Posted on 08/24/2005 9:40:44 PM PDT by RobFromGa
"Their complete paycheck" is fraudulenty defined, because in the real world, the employee never has seen and will never see the withholding, other than taxes, that is part of his "total" pay.If you look at the FairTax website, they frequently say things like "You get to keep your whole paycheck and prices will stay the same." Which, when you look at it is true. Under the FairTax, you would keep your whole paycheck - there would be no withholding. The problem is that your whole paycheck would be the same as you are taking home today, i.e., your gross wages would have been reduced.
Sales tax will only be applied to new homes. What I am saying is, if the income and SS tax is repealed, I will at most see about a 10% savings in costs. When I add the 23% inclusive sales tax (30% sales tax when figured normally), my price will be 17% higher than today (0.9*1.3 = 1.17). My homes will be 17% more expensive then the same house I sold the year before.
I hope Rob let him know he was going to splash this all over Free Republic. Otherwise he may never answer another email again.
What's to stop the politicians from placing "special" taxes on expensive items, like a luxury tax? For example, a car that's over $20,000 has a luxury tax of 100%.
The same thing that stops them from doing it now. They have the power to do so under the constitution any time they opt to.
Of course they might have learned something from having to repeal such a tax on Yacht's when the jobs of their constituents folded when yacht building and sales in the U.S. failed and revenue dried up, as well as votes keeping the culprits in office.
"Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. "
"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess.
They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue."
When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four."
If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds.
This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect
taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue
raised in this country. . Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment." (Emphasis added).
Yes, but Jorgenson clarified this comment and made it crystal clear that Jorgenson was figuring that employee take home pay would remain constant.....meaning employees have to take a pay cut. I know you are one who will remain in denial. But that is not my problem.
It has been, consistently.
... and not in terms of phoney economic benefits.
That is simply an incorrect assertion. There are plenty of economic benefits cited in the arguments for the Fair Tax which are obvious and incontrovertible. This particular thread has been focused on one specific item which may be questionable, but that in no way negates the others.
There is no question that if any major change in our tax system is implemented, such as the Fair Tax, there will be winners and losers. However, there are winners and losers under the current system as well. There is no way to avoid a certain amount of risk and pain. I wish you no harm, but the long-term well-being of my country and its people are more important than any individual considerations, either yours or mine.
I totally disagree. The Employer contribution component of Social Security and perhaps other taxes was never the employee's. The employer sends it to the government on the employee's behalf.
The employee never had nor has possession or control of that money.
Neal BoortzI thought he was a radio talk show host who wrote a book based on parroting lies...when did he become an expert at anything else?...Why would I want to ask him a question or talk to him about anything not related to radio talk shows?...
How would I know when he's not lying?
I think he might have. But he did make it clear he wanted Jorgenson's input for a debate, so I assume Dr. Jorgenson realized the response was not intended simply for private use. I am a bit surprised that Dr. Jorgenson responded.
The boom comes from imports. The US imports a huge amount.
Actually a boom in exports, according to Jorgenson an increase of over 26% in exports, accounts for a lot of the high production increase in first year of implementation.
Get rid of the drag of the income/payroll tax system on manufacturers, exporters, and other upstream businesses by repealing it and not levying a tax on purchases for business use, US exports would take off like a rocket in the initial years of the tax reform. That of course is in addition to the domestic sales vs import side of the picture where imports compete with domestic goods with the same burden of U.S. taxes in the domestic retail market.
It has been, consistently.
Must I point you to numerous threads taughting the fair tax calculator or other threads preaching the great economic windfalls of going to the fair tax. Certainly there is some who stick to the freedom angle, but mosts posts and threads always concerned the economic benefits.
And that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with and is TOTALLY unresponsive to the question that I asked!
Unless federal spending is reduced, and/or federal borrowing increased, there will NOT be lower taxes.
But playing along, I'll say that if retail prices are decreased, then that means the receipts that go into the federal treasury will be reduced.
What do you suppose the federal response to that will be? Do you think it might be a rate increase? You betcha. Now, what is the possibility that a rate increase will result in reduced purchasing? Hmmmmmmmm . . . .
If the NRST proponents make no allowance for these possibilities, they are being dishonest.
If by that you mean that Dr.Jorgenson, or ANY economist for that matter, believes that the ONLY costs imposed by the income tax system on the U.S. economy are the taxes themselves then your duck is TOTALLY loose!
Poor Dr. Jorgenson. I have a feeling he's going to have a very busy day! His email must be getting slammed.Worse yet just imagine the depression around the Fairtax cubicles today.
Two not so ordinary clowns wrote a book, one a US Congressman the other a known (somewhere) radio host, profiting from the parroting of the 100% paycheck lie "imagine getting 100% of your paycheck without deductions"...blah blah blah. Never bothering to do any research.
In these days of the internet all it takes is ONE concerned citizen to make the effort to find out the truth...
Why didn't the chest pounding Congressman and talk show radio host bother?...Their book, not the content was more important.
You mean this question: "Why do you persist in trying to make the spurious argument that the only costs imposed by the income tax system are the taxes themselves when you KNOW that to be untrue?
Because there was nothing false about my arguement. You are just trying to change the subject. We have debated compliance costs before and I have always acknowleged some, but that has nothing to do with the point at hand.
Well, if your urge to point is irresistible, point away and I'll give it all due consideration.
However, for your own benefit, I suggest you pause and consider that the reason there are far more posts discussing the economic specifics is because that is where the uncertainty lies, and thus that is where the partisans of the various viewpoints can most easily find the ammunition for their arguments.
Another reason, which Neal Boortz has pointed out frequently on his talk show, is that most Americans no longer really care about their freedom, and will not fight to defend it. They are only concerned with their own securtiy and creature comforts.
Without getting into a brawl over the fiscal solvency of SS (I am for complete privatization, btw. SS is the most immoral fiscal lie ever told by government, and they have told some doozies), lets just say that "theoretically" that money is in an account with your name on it, administered by the fed (they send me updates on how much I have in there, periodically......, thoughtful souls that they are). The same with the payroll taxes. You even get some of them back (sans interest) if you have them whitheld. If you are very low income, you get all of them back. It is like a huge interest free loan from the poor to the fed every year.
Anyway, the fact that I have never seen the moneys that Widgets, Inc pulls out of my check does not mean that I won't ask for it and allow the evil corporate greedy bastards to keep it for themselves. I will call my union rep and demand....... you know how the rest of the story goes.
No one has made that assertion. But another good effort at changing the subject.
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.