U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > South Carolina > Charleston area
 [Register]
Charleston area Charleston - North Charleston - Mt. Pleasant - Summerville - Goose Creek
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-23-2010, 06:49 AM
 
4,465 posts, read 7,000,460 times
Reputation: 796

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleTomCat View Post
The problem with that report is that they are using the Exclusive rate which isn't correct, if you are comparing it with income taxes which are inclusive.....

Most people are paying that much or more today -- much of it is just hidden from view. The income tax bracket most people fall into is 15 percent, and all wage earners pay 7.65 percent in payroll taxes. That’s 23 percent right there, without taking into account the 7.65 percent employer matching! On top of that, you have to add in the business taxes and associated compliance costs passed on to consumers in higher prices.

Effective tax rates vs. stated tax rates
Because the 23-percent FairTax rate of $0.23 on every dollar spent is not imposed on necessities, an individual spending $30,000 pays an effective tax rate of only 15.5 percent, not 23 percent. That same individual will pay 17.3 percent of his or her income to federal taxes under current law. See effective tax rates for a family of four at various spending levels in Figure 2.
[CENTER]Figure 2: 2007 effective tax rates

[/CENTER]

"FairTax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/df/NRST-percentile.png/350px-NRST-percentile.png (broken link)
President's Advisory Panel's analysis of a hybrid National Sales Tax. Higher rates claimed on the middle-class for an income tax replacement (excludes payroll, estate, and gift taxes replaced under the FairTax).

The FairTax's effect on the distribution of taxation or tax incidence (the effect on the distribution of economic welfare) is a point of dispute. The plan's supporters argue that the tax would broaden the tax base, that it would be progressive, and that it would decrease tax burdens and start taxing wealth (reducing the economic gap).[10][54] Opponents argue that a national sales tax would be inherently regressive and would decrease tax burdens paid by high-income individuals.[5][55] Households at the lower end of the income."

Tom, Ya reallly gotta look at other sources- than Walby- that don't have a vested interest in passing this lemon (Her vested interest is her clients- the rich- who'd love to shift their already light tax burden to middle and lower end (income) workers.

Now, look at that chart- the one the 'President's Advisory Panel', a group of economists formed with the specified task of looking into the 'Fair Tax' (I love Mad Ave. spin in this name. Iraq War (e.g., Oil War) by the same logic would be called the 'Introduce Young Americans to the Wonders of The Middle East Program') issued as the definitive result of switching to a consumptive tax.

Now, which President commissioned- selected the members of said panel?

Had to be that Muslim terrorist, white-baby eatin' commie Obama, right?

Or maybe Clinton when he got through with the Lewinsky Project?

Yeah! Thats it.

But alas:
President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform


"On January 7, 2005, President George W. Bush announced the establishment of the President's Advisory Panel for Tax Reform, a bipartisan panel to advise on options to reform the United States income tax code to make it simpler, fairer, and more pro-growth to benefit all Americans."

It's Dubya's panel, Tom, the Dubya who was the little drummer boy for Wall Street Dubya.

So, ask yourself:

Why when the GOP controlled ALL of government and 95% of media didn't they pass it??

Because it would : A. Immediately- so immediately that Joe Six Pack could even see the linkage- kill the economy AND shift the tax burden to the Middle and Lower Class.

Last edited by Geechie North; 09-23-2010 at 07:13 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-23-2010, 07:23 AM
 
4,465 posts, read 7,000,460 times
Reputation: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butterfly4u View Post
The original poster made a comment about the Health care plan that our President proposed and Congress has passed into law.
The health care plan they passed wont work.
The insurance companies have already stated today that they are not issuing any more "child only" plans. Which means, in a nutshell, they are getting around the health care bill Congress passed.
Gee, who saw that coming?
It won't work because as long as Health care is based soley on profit in this country,
and stockholders demand a good return, which they always get, people will get the short end of the stick.
This country is not a democracy.
Decomocracy is an illusion.
We live in a Capitalist country.
Our politicans don't work for us, they work for the big special interests that rule
the country.
Now they can donate as much money as they want and hand pick the candidates
openly, instead of hiding the money like they had in the past.
I am going to answer the original posters comment as a Capitalist.
Why bother with spending any money at all on health care in this country anyway?
Why should I, have to pay for anything for anyone?
End Social Security, the trust fund is full of IOU's, so just cut it off.
End Medicare, let the elderly take mortages on their homes again and spend
that on their health care when they are old, good for Capitalists, excellent
retrun on my stocks.
Get rid of most of the government agencies that are ridiculous, that we don't need,
and give the Veterns a cap on the amount of money that they can spend on
Health care when they come home over their lifetime.
The country is broke, right? Well, cut the spedning all across the board.
Dog eat Dog.
Keep the taxes low for the rich, the true Capitalists, they are going to invest
their money overseas for a great return on their money, after all, foreign
countries need jobs! The Chineese need jobs!
Ask Warren Buffet, he'll tell you all about it!
The national income tax won't work either, just in case anyone is wondering.
The people who spend money in this country is not the rich, despite what most
people think, it's what is left of the middle class and the poor.
Now, I will come back to my true opinion,
That isn't really how I feel as an American, so I guess I am not that cut throat.
Americans have to realize that the USA isn't run for Americans and hasn't been
for decades. America has been sold to the world, the Global economy, well, it means that the USA
is owned by every country all over the globe.
We are in such debt to sooo many countries, we are not in control anymore.
The politicans who get into power in Washington in November will be chosen
not by the American people, but by the Corporations that put them there.
Follow the money trail.
Don't believe half of what you see, and little of what you hear.
Oh, and stop watching Fox noise. It'll rot your brain.
Try BBC America and local news and watch the money on Bloomberg.
Thanks for reading this, I know I sound crazy, but I hope I'm wrong,
But I don't know...............
Alas, local news, once largely immune from the propaganda and lies which the national media is allowed to tell under the ruling (2003) of the Akre's case, is also being propagandized:

Fox started doing their's last July; ABC, CBS, NBC are following suit.

As far as NOT being a democracy- sadly you are correct- Citizens United ended the last vestiges of that. We are now- in essential actions and mode- a combo of Mussolini's Italia and the USSR:

Mussolini's Italia, because we are a fascist state by the original meaning of the word- there is a seemless interface between the corporations and the government. I point to the Iraq (Oil) War and our domestic policies as proof positive of that.

USSR because despite our fascist morphology, we are a big country composed of numerous ethnic and regional groups, and we seem to be going down the tubes in the exact manner as they did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2010, 07:23 AM
 
Location: Summerville
7,934 posts, read 15,060,042 times
Reputation: 1350
Like I said, the presidents advisory policy used the EXCLUSIVE tax rate not the INCLUSIVE therefore their numbers are wrong, whether it was a mistake or done on purpose I will let you decide.....

You can not compare it that way, it is like apples and oranges....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2010, 07:25 AM
 
435 posts, read 732,042 times
Reputation: 75
Because the 23-percent FairTax rate of $0.23 on every dollar spent is not imposed on necessities, an individual spending $30,000 pays an effective tax rate of only 15.5 percent, not 23 percent. That same individual will pay 17.3 percent of his or her income to federal taxes under current law. See effective tax rates for a family of four at various spending levels in Figure 2.

First, everything is taxed in Fair tax including all necessities. Saying necessities is not tax because it is inclusive in the price is dumb because the seller has to cover the cost somehow. Also, the exclusive and inclusive rate in this case make little differences because regardless it is included in the price or not AGAIN it has to at least greater than the cost (confused?)...that's why I said Americans are bad at math...just like why do I have to explain how hedge fund and leverage work to a lot people even with advanced degrees (why because leverage hedge is play on percentage).

Don't forget regardless the %, the final dollar amounts is the key!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2010, 07:32 AM
 
4,465 posts, read 7,000,460 times
Reputation: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by OleTomCat View Post
Like I said, the presidents advisory policy used the EXCLUSIVE tax rate not the INCLUSIVE therefore their numbers are wrong, whether it was a mistake or done on purpose I will let you decide.....

You can not compare it that way, it is like apples and oranges....
Okay, it's you and that huckster Walby vs a panel of Rightwing (mostly) economists picked by BushII.

Bet I know who the odds makers in Vegas like in this one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2010, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Summerville
7,934 posts, read 15,060,042 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyCh View Post
Because the 23-percent FairTax rate of $0.23 on every dollar spent is not imposed on necessities, an individual spending $30,000 pays an effective tax rate of only 15.5 percent, not 23 percent. That same individual will pay 17.3 percent of his or her income to federal taxes under current law. See effective tax rates for a family of four at various spending levels in Figure 2.

First, everything is taxed in Fair tax including all necessities. Saying necessities is not tax because it is inclusive in the price is dumb because the seller has to cover the cost somehow. Also, the exclusive and inclusive rate in this case make little differences because regardless it is included in the price or not AGAIN it has to at least greater than the cost (confused?)...that's why I said Americans are bad at math...just like why do I have to explain how hedge fund and leverage work to a lot people even with advanced degrees (why because leverage hedge is play on percentage).

Don't forget regardless the %, the final dollar amounts is the key!
It doesn't make that big of a difference?

34% Vs 25% is a 9% difference that is pretty big when you are talking >$100K
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2010, 09:30 AM
 
461 posts, read 859,959 times
Reputation: 111
Health Care, some countries have kept health care private with the exception that there is a cap on the amount of profit health insurance co's can make. They are allowed reasonable profits and when they reach the cap it eliminates reasons to turn people down for treatment or dump them when they get sick. I wonder if that would work here.

Before the new health care laws are repealed, I would like to hear what the republican plan is to fix health care and level the playing field between the insurer and the insured.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2010, 03:52 PM
 
435 posts, read 732,042 times
Reputation: 75
Tom I can't teach you math. Someone asked me once if there is a difference between "a stock gained 10% first and then drop by 10%" vs "a stock dropped 10% follow by a gain of 10%. But let me try. Let me said a good cost 100 dollars to be put on the store. 25% inclusive tax will put the price of the good at about 133.5 dollars (flat tax call for 25% as inclusive in the price; if you sell the good for under 133.5 dollars, you are losing money) which will put it right a around 34% exclusive tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2010, 07:25 PM
 
Location: Summerville
7,934 posts, read 15,060,042 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyCh View Post
Tom I can't teach you math. Someone asked me once if there is a difference between "a stock gained 10% first and then drop by 10%" vs "a stock dropped 10% follow by a gain of 10%. But let me try. Let me said a good cost 100 dollars to be put on the store. 25% inclusive tax will put the price of the good at about 133.5 dollars (flat tax call for 25% as inclusive in the price; if you sell the good for under 133.5 dollars, you are losing money) which will put it right a around 34% exclusive tax.
This is not what I am talking about, I am talking about comparing the Income tax to the sales tax, you can not use the exclusive tax rate of a sales tax and the compare that to the inclusive tax rate of the Income tax...

Apples to Oranges....

Quoted from the government report "it is appropriate to compare the retail sales tax rate with current income tax rates by utilizing the tax-inclusive rate."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2010, 07:36 PM
 
435 posts, read 732,042 times
Reputation: 75
Exactly that's why the report is using the 34% instead of 25%. It is not apple and orange, it is just math of using different multiplier on different baseline. The funny thing is that if a retailer is going to mark up the so called "inclusive" 25%, the easiest way is to convert to 34% calculation and set the price. Regardless, in the end, the government still has to manage about the same income. Without capital gain and estate tax, how do you propose to make up the differences. That's it for me if you don't understand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > South Carolina > Charleston area
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:41 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top