PDA

View Full Version : What the congress should do ...



LWW
08-16-2011, 06:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Americans For Fair Taxation states the FairTax would boost the United States economy and offers a letter signed by eighty economists, including Nobel Laureate Vernon L. Smith, that have endorsed the plan.[13]<span style='font-size: 11pt'> The Beacon Hill Institute estimated that within five years real GDP would increase 10.7%over the current system, domestic investment by 86.3%, capital stock by 9.3%, employment by 9.9%, real wages by 10.2%, and consumption by 1.8%.[49] Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics projected the economy as measured by GDP would be 2.4% higher in the first year and 11.3% higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be.[47] Economists Laurence Kotlikoff and Sabine Jokisch reported the incentive to work and save would increase; by 2030, the economy’s capital stock would increase by 43.7% over the current system, output by 9.4%, and real wages by 11.5%.[11] Economist John Golob estimates a consumption tax, like the FairTax, would bring long-term interest rates down by 25–35%.</span>[60] An analysis in 2008 by the Baker Institute For Public Policy indicated that the plan would generate significant overall macroeconomic improvement in both the short and long-term, but warned of transitional issues.[51]

FairTax proponents argue that the proposal would provide tax burden visibility and reduce compliance and efficiency costs by 90%, returning a large share of money to the productive economy.[3] The Beacon Hill Institute concluded that <span style='font-size: 11pt'>the FairTax would save $346.51 billion in administrative costs</span> and would be a much more efficient taxation system.[61] <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Bill Archer, former head of the House Ways and Means Committee, asked Princeton University Econometrics to survey 500 European and Asian companies regarding the effect on their business decisions if the United States enacted the FairTax. 400 of those companies stated they would build their next plant in the United States, and 100 companies said they would move their corporate headquarters to the United States.</span>[62] Supporters argue that <span style='font-size: 11pt'>the U.S. has the highest combined statutory corporate income tax rate among OECD countries along with being the only country with no border adjustment element in its tax system.[63][64] Proponents state that because the FairTax eliminates corporate income taxes and is automatically border adjustable, the competitive tax advantage of foreign producers would be eliminated, immediately boosting U.S. competitiveness overseas and at home.</span> </div></div>

THE FIX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax)

cushioncrawler
08-16-2011, 04:36 PM
No krappynomicyst haz ever or will ever hav a Nobel Prize for krappynomix.
mac.

Soflasnapper
08-16-2011, 04:58 PM
The link itself provides the counter-arguments to this tax reform idea, which see.

One hidden danger is that the rate imposed would be subject to annual review and changes. So this might be a backdoor way to soak the country as a whole with a huge sales tax rate, virtually unlimited on its up side.

A sample of the criticism of the idea, from the Wiki source:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">n contrast to the above studies, William G. Gale of the Brookings Institution published a study in Tax Notes that estimated a rate of 28.2% (39.3% tax-exclusive) for 2007 assuming full taxpayer compliance and an average rate of 31% (44% tax-exclusive) from 2006–2015 (assumes that the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule and accounts for the replacement of an additional $3 trillion collected through the Alternative Minimum Tax).[5][15][50] The study also concluded that if the tax base were eroded by 10% due to tax evasion, tax avoidance, and/or legislative adjustments, the average rate would be 34% (53% tax-exclusive) for the 10 year period. A dynamic analysis in 2008 by the Baker Institute For Public Policy concluded that a 28% (38.9% tax-exclusive) rate would be revenue neutral for 2006.[51] The President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform performed a 2006 analysis to replace the individual and corporate income tax with a retail sales tax and found the rate to be 25% (34% tax-exclusive) assuming 15% tax evasion, and 33% (49% tax-exclusive) with 30% tax evasion.[9] The rate would need to be substantially higher to replace the additional taxes replaced by the FairTax (payroll, estate, and gift taxes). [note: President's Advisory Panel was George W.'s panel</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Gale analyzed a national sales tax (though different from the FairTax in several aspects[8][45]) and reported that the overall tax burden on middle-income Americans would increase while the tax burden on the top 1% would drop.[7] A study by the Beacon Hill Institute reported that the FairTax may have a negative effect on the well-being of mid-income earners for several years after implementation.[49] According to the President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform report, which compared the individual and corporate income tax (excluding other taxes the FairTax replaces) to a sales tax with rebate,[9][35] the percentage of federal taxes paid by those earning from $15,000–$50,000 would rise from 3.6% to 6.7%, while the burden on those earning more than $200,000 would fall from 53.5% to 45.9%.[9] The report states that the top 5% of earners would see their burden decrease from 58.6% to 37.4%.[9][57]</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Opponents offer a study commissioned by the National Retail Federation in 2000 that found a national sales tax bill filed by Billy Tauzin, the Individual Tax Freedom Act (H.R. 2717 ), would bring a three-year decline in the economy, a four-year decline in employment and an eight-year decline in consumer spending.[66] Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto states the FairTax is unsuited to take advantage of supply-side effects and would create a powerful disincentive to spend money.[54] </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If the FairTax bill were passed, permanent elimination of income taxation would not be guaranteed; the FairTax bill would repeal much of the existing tax code, but the Sixteenth Amendment would remain in place.</div></div>

eg8r
08-16-2011, 07:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So this might be a backdoor way to soak the country as a whole with a huge sales tax rate, virtually unlimited on its up side.
</div></div>Very similar to the downside of allowing Congress to pass unconstitutional legislation like the HC bill and soak the country as a whole with a brand new tax that will impact the poor the most.

eg8r

LWW
08-17-2011, 02:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So this might be a backdoor way to soak the country as a whole with a huge sales tax rate, virtually unlimited on its up side.
</div></div>Very similar to the downside of allowing Congress to pass unconstitutional legislation like the HC bill and soak the country as a whole with a brand new tax that will impact the poor the most.

eg8r </div></div>

The stopper would be that the FAIRTAX ceases the withholding of taxation.

When everyone is paid all of their money upfront ... getting a tax hike past the public is much more difficult.

The real reason the far left opposes the FAIRTAX is that it shifts power back to the people and off of the state.

LWW
08-17-2011, 02:45 AM
And the "assuming 15% tax evasion" is where theycook the numbers to make the lie work.

There can be no evasion of the tax under the FAIRTAX as there is no income to claim ... the tax is paid as one spends it.

Drug dealers and other criminals avoid tax on huge sums now by not declaring it ... but they still spend it.

You really need to step out of your statist shell if you actually want to understand opposing POV's.

Soflasnapper
08-18-2011, 10:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And the "assuming 15% tax evasion" is where theycook the numbers to make the lie work.

There can be no evasion of the tax under the FAIRTAX as there is no income to claim ... the tax is paid as one spends it.

Drug dealers and other criminals avoid tax on huge sums now by not declaring it ... but they still spend it.

You really need to step out of your statist shell if you actually want to understand opposing POV's. </div></div>

Look, when experts in the field say there will be cheating or non-compliance, take that to the bank.

There is fraud in sales tax compliance right now.

Impossible, I guess, by your theory, but it exists right now. It's not hard to figure how. Vendors understate their revenues and accompanying sales tax due the state, if they file at all. Cash transactions may very well be left off their stated totals, and I will be so bold as to say, they ARE being left off stated totals. This reporting is on an honor system, subject to only occasional auditing. Of course people will abuse the system and lie, when it puts that extra money directly in their pockets.

Here's where you deny human nature and say it's impossible, impossible, I tell you!

eg8r
08-18-2011, 11:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Impossible, I guess, by your theory, but it exists right now. It's not hard to figure how. Vendors understate their revenues and accompanying sales tax due the state, if they file at all.</div></div>I can definitely buy into this, just look at our tax chief and all the taxes he was stealing. Look to be honest there are crooks everywhere but to think Congress should be deciding whether or not to pass legislation based on the fact that crooks might steal money see a bit preposterous to me.

eg8r

llotter
08-18-2011, 01:41 PM
If the problem is over spending by government and I believe it is, how does the fair tax address that basic issue?

LWW
08-19-2011, 03:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And the "assuming 15% tax evasion" is where theycook the numbers to make the lie work.

There can be no evasion of the tax under the FAIRTAX as there is no income to claim ... the tax is paid as one spends it.

Drug dealers and other criminals avoid tax on huge sums now by not declaring it ... but they still spend it.

You really need to step out of your statist shell if you actually want to understand opposing POV's. </div></div>

Look, when experts in the field say there will be cheating or non-compliance, take that to the bank.

There is fraud in sales tax compliance right now.

Impossible, I guess, by your theory, but it exists right now. It's not hard to figure how. Vendors understate their revenues and accompanying sales tax due the state, if they file at all. Cash transactions may very well be left off their stated totals, and I will be so bold as to say, they ARE being left off stated totals. This reporting is on an honor system, subject to only occasional auditing. Of course people will abuse the system and lie, when it puts that extra money directly in their pockets.

Here's where you deny human nature and say it's impossible, impossible, I tell you!

</div></div>

There is fraud in the system now because people earn illegal income.

Under the FAIRTAX this problem is eliminated.

Do you seriously believe that WALMART and SEARS are stealing state sales tax money across the country ... because that's what would have to happen for your claim to hold up.

Beyond that, assuming the 15% number to be accurate ... it would be a huge improvement over our current system where, according to the IRS, the current tax evasion rate is nearly double the number you are worried over.

LWW
08-19-2011, 04:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the problem is over spending by government and I believe it is, how does the fair tax address that basic issue? </div></div>

Good question.

Under today's system, most people have no idea how much money they actually earn. All they know is what they take home.

Tax withholding is what has empowered the beast of gubmint spending more than anything.

With each citizen receiving all of their money upfront ... and then seeing, by experiencing, how much they actually pay one of two things will happen.

1 - People will come to the conclusion that what they pay is fair and just.

2 - People will wake up, become outraged, and demand reforms in spending.

Even if #1 was the case ... future spending would require an increase in the tax rate and become immediately apparent and painful to the public.

Qtec
08-19-2011, 04:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is fraud in the system now because people earn illegal income. </div></div>

Its the black market that is keeping the US economy afloat.

Just think of all that drug money that changes hands every day.

Q

LWW
08-19-2011, 05:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is fraud in the system now because people earn illegal income. </div></div>

Its the black market that is keeping the US economy afloat.

Just think of all that drug money that changes hands every day.

Q

</div></div>

And it would all be taxed when spent under the FAIRTAX ... perhaps you have figured out why the democrooks oppose it so?

Qtec
08-19-2011, 05:21 AM
How much tax is there of a $20 bag of Meth?

Q.......idiot

LWW
08-19-2011, 05:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How much tax is there of a $20 bag of Meth?

Q.......idiot </div></div>

Zero, but are you claiming the drug dealer will eat the money and not spend it?

LWW
08-19-2011, 05:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q.......idiot </div></div>

And the Freudian slips continue ... who's next?

Qtec
08-19-2011, 05:39 AM
So he then buys a gun from a guy in an alley, how much tax on that?

Qi

Qtec
08-19-2011, 05:39 AM
Then he goes to a hooker, how much...............

Get my drift?

Q

LWW
08-19-2011, 05:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So he then buys a gun from a guy in an alley, how much tax on that?

Qi </div></div>

The gun came from a gun store and was taxed.

When resold it is used merchandise and exempt from the FAIRTAX just like a used car.

Next statement verifying your ignorance on the topic?

LWW
08-19-2011, 05:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then he goes to a hooker, how much...............

Get my drift?

Q </div></div>

Apparently she would also be considered used merchandise, and you are so far adrift you may never see shore again.

Qtec
08-19-2011, 05:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The gun came from a gun store and was taxed. </div></div>

Really! There are no guns sold 'on the side'?

Q...any proof?

LWW
08-19-2011, 05:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The gun came from a gun store and was taxed. </div></div>

Really! There are no guns sold 'on the side'?

Q...any proof? </div></div>

I never said that nit boy.

The gun originated as new only once. That sale, when new, would have came from a licensed gun shop ... which would have collected the tax on that transaction.

How many times it was sold afterwards is irrelevant since each of those sales would have been a used merchandise sale and therefor exempt from the FAIRTAX.

Next stupid analogy please?

Gayle in MD
08-19-2011, 12:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So this might be a backdoor way to soak the country as a whole with a huge sales tax rate, virtually unlimited on its up side.
</div></div>Very similar to the downside of allowing Congress to pass unconstitutional legislation like the HC bill and soak the country as a whole with a brand new tax that will impact the poor the most.

eg8r </div></div>

What a crock of bull****!

The HC bill has AND it's mandate, been defended by atleast three federal judges, already.

The CBO has deemed it deficit neutral.

The country is NOT being soaked, the country couldn't b e soaked by a deficit neutral program.

Do you ever read a book, or the newspaper, or the Congressional REcord?

No, didn't think so.

There are millions of people who had no health insurance, or would have been dropped by the corrupt HC Insurance Industry, if we hadn't had the courage of the Democratic Party in the majority, who passed the Affordable Health Care ACT, which is not in any way, shape or form, costing the poor, nor raising the deficit.


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

In fact, the Ryan Plan, was the plan that raised the deficit. laid the costs on those who could least afford it, and ruined Medicare as we know it, hence, the country is totally against it.

G.

LWW
08-19-2011, 01:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are millions of people who had no health insurance, or would have been dropped by the corrupt HC Insurance Industry, if we hadn't had the courage of the Democratic Party in the majority, who passed the Affordable Health Care ACT

G. </div></div>

Then why was the answer to force people to do business with this so called corrupt industry?

Soflasnapper
08-19-2011, 03:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So this might be a backdoor way to soak the country as a whole with a huge sales tax rate, virtually unlimited on its up side.
</div></div>Very similar to the downside of allowing Congress to pass unconstitutional legislation like the HC bill and soak the country as a whole with a brand new tax that will impact the poor the most.

eg8r </div></div>

The stopper would be that the FAIRTAX ceases the withholding of taxation.

When everyone is paid all of their money upfront ... getting a tax hike past the public is much more difficult.

The real reason the far left opposes the FAIRTAX is that it shifts power back to the people and off of the state. </div></div>

That stops nothing in this case. The tax is imposed as soon as you need to buy something.

The rate itself is up for review (and change) EVERY YEAR.

You guarantee it will not go up, how? (Hint: lack of withholding is not going to get that done.)

LWW
08-19-2011, 03:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That stops nothing in this case. The tax is imposed as soon as you need to buy something.</div></div>

So ... are you flipping, or flopping? Maybe both.

Weren't you just insisting the flaw was that the tax would be levied on the suppliers ahead of time?

Now that your myth has been slain, your issue is that it doesn't contain the fatal defect you insisted that it did ... and you continue to slavishly defend the current system which does have the defect you previously deemed to be fatal.

Your shameless ignorance of all inconvenient data makes the regime proud.

LWW
08-19-2011, 03:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The rate itself is up for review (and change) EVERY YEAR.</div></div>

And that differs from the current system how?

LWW
08-19-2011, 03:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You guarantee it will not go up, how? (Hint: lack of withholding is not going to get that done.) </div></div>

I didn't guarantee anything other than it's a vast improvement over the abomination we have now.

Why do you fear change?

Soflasnapper
08-19-2011, 05:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That stops nothing in this case. The tax is imposed as soon as you need to buy something.</div></div>

So ... are you flipping, or flopping? Maybe both.

Weren't you just insisting the flaw was that the tax would be levied on the suppliers ahead of time?

Now that your myth has been slain, your issue is that it doesn't contain the fatal defect you insisted that it did ... and you continue to slavishly defend the current system which does have the defect you previously deemed to be fatal.

Your shameless ignorance of all inconvenient data makes the regime proud. </div></div>

Your incoherence is increasing.

Why would there only be one flaw in something? And why would pointing out more than one flaw mean I no longer maintain that a previously noted flaw was still there?

As for the price not increasing, read the fable transcription of your talk with your CFO on the new thread, and discuss it there.

Soflasnapper
08-19-2011, 05:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The rate itself is up for review (and change) EVERY YEAR.</div></div>

And that differs from the current system how? </div></div>

Don't you know the details of the plan you boost? Not surprising, actually.

Every year this tax percentage amount will be reviewed to decide if it is raising enough, too much, or not enough money.

The rate will then be adjusted, accordingly.

As you may realize, there is no such automatic annual review and annual rejiggering of the current tax code, depending on the deficit's size, or, some years ago, the current income tax rates would have risen, if that was the regime now.

LWW
08-20-2011, 05:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That stops nothing in this case. The tax is imposed as soon as you need to buy something.</div></div>

So ... are you flipping, or flopping? Maybe both.

Weren't you just insisting the flaw was that the tax would be levied on the suppliers ahead of time?

Now that your myth has been slain, your issue is that it doesn't contain the fatal defect you insisted that it did ... and you continue to slavishly defend the current system which does have the defect you previously deemed to be fatal.

Your shameless ignorance of all inconvenient data makes the regime proud. </div></div>

Your incoherence is increasing.

Why would there only be one flaw in something? And why would pointing out more than one flaw mean I no longer maintain that a previously noted flaw was still there?

</div></div>

Because it can't be both ... without inducing doublethink, which you do quite well.

LWW
08-20-2011, 05:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The rate itself is up for review (and change) EVERY YEAR.</div></div>

And that differs from the current system how? </div></div>

Don't you know the details of the plan you boost? Not surprising, actually.

Every year this tax percentage amount will be reviewed to decide if it is raising enough, too much, or not enough money.

The rate will then be adjusted, accordingly.

As you may realize, there is no such automatic annual review and annual rejiggering of the current tax code, depending on the deficit's size, or, some years ago, the current income tax rates would have risen, if that was the regime now.



</div></div>

And that differs from the current system how ... other than the current system make the adjustment usually through debt.

Any congress has authority y law to change tax rates weekly if they so desire ... but they seldom have the stones to demand more from the taxpayer's earnings in advance.

Logic would dictate that demanding that the taxpayer pay the money after they had already received it would take even greater political will ... perhaps you might try logic?

Soflasnapper
08-20-2011, 11:05 PM
This is a ridiculous point you attempt to make.

Clearly, if as you say the Congress has the authority to change the tax rates weekly, they have made no structure in law to accomplish such an action. Without a regular process already in law, or proposed to be set in law, if now they did it once, they'd have to re-do the whole thing to re-change the rate, an arduous task full of opportunities for blocking the next one.

This Fair Tax DOES make the structure and process for it into law, and sets an annual review AND change in the tax rate into law. It ensures this review and change in the tax rate SHALL take place, unless another law is passed to repeal the law or its mechanism, another hurdle that would be required be surmounted or else the law stays in place.

It is all the difference in the world, and it guts your claim that it's exactly the same as the current situation obtaining.

LWW
08-21-2011, 03:26 AM
Have you ever taken a HS civics level class?

Are you actually claiming that the congress now lacks the ability to raise taxes?

Is their no level that you won't stoop to in an attempt to defend your beloved state?

Soflasnapper
08-21-2011, 02:09 PM
Your agitprop grows tiresome, as I've already mentioned elsewhere.

So far as I know, we have never had any tax change law that includes an annual review of whether it collected enough (or too little or too much), with a built-in automatic ability to then change that rate annually. That isn't how a normal tax law is written, historically. In fact, it's one of the objections to a Balanced Budget Amendment, as they've been proposed, in that it could potentially require automatic tax increases to close any gap, and conservatives don't support that.

This FAIR TAX law would include that feature, solely and uniquely among all tax laws put in place in this country.

Once in place, the FAIR TAX review and change procedures would not require ADDITIONAL laws be passed to accomplish either the review, or the change. That would be built into the original law.

So, of course, Congress CAN do that, and this would be an example. However, it has never been allowed before in tax bills, because of the great potential that deficits would then require the tax newly set be increased.

Most people would realize immediately that providing the government an auto-pilot way to raise taxes without additional laws to accomplish that increase is a dangerous situation, at least if you favor lower tax rates and oppose increases.

Only sneaking it into such a smoke and mirrors set of promises as the Fair Tax provides can deflect enough attention away from the danger of this provision, so as to possibly sneak it into law.

cushioncrawler
08-21-2011, 03:49 PM
I think i like fairtax. But az u all know, if i were king there would be zero tax, karnt get fairer than that.
A word of warning. Tax brort about the fall of the roman empire. No tax = no fall, simple.
mac.

LWW
08-22-2011, 02:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your agitprop grows tiresome, as I've already mentioned elsewhere.

So far as I know, we have never had any tax change law that includes an annual review of whether it collected enough (or too little or too much), with a built-in automatic ability to then change that rate annually. </div></div>

That's because you are desperate to find a flaw and are puffing up what is ordinary.

Tax laws are, and always have been, subject to review ... revision ... and alteration.

No congress can bind the hands of a future congress.