Posted on 08/22/2005 6:53:28 PM PDT by RobFromGa
I actually am in business for more than 20 yrs and you're telling me how it's done? You're only parrotting what someone else said and you even got that wrong...
If you don't like the riducule then stop making a fool of yourself by pretending to know what you're talking about...you don't..
If you're stupid enough to believe you've won the argument by being shown how wrong you are then so be it.
Get it?
Wrong... See that is the problem. You need to read the Wall Street Journal. It will enlighten you ...
Case in Point. Kennedy and Regan tax cuts... Look at how the tax revenue quadrupled with in a decade after the cut each time.
lewislynn is a Troll... Dont waste your breath. Just look at him in Forum... Says it all....
YEAH AND THAT IS WHY ANYONE CAN SEE PAGES UPON PAGES OF YOU DISCUSSING ONLY THE FAIR TAX...I GUESS YOUR A ONE ISSUE GUY... LOL!Oh yea, Im the only one at FR with page after page of discussing the Fairtax...You really found me out alright...That's how I know so much about it.
You want to try pigdog, ancient geezer, phil_will1, to name just a few others? Or are you using a narrow minded view of selective judgement?
Well, I read about the first 100.....and flipped down here to the end. Looks like a bitter battle. Guess I need to read the whole thread. I just know the arguments I saw at the front of it, didn't make any sense regarding cost of payroll taxes to employers.
I think theupman said it so well in post 64
"So many people seem to miss the real power of this thing ... I want to be able to determine how much tax I pay".
Amen from this (orange) Kool-Aid drinker. Will I pay more taxes? Will I pay less taxes? Isn't that what everyone is really concerned about? If you don't like the NST percentage, vote someone in who lowers it and cuts spending. It truly puts what the government spends in our laps. The choice of how we spend our money and what money we want to give to the government is ours.
Currently no one knows how much he pays. Average Americans are so happy when they get their tax "refund", money inappropriately taken from their check, which they could have put in a savings account or invested in their home. They are thrilled by getting their money back from the government, that they could have had months ago. If the naysayers here agree to get rid of payroll withholdings and EVERY American had to write a check on April 15th for the total amount of their taxes, I'll take that instead of this alternative.
I am not merely parroting what someone else said. Apparently you are unable to debate with civility. Your points have been addressed. You seem to think that because you say it, it makes it so. I have laid out the Fair tax as it will be presented to Congress step by step. You don't seem to understand how taxes work. You don't seem to understand how business works. OK. Maybe you're just lucky to have been in business for 20 years, since your understanding of how business works is lacking. So, good luck. You'll need it.
Yes, I have come to this conclusion. His desire to "win" the argument overwhelms his ability to respond to facts, and causes him to present uninformed opinions as fact. The facts of the fair tax can't be illustrated any more clearly, and in any more detail than I have done so for him. He still doesn't see. I've done all I can do.
The fair Tax does not work that way Rob. The whole point is that income taxes are eliminated. It states it clearly. If Jorgenson is claiming that workers will not keep their entire 1000, then he's talking about another plan.
You forgot to add the prebate of $183.
Embedded expenses added to the price of goods and services other than wages -
Employer FICA contribution
Taxes paid on profit
Everyone is thinking taxes - we need to think of expenses.
The bakery buys flour, eggs, office supplies, packaging materials, etc. to use in the business. All those expenses include embedded expenses for all those providers. If the price of those items is lower because the removal of embedded expenses then the bakery can lower the price of their products.
There are embedded expenses at every level of production.
Dear Sprite518, pigdog, and groanup,
I have my doubts that you will understand precisely why, but Dr. Jorgenson's comments in his e-mails to RobFromGa pretty much blow pigdog's assertions out of the water.
The anticipated savings of which Dr. Jorgenson speaks never came from cascaded levels of corporate income tax, at least, not the overwhelming majority of it.
No, rather, it would come from reducing workers' new gross pay to their old net pay. In other words, the saving come from passing along to the consumer the worker's payroll taxes (both sides) and personal income taxes, diverting these amounts from the worker.
It's been nice chatting. ;-)
sitetest
Dear Sprite518,
You capitalized "Economist," so I was under the impression that you meant the reputable periodical, the Economist.
As it turns out, Dr. Jorgenson now assures us that the money is actually coming out of the pre-NSRT pre-tax gross pay of workers.
LOL.
sitetest
Dear Sprite518,
Why would I be wrong?
You asked whether cutting tax rates increases tax revenues. I said, it depends, check out the Laffer Curve.
The whole theory that reductions in rates can lead to increases in tax revenues comes from the supply side economists (of which I count myself a proponent). Fundamental to their analysis is Arthur Laffer's Laffer Curve.
I'd think that someone arguing that tax revenues can go up when rates go down would know that.
Laffer asserts (and I agree with him) that there are optimal rates of taxation. Implement a tax rate below the optimal rate, and tax revenues will fall. Implementing a tax rate above the optimal rate, and tax revenues will fall.
Thus, some tax cuts increase revenues, but it is also possible to cut tax rates below the optimal level, in which case, revenues decline. So, at least according to the supply side economists and Dr. Laffer, the answer to your questions is, "It depends."
Certainly, in that marginal rates in the late Eisenhower adminstration were above 90%, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a rate over 90% suboptimized tax revenues. LOL.
Thus, the Kennedy tax cut was a good idea.
Similarly, even by the time President Reagan came into office, the marginal federal personal income tax rate was 50%. This rate certainly suboptimized tax revenues. Again, it doesn't take much to figure that a rate of 50% isn't going to produce optimal tax revenues.
However, if one were to find that the optimal rate was 25% (and I'm not suggesting that that's the optimal rate, I don't know what the rate would be to optimize tax revenues), cutting it to 15% would reduce tax revenues.
And of course, if you assert that tax cuts are ALWAYS good, well, then, take the argument to the logical conclusion. How much tax revenue will be raised if all rates on all taxes charged anywhere by the government are reduced to 0%? That would be, after all, the ultimate tax rate reduction, would it not?
sitetest
And you, s-test, present no challenge at all. You've demonstrated you don't understand (don't want to??) what the cascading tax example shows and even more you think only Subchapter C corporations pay taxes and that they pay them as a percent of revenue.
Wrong on all counts. And I see you studiously ignore telling us about your preferred tax plan - a sure sign of a Squirrel. He hasn't even been able to tell us hom many of his treasured C-corps have a marginal tax rate of over 30% - perhaps he doesn't know what THAT is either.
You were asked to tell us how your tax plan helped exporters with border-adjustable taxation, how it brought in more revenue from the illegal economy, etc., etc.
Sorry, pal, it is YOU who are not up to the challenge - and you've amply demonstrated that.
Dear pigdog,
Get with the 20th century.
The debate has passed you by.
Dr. Jorgenson has confirmed that the general price reduction is obtained by passing workers' payroll and income taxes along to consumers, thus reducing workers' gross pay under the NSRT to their current net pay under the existing system.
In his model, workers would not receive, under the NSRT, their gross compensation from under the old system. The WORKERS' payroll and income taxes, ALL OF THEM, along with corporate income taxes, investor taxes, no longer paid, drive the price decline.
Savings don't come in any significant degree from "cascaded embedded delusional taxes/costs."
Sorry.
Maybe you'll have better luck next time.
sitetest
"Next time"???. The debate is just getting started friend.
Additionally, I'll thank you to stop misrepresenting what I have said. In no post did I ever show business income taxes as a percent of revenue - that's your mistake, remember.
And regardless of what you think, the example I gave does show the mechanism of cascaded embedded taxes some large part of which will be eliminated with the FairTax. It also uses the marginal tax rate of the business (your choice to use C-corps) and the amount subject to income tax. And that is the way taxes are calculated - not as a percent of revenue; that's meaningless from the standpoint of embedded taxes.
Some portion of these taxes will, indeed, be taken out of prices despite what you seem to assume. it doesn't take an economist to realize that.
Also, I'm afraid you're a bit over optimistic if you think Dr. J.'s statement is about to repeal existing wage contracts since these are typically on gross income. As I've said - the debate is just getting underway. I suggest you not get too carried away with your own omniscience.
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.