Prices. Prices for consumer goods and services quickly rise by the amount of the tax, and then some. The portion of the price increase in excess of the tax is due in part to the higher cost of imports (from the weaker dollar) coupled with the ability of some domestic producers of competing goods to hike their price to that of imports. Consumer prices similarly rise 25 percent -- roughly the nominal rate of sales tax, unadjusted for any exemptions or transition rules -- by 2002 and gradually drop from that peak to a level that remains about 18 percent above the pre-change baseline.Where does he say that?Examined on a year-over-year basis, these price increases generally amount to a large, one-time hike in prices as the NRST is imposed, with some moderation of this increase in the longer run. Due to a weaker dollar, merchandise import prices increase by nearly 4 percent shortly after the NRST is imposed and are 6.5 percent over baseline levels in 2010. Merchandise export prices are also above baseline levels. In 2001 and 2002 they are nearly 3 percent above the baseline. However, due to lower interest rates, which reduce business costs, export prices are only slightly greater than baseline levels for most of the remainder of the forecast period. The overall impact on prices is measured by the change in the GDP deflator, which initially rises 20 percent above the baseline price level before settling back to a 13 percent price rise relative to the baseline.
Do I detect a reading comprehension problem or is it a problem with definitions?
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am managing director of the Barcroft Consulting Group and I am here on behalf of the National Retail Federation. My statement reports on the findings of a study undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers ("PWC") for the National Retail Federation Foundation. I was principal author of that study, which examines the economic impact of substituting a national retail sales tax ("NRST") for the federal income tax.
Even that PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) study was improperly stated by Wilkins:
| April 11, 2000, Del Threadgill, Vice President of Taxes, J.C. Penney Company, Dallas, TX, and Chairman, National Retail Federation |
1) The required budget-neutral NRST tax rate would range from 24-65%, depending on the number of exemptions and the taxpayer compliance rate .
· a seperate Congressional Joint Economic Committee report confirms PWC's findings by estimating that a NRST rate of 19-65% would be necessary.
2) Serious economic disruptions would occur under a National Retail Sales Tax.
· the economy would be depressed for three years - with GDP down $180 billion.
· consumer spending would be depressed for eight years, with consumer purchases down $503 billion.
· up to 1.5 million American jobs would be eliminated.
· the question arises as to how many retailers and small businesses would still be around to enjoy the modest long-term benefits of a NRST?
3) A National Retail Sales Tax would redistribute the federal income tax burden from higher income to middle and low-income families.
· the purchasing power of low-income households would be down 8-14% under a NRST while high-income households would not be affected.
Obviously that would happen with a Clintonian "budget neutral" sales tax just as shown in for the JCT statements the statements of Rep. Frost(D) and other House Democratic Caucus members in the prior reply addressing the same issue above #398.
However, that is not the NRST of
H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
which is "revenue neutral" against current tax law, not "budget neutral" against a Clintonian wishlist projection of Democrat desires for a budget. And is the broadest based retail sales tax posible with no exemptions, and expected compliance rate similar to the income/payroll tax system in current use.
As usual your disinformation campaigns can be shown for what they are, total distortions of the actual facts.
Tell us lewislynn, if every voter is required to pay the same tax rate without exception, just who is going to support any Congress Critter with the temerity to propose a 60% tax rate on every person in the country?