Posted on 10/10/2006 8:59:26 AM PDT by cryptical
This is really no different than when unemployment taxes or the wage base (the amount of wages taxed) for payroll taxes change or the level of child credits, the personal and dependent exemptions, or even the actual tax brackets used each year under the income tax. All affect the amount of tax you pay, all are handled by "unelected bureaucrats" and none need be voted on yet there seems to be no discomfit on the part of any of you about that.Are you getting more stupid by the day or what?
There's no discomfort for one because it's not an issues ever discussed and two because it isn't true. Everything you mentioned has been determined by elected officials, they aren't "determined" by bureaucrats, they aren't altered or changed every year on a whim without oversight as the Fairtax law allows SS bureaucrats to do
I think he agrees that it does change every year, at least that is what I get out of when he says, "I have NEVER said that the allocations determined under Sec. 904 might not cause the total tax rate to be larger than the original 23%."
Of course what he says makes no sense. If they are 'allocations' then how could rates 'be larger than the original 23%'. It's just another long winded pigdog reply filled with lies and spin to try to confuse things. Pigdog can't be wrong so he lies. It is all a matter of pigdog having way too much pride. Exactly the same as John F. Kerry trying to cover up his statements by lying and spinning.
To be fair, I am not sure I would call it a 'whim'. The rate is determined by reported wages and reported gross sales tax. The rate changes by numbers collected and calculated by the bureaucrats. The calculation is straight-forward. I just know for myself, my reported wages will go up dramatically under the fairtax. Most of my profits now flow into my income from an S-Corp and with moderate wages. Under the fairtax, there is no reason not to max. out my reported wages to qualify for more benefits. Under the current system I would have to pay an extra 15.3%.
Sorry. I couldn't get through more than a few paragraphs. I was wondering what he was doing with all his free time, and now I know.
Who knows what pigdog is talking about. He contradicts himself and redefines words on the fly. I think he believes if he types enough words, everyone will think he is smart.
"Here's a question. If the the old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate and the hospital insurance rate don't change every year, why do they even exist in the bill? You could achieve what you are claiming by just having the 23% rate and then use the percentages in Sec. 904 (c) to divide it up. Furthermore, why are Sec 904 (d) and (e) even in the bill? What you claim is achieved in Sec. 904 (c)."
As the spreadsheet data showed the OASDI & HI rates DO change and, in effect, make it quite possible to lower the FairTax rate itself as I observed in #577 - quite likely with congregational action. That's what the analysis shows.
As to why the various parts of Sec. 904 are "even in the bill", you'd need to ask the author(s) of the bill to be sure but I'd think it would be as I said:
"The reason for this wording (Sec. 904) being part of the FairTax legislation is so that there can be no claim that the FairTax is failing to fund the existing entitlements (basically S/S & M/C) at (at least) the existing levels - which are called out in Sec. 904. Here, the SSA bureaucrats have nothing at all to do with altering the tax rate in the bill; they are just administering the statutes passed by Congress in the past and allocating the money as determined by existing law. "
I grasps perfectly what you are trying to show, and it has nothing to do with the issue. What Laffer's dynamic analysis shows adds zero to the point. I am still have not sure you understand the overall fairtax rate changes. You are all over the place on that point. Reguardless, the fact is you denied something repeatedly that you actually did repeatedly and you will not admit it, as shown below again...
-------------------------------------
What's there to understand? Everybody understands. You clearly lied. It's all documented here.
PIGDOG post 473: "I've said nothing about any Congressional action in raising the rate since that will clearly not be required."
When in previous posts you most certainly did:
post 319 by pigdog: "The infamous "unelected bureaucrats raising taxes" ploy you've continually tried (unsuccessfully) to use isn't correct and never has been. They merely determine the split of tax revenue required to fund the S/S entitlement as required by S/S law - which it should be noted isn't part of the FairTax law at all. They have no power to raise (or lower) the FairTax rate ... that's what we pay the "big bux" to Congress for."
post 328 by pigdog: "Any change in the overall FairTax rate would have to be done by Congress, not some "unelected bureaucrat".
post 351 by pigdog: " And to change the FairTax rate it would, indeed, take congressional action."
post 368 bt pigdog: "This means that the remaining portion which is the General Revenue Rate will in effect increase since the other two have decreased and the statutory rate for all three combined must be 23% (or whatever the rate ends up as in the bill) unless changed by Congress."
Your lying butt is not getting the last word.
"What's there to understand? Everybody understands."
Obviously you DON'T understand which is indicated by your continuing to post the same nonsense with the name calling.
It's amazing that the Moderator doesn't ban you for your continued abusive posts to myself and others.
The mechanism is as I've shown in #577 and the comments there are relevant to the rate determination - despite the fact you don't understand what was said in the post.
It shows that precisely the opposite of what you and your colleagues contend:
"... #302 which said "... the law gives taxing power to SS bureaucrats ...". That is simply not true - they have no ability to change the FairTax rate at all (specified in Sec. 101) as I've shown here. Or his #233 which said "... after the first year the unelected bureaucrats at Social Security could implement their new congressional taxing power and raise the rate to 25 or even 30% without a vote from congress ..." which, again, is simply not the case as I've shown here."
Or perhaps you'd like to now pretend that you've never considered such positions of your colleagues to be correct?
To be fair, I am not sure I would call it a 'whim'.Not the way it's written if you're honest, but then who would stop them from doing it on a whim?
It is not nonsense. I am calling a bold face lie what it is. You lied and you continue to lie. You are a pathetic liar. Thread after thread after thread you lie. Whether you keep insisting something I clearly labeled an 'assumption' a 'prediction', or whether you are denying you posted a table only to later say it was a spreadsheet listing (as if there is a difference), you lie consistently. This is just the latest example of many. The fact that you can't admit a lie that is so black and white is pathetic.
You can not deny said this:
PIGDOG post 473: "I've said nothing about any Congressional action in raising the rate since that will clearly not be required."
And you can't deny in previous posts you most certainly did say what you denied:
post 319 by pigdog: "The infamous "unelected bureaucrats raising taxes" ploy you've continually tried (unsuccessfully) to use isn't correct and never has been. They merely determine the split of tax revenue required to fund the S/S entitlement as required by S/S law - which it should be noted isn't part of the FairTax law at all. They have no power to raise (or lower) the FairTax rate ... that's what we pay the "big bux" to Congress for."
post 328 by pigdog: "Any change in the overall FairTax rate would have to be done by Congress, not some "unelected bureaucrat".
post 351 by pigdog: " And to change the FairTax rate it would, indeed, take congressional action."
post 368 bt pigdog: "This means that the remaining portion which is the General Revenue Rate will in effect increase since the other two have decreased and the statutory rate for all three combined must be 23% (or whatever the rate ends up as in the bill) unless changed by Congress."
This is so black and white. You are IMPOSSIBLE to debate with because you are so dishonest. You post some 3000 word essay in response that doesn't even address your lie. You change the subject and go on and on about other things. After all this posting, I still have no idea whether you understand the 23% rate can change without an act of Congress. Getting you to comprehend/admit a simple fact is extremely frustrating, because you will never admit anything if you think it might make the fairtax look bad. You are by far the most dishonest Freeper this forum puts up with. Forget all the name-calling you do on every thread, you should be banned for being a BOLD-FACE LIAR.
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.