Posted on 09/17/2004 9:16:15 AM PDT by LincolnLover
Then maybe you would like to show us the math the you got your ~11% from.
Nah, I figure you are capable of doing a simple arithmetic ratio proportion from the information in #88.
And this is a 1 to 1 relationship? Nobody is saving more?
Hmm 18% NRST in place, 0% tax on investment and earnings. With investment and saving favored investment already inceases earnings and economy growing.
Repeal social security, drop the 18% NRST on consumption to 11%. Disincentive to consume falls, disincentive to invest/save remains at 0%.
Lower tax rates allow economic expansion with main increase in consumption and small increase in investment/savings. With economic growth arising from both increase in savings and investments and earnings, 1 to 1 is not an unreasonable assumption for calculating a mere target tax rate to trend to.
However, if you want hard measurements and figures, all we have to do is put the system in place and go for it.
I guess the increased spending you were accounting for would have no inflationary pressure on prices.
So you are saying that elimination of the Social Security system is not good because it might cause inflation as people have more control of the money they earn, LOL.
The reality is there is no more total money in the economy merely as a result of eliminating Social Security. The only thing changing is who has a say on how specific dollars get allocated, whether it be government after it takes it from you in taxes, or you providing for your own retirement, when government gets out of the welfare business of Social Security.
So you are saying that elimination of the Social Security system is not good because it might cause inflation as people have more control of the money they earn, LOL.I'm saying you don't know what you are doing when you calculate these fantasy tax reductions.
The reality is there is no more total money in the economy merely as a result of eliminating Social Security. The only thing changing is who has a say on how specific dollars get allocated, whether it be government after it takes it from you in taxes, or you providing for your own retirement, when government gets out of the welfare business of Social Security.So your numbers were wrong.
With economic growth arising from both increase in savings and investments and earnings, 1 to 1 is not an unreasonable assumption for calculating a mere target tax rate to trend to.And I'm sure that was what you were thinking, it wasn't in any way a mistake.
I thought the FairTax was suppose to change things...
I'm saying you don't know what you are doing when you calculate these fantasy tax reductions.
Just simple estimates for a given scenario based on the information available.
So your numbers were wrong.
Nothing wrong about them at all for the scope of their intent, as simple estimates and indicators of potential given the conditions stated, i.e. NRST targeting 18% rate with permanent Bush tax cuts, with the additional effect on rate of eliminating Social Security.
The numbers are quite adequate to the purpose of illustrating the obvious, reductions and elimination of government programs and the reductions of current tax law allow lower tax rates in a replacement NRST system.
AG: With economic growth arising from both increase in savings and investments and earnings, 1 to 1 is not an unreasonable assumption for calculating a mere target tax rate to trend to.
YN: And I'm sure that was what you were thinking, it wasn't in any way a mistake.
Of course that was what went in to the consideration of going with a simple 1 for 1 correspondance of reduction from elimination of a program, to proportionate reduction of tax rates. The indirect effects work in a direction to assure the 1 to 1 correspondance will yield a conservative target which is all I have any interest in providing.
If you want multi-decimalpoint prognostication of final numbers, go get a crystal ball. I don't require that to decide to chose between:
"A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the federal inspector will be in every man's counting house....The law will of necessity have inquisical features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it men will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the tax payer. An army of federal inspectors, spies, and detectives will descend upon the state."
-- Virginian House Speaker Richard E. Byrd, 1910, predicting the consequences of an income tax.
And a single rate, single stage tax levied on use and consumption of retail products.
Exactly which taxes are invisible? Corporate taxes? Payroll taxes? What?
taxes that are invisible are the tax costs that increase prices of goods and services -
you know that. what are you getting at?
costs (tax costs or any other costs) are all ultimately paid for from increased prices, lower wages, or lower returns to investors. i think it would help keep taxes and spending down if we knew how much of of the prices we pay are actually fed tax. i think it would help keep taxes and spending down if we knew how much our wages were reduced to pay fed tax costs. i think it would help keep taxes and spending down if we knew how much tax is being confiscated from our investment retirement earnings.
not many people know that prices are artificially high and wages and return are artificially low due to unseen taxes. i think that's one of the reasons people aren't too uptight about the tax they pay - b/c they don't even know how much tax they pay.
taxes that are invisible are the tax costs that increase prices of goods and services - you know that. what are you getting at?Which taxes specifically do that. I'm know how much I pay in income taxes and payroll taxes (and therefore how much my employer pays in payroll taxes). So what's left? Corporate income taxes, excise taxes, and what?
Which taxes specifically do that. I'm know how much I pay in income taxes and payroll taxes (and therefore how much my employer pays in payroll taxes). So what's left? Corporate income taxes, excise taxes, and what?
some of the income taxes, payroll taxes, and compliance costs of anyone involved in production are passed along to the next stage of production in higher prices - not ALL of it is passed on in higher prices b/c some may be absorbed by reducing workers' wages or reducing expected returns on investment...but most is passed along in prices.If that's the case then someone is paying part of my income and payroll taxes when they purchase the services of my employer and I'm paying part of their's when I purchase their services. Isn't it a wash? Or are you trying to tell me I'm paying my full income and payroll taxes plus part of somebody else's? That doesn't seem logical. I don't buy it.
because it is problematic to calculate the exact amount of tax and tax costs passed in prices, it is also p roblematic for you to calculate the amount of tax you pay. sure you know what your tax bill is, how much of prices you pay are actually tax costs of producers,I don't know exactly how much. Nobody does. But it's nowhere near 22% of prices. Do the math.
you have no idea how much your wages are reducedMy employer is a nonprofit and doesn't pay income tax. Do you think I'm getting paid more than market value for my skills because they don't pay taxes? I doubt it.
nor do can you calculate exactly how much tax and tax costs cost your investments.No, but that reduction of return is tax costs that aren't in prices. Maybe you could clue the rest of the people on this board in on the fact that all corporate taxes aren't in prices.
and i have no idea why some people are wigging out about the gov't pyaing the nrst - it's what they already do. they pay their employees so that the employees can turn around and give the income tax right back. they pay their employees so they can turn around and give back the payroll tax back too. i just don't see any issue in that.No, they pay their employees market value and their employees pay taxes on their income.
they pay their employees market value and their employees pay taxes on their income === to the feds, who paid them with the money they're giving right back
====
your "market value" includes an amount for them to pay tax, just like everyone's pay... difference being that when the feds include an amount that they're gonna get right back...they're paying it to themselves... why pay it in the first place?... it's no different under the nrst... feds will pay a tax to themselves.
Some Brookings Institute analyst stated it would take a 26% sales tax to replace the income tax and a 38% sales tax to replace all federal taxes. Now add those figures on to the State sales Taxes and .....
Say no more.
I wonder what effect this would have on consumption when half the price of an article is tax.
Careful what you wish for.
your "market value" includes an amount for them to pay tax, just like everyone's pay...Once again, you are wrong. That person making market value has a different AGI and deductions than someone else making the same wages. One may pay 5% the other 25%.
once again, i am wrong...
ok.
That person making market value has a different AGI and deductions than someone else making the same wages.
I was replying to "Your Nightmare". My point is yours taxes kill the self employed. The income tax needs to go to some kind of sales tax; which has its own problems.
They aren't "my" taxes, I've only been self-employed, living by the rules for over 20 yrs....It hasn't killed me yet.
The income tax needs to go to some kind of sales tax; which has its own problems.
Can you first tell me what problems are in "some kind of sales tax" before I agree to go along with it?
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.