though. Thanks for your concern, but it is not me who is confused.
And also see #740.
That too.
Make a point and try me.
Because that is "illegal income". No one (except you SQL types) has ever said the FairTax taxes illegal income.
To state that (as you do) is nonsense.
Right. I mean, how could you ever be confused? After all, you're 'Always Right'! Right? Even when you're wrong....
Has a FReeper proven even one of your eleven 'points' wrong? Just one?
Fair??? Fair??? What do you know about "fair"? With all of your specious arguments (including this one) you have the audacity to talk about "fair"???
I'll type real slow so pay attention:
Neither the Income Tax nor the FairTax taxes I-L-L-E-G-A-L I-N-C-O-M-E. That's why they call it "illegal income" - it's outside the system of taxation.
To try to pretend that the FairTax is somehow deficient in not taxing ILLEGAL INCOME (got it???) is absurd since neither tax system does by definition.
Not quite right yet, Rongie.
If a thing costs $100 under the FairTax, then it includes $23 of tax and the thing itself is $77. The total cost ($100 in your example) must be shown on the required receipt.
In addition, your continued use of tex-exclusive figures isn't accurate either, since the correct t-e figure is 29.87%, not "30". You guys just like to artificially inflate things.
"Rock solid"??? You're joking, right???
Once the FairTax becomes law many of the states will go to a conforming state sales tax and the sales tax rate will greatly decline in most states to quite a bit less than half its present figure. In CA, for example I think it would drop from 7.75% down to the 2% or 3% range.
So taking existing rates and calculating an "average" is like mixing fleas and giraffes. The number is pretty meaningless.
Yes, you are ... that's why we call him "Always Wrong" (with great affection, of course, since he helps others learn about the FairTax).
Another delusion, piggie. Or do you have a basis for this claim that would stand up to examination?
Broader tax base, lower rate. Narrower tax base, higher rate.
What is so hard to understand about that?
That model was used to model business response to taxed induced price changes.
Precisely
It did not explain how Jorgenson determined embedded taxes or the compliance costs of the current tax system. That is what I wanted to know.
Jorgenson uses the existing changes in tax laws across a time span using government tax records, and evaluates them with respect to NIPA and other data series response to changes in tax policies to establish the parametric functions for a baseline model.
The embedded taxes are the same revenues collected by government from businesses found in federal tax data sets used to establish the parameters of the baseline calculation. The econometric responses of business, consumers, investors, and government, are incorporated into the parametric functions feeding the various mathmatical representations of the various economic sectors incorporated in his studies.
He runs the general equilibrium solutions against the time data series with baseline tax system, (the 80's -'96 tax code in the particular in study linked to), replaces the baseline tax policies with the test tax policy implemented and measures the difference in output as it is advanced as a function of time. That is what th J&W Intertemporal General Equilibrium Model does, solves the mathmatics that the empirical relationships of economic data and tax policy establish to provide a result that represent a macro look at economic responses to changes in the inputs (like tax law, or any other variable one wishes to study.)
The link did not work either,
Looks like Harvards Economics web server is apparently down for the weekend.
so I don't even know what that was.
You had the Title even a fairly substantial quote to use as a search aid in finding an alternate source.
Search engines are your friend, I would suggest you use them.
For your convienience, here is an alternative source for the same document I found for you using Google, the Jorgenson study for Baker there, is even in multiple formats so you can pick the format that suits you.
Revised April 12, 1999
The Economic Impact Of Fundamental Tax Reform bY Dale W. Jorgenson Harvard...
http://smealsearch2.psu.edu/29743.html
Got that, sprite? Even Piggie tells you there is a $23 tax on a $77 item, which is a 30% tax in anyone's math (29.87% if you want to get fussy).
Not enough information. What is the Cal tax base now, what will it be if your wet dream comes true, and what is the difference?
They report "Wages" which are defined in the bill to include self-employment income:
`SEC. 903. WAGES TO BE REPORTED TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
`(a) In General- Employers shall submit such information to the Social Security Administration as is required by the Social Security Administration to calculate Social Security benefits under title II of the Social Security Act, including wages paid, in a form prescribed by the Secretary. A copy of the employer submission to the Social Security Administration relating to each employee shall be provided to each employee by the employer.
`(b) Wages- For purposes of this section, the term `wages' means all cash remuneration for employment (including tips to an employee by third parties provided that the employer or employee maintains records documenting such tips) including self-employment income; except that such term shall not include--
"`(1) any insurance benefits received (including death benefits);
`(2) pension or annuity benefits received;
`(3) tips received by an employee over $5,000 per year; and
`(4) benefits received under a government entitlement program (including Social Security benefits and unemployment compensation benefits).
`(c) Self-Employment Income- For purposes of subsection (b), the term `self-employment income' means gross payments received for taxable property or services minus the sum of--
`(1) gross payments made for taxable property or services (without regard to whether tax was paid pursuant to section 101 on such taxable property or services), and
`(2) wages paid by the self-employed person to employees of the self-employed person."
I say again --- READ THE BILL!
That was just done - #736 - and it bounced right off your noggin.
Why bother to waste time further?
The model you reference has nothing to do with the embedded taxes or even compliance costs.
ROTFLMAO, the baseline the ouput is the result of math representation of the current system as it tracks historical tax and economic data series.
How Jorgenson came up with those numbers is what I am interested in.
He establishes parametric functions representing the economic data series from which they are derived, NIPA, CES, IRS tax data, and other statistical data sources evaluated over time isolating the parametric factors that represent business, consumer, labor and govenment economic factors relating to the solution the problem.
His modelling of what happens after if a sales tax is enacted is a completely different issue.
His studies include both the historical system (baseline) and the new tax policy implementation, providing comparative differences between the two for outputs. As such they are the issue.
Don't know. Someone better start crunching the numbers, eh?
But there can be no doubt that if you add the service sector to the tax base, you have a broader-based tax, and can therefore lower the rate to obtain the same amount of revenue.
Right?
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.