Posted on 06/10/2005 11:13:37 AM PDT by Always Right
I intend to continue working to pass the FairTax bill until we succeed.
Shouldn't take much longer, wouldn't you agree?.
Probably not -- though I don't know him. But I also don't believe he's been posting BS here on this thread. The example I gave was one of BS. It's snake-oil if he spouts it without believing it.
However, since the 23% number is an estimate, only, the 29.9% number is no more accurate than the 23.0% number.
Interesting.
Do you have a better number that represents the "revenue neutral" policy the president has laid out as the criteria for enactment of a major tax reform bill?
Personally I believe, if we are to actually discuss rates, rather than just state "the revenue neutral rate", what ever that may be, we should be discussing a rate in the range as would eventually be implemented in a final bill that could make it through the political process.
What common measure should be used to specify this tax rates so it can be compared between the different proposals out there, whether they be NRST, Flat Tax, VAT, or some lesser modification of the graduated income tax.
What is your estimate of that realizable revenue neutral rate for this discussion, framing the debate around the actual criteria the president has laid down.
For everyone's reference the criteria are:
| President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform - Executive Order http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/executive-order.shtml Sec. 3. Purpose. The purpose of the Advisory Panel shall be to submit to the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with this order a report with revenue neutral policy options for reforming the Federal Internal Revenue Code. These options should: (a) simplify Federal tax laws to reduce the costs and administrative burdens of compliance with such laws; (b) share the burdens and benefits of the Federal tax structure in an appropriately progressive manner while recognizing the importance of homeownership and charity in American society; and (c) promote long-run economic growth and job creation, and better encourage work effort, saving, and investment, so as to strengthen the competitiveness of the United States in the global marketplace. At least one option submitted by the Advisory Panel should use the Federal income tax as the base for its recommended reforms. |
For the above is what any tax reform bill that is to meet muster by this president and the majority of Congress will require:
By the way, as framed by the president, Tax Cut is not Tax Reform.
Tax Cut is a separate issue to be addressed by separate legislation.
I haven't studied their businesses, but suspect their profit margins are so lousy that they might well be very happy to go along with the higher prices and better margins they can get away with in that case. You think they are going to start a price-war with Wal-Mart,who could easily crush them at that game?
I doubt they're trying to fool anyone - that's your M. O. remember. Why would they try to fool them into thinking the tax rate is higher that it really is?
I imagine they just got tired of telling morons like you the correct rate - which is STILL 29.87% t-e. It's calculated from the 23% figure used in the bill.
More probably they figure (as does pittipat) that the number doesn't mean that much to most people. It does, however, to me. I prefer the correct figure but I klnow you guys can't even spell 29.87%.
The government would be held responsible.
If the government created too much money, there would be inflation. If it did not create enough, it would stifle economic activity.
ANs lets face it, there is inflation now. The Fed just won't admit it.
We would have to be vigilant by electing congressional representatives that would watch the government's printing of money.
That was the way it was originally.
You're reading his mind but he's the snake oil salesman. Uh, huh.
Ah, but they did not do that, nightie - it was you who claimed that in the last thread and it was debunked in #440:ROTFLMAO! You call that debunking? You didn't debunk doodoo. And then you lied about having "worked with this model" to make it look like you knew what the hell you were talking about when it's obvious you are completely clueless. The formula I posted clearly show that in the Jorgenson/Wilcoxen/IGEM/"Squeally worked on it first 10 years ago" model, the price of labor declines as the marginal tax rate on labor income declines - thus wages are reduced as the income tax is reduce (or eliminated). Even the other FTKs don't backup most of your asinine arguments.
People who push something like NRST with the fanaticism of the FairTaxers are usually looking for power and conquest- my way or die! and "my way" is totalist.
Course it might be worthwhile, in order to make such a judgement, to find out just who these people are, why they dislike the income payroll tax system that exists so much, how the proposed legislation came into being, and who is supporting it in Congress don't you think?
If you claim to be sure that the revenue-neutral number is 23.0% and not 23.1%, then you are either BS'ing me or delusional.
That's not enough of a check on misuse of the printing press for me, I'm afraid.
Yes, but inflation could be blamed on the government and not on too many people working like the FED likes to blame.
Once we educate the people that inflation is nothing more than printing too much money to chase goods and services and then there would be accountability.
The FED does serve a purpose....to make lots of money for the banks involved in the FEDERAL RESERVE.
I said "if he spouts it without believing it", and was therefore clearly not reading his mind, nor trying to.
Wow, still beating that. Why do you stop at only two digits, why not carry it out to 10? If someone makes a million dollar purchase it might make a difference! Why isn't 23% quoted as 23.00%? Suppose they rounded it down? None of the figures being debated is being takening to 4 significant digits. Technically, it is incorrect to take a number with two signficant digits and calculating something out to 4 significant digits. But it is technically ignorant even to be arguing this.
You talking about honesty is like Bill Clinton talking about fidelity and chastity...or honesty...This is where I ask for an example of me being dishonest and you fail to provide it.
I'll repeat it again, in another way, since no one seems to be listening:
If the rate were 99%, that rate still wouldn't be an honest argument against the revenue neutral FairTax, since all the NRST would be doing is making visible what is already being taken now under the mostly hidden Stupid Tax.
To argue against the FairTax on the basis of the level of its intitial revenue neutral rate is in fact to argue for the status quo...a status quo of hidden, utterly inefficient and invasive taxation.
Well I guess we're back to square one. I asked you for examples and this is what you come up with.
Yes of course they will just meekly sit by and not try and increase market share.
Tell me do you really believe this theory or are you just trolling?
I ran a $25M business where decisions on product differentiation and pricing were very important. It seems to me that we should both know how business operates.Why would you want to differentiate your product from your competitors? All you have to do is price your product $0.05 less than their's and people will buy it (until they price their's $0.05 less then your's, but then you could price your's $0.05 less than their's, until they price their's...)
It's piggy and the ancient one who are arguing that it is 29.87% and not 30%.
Actually I figure the final rate will be much closer to 19% tax inclusive or 23.46% tax exclusive, based on federal tax cuts implemented since the original rate was calculated for the 1999 intoduction of the bill.
Why not use 19% or 23% tax exclusive as may actually come out of Congress in meeting the presidents revenue neutral policy, looks like a better number for discussion purposes than either of the above to me.
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.