Just how fair is the 'FairTax'?

Money.cnn ^ | 9/7/05 | Pat Regnier

[Man50D]

NEW YORK (Money magazine) - If you don't care much for talk radio, or you don't live in the South, the name Neal Boortz might not ring a bell.

But pay attention: Around 4 million people nationwide catch his radio show. It's No. 1 in Boortz's home market of Atlanta and ranks first or second in numerous smaller cities in red states.

His 180-page polemic for radical tax reform, The FairTax Book, made its debut at No. 1 on the New York Times' bestseller list in August.

When Boortz came to Jacksonville for a book signing at a downtown hotel on a sticky, sweltering Thursday night last month, close to 1,000 people turned out for a chance to meet him -- and to bask in his rage at the Internal Revenue Service.

"How many of you want the federal government out of your paycheck?" asks Boortz from the hotel's ballroom stage. Wooo-hooo! roars the crowd. Boortz's wife Donna, standing at the back of the room, looks on in amazement.

"This is for taxes," she says. "This is not sex and violence we're talking about."

No kidding. Everybody likes a tax cut, but fundamental tax reform is one of those issues that's generally as boring as it is important. Who wants to waste an evening thinking about marginal rates? But the plan Boortz is selling is disarmingly simple: Just eliminate most federal taxes -- income tax, Social Security tax, corporate tax, what's left of the estate tax -- and replace them with a big, fat national sales tax.

[Always Right]

You continually hold any FairTax supporter out to be a liar, dishonest, stupid

Well actually there have been two longtime loyal FairTax supporters who have admitted it is a lie, so really it is just you and geezer who continue this, either out of stupidity or flat out dishonesty.

[Always Right]

This reporter that now has you drooling and gurgling over HIS misstatements and misinterpreatations (and half-truths) is no more correct than your idol Robbie whatsis a few threads ago who in his overreaching vanity posts put out the same trashy interpretations.

Prove it! Prove that this reporter is just some liberal making stuff up about what Dr. Jorgenson says. Your fairtax.org buddies PAID FOR and OWN Dr. Jorgenson research. They could put out the details to prove what Dr. Jorgenson assumed. They won't because the CAN'T. FairyTax.org has been intentially lying for over 7 years and they know it.

[Always Right]

Pat Regnier, Money magazine, Oct 2005 Issue:
 

"What The FairTax Book fails to mention is that prices can only fall this sharply if companies cut wages. I asked Jorgenson about this, and he agreed."

 

"It is practically and logically impossible for the government be collecting the same amount of money as before and have everyone suddenly be better off," says Daniel Shaviro, a tax law professor at New York University.

[Admin Moderator]

Hint: Tone it down

Thanks, carry on

[pigdog]

Sorry, Rongie, but no one "admitted it was a lie" when referring to Jorgenson's economic studies. What was said was that Jorgenson ASSUMED that wages were reduced by payroll/withholding taxes. He did so for the purposes, apparently, of simplifying his model.

That assumption is neither a lie nor even a valid indication of what will happen in the real world. In fact, wages are highly unlikely to go down at all as has been pointed out to you many times. Even the 75 recognized economists say in their endorsement letter that said the FairTax would:

"Enable workers and retirees to receive 100% of their paychecks and pension benefits, ..."

As for the "... stupidity or flat out dishonesty ..." you accuse others of, you might look to your own statements as they are replete with some outstanding examples thereof.

In addition, the reporter in the lead-in article DID, contrary to your claim, quote the left-wing long-time ardent FairTax opponent William Gale with his anti FairTax venom. Also Slemrod (hardly pro-FairTax) and the "tax law professor" who is obviously going to be pro Status Quo since his livelihood depends upon it.

The article is exceedingly biased and for you to not recognize and admit that you'd have to be blatantly foolish or downright ignorant.

[pigdog]

There's nothing of substance in the article that backs up such a claim - not at all. Only the rant by the reporter who obviously detests Boortz and those who like him ... one can tell that by the little descriptive vignettes the reporter throws in to demean the people involved (who obviously are pro-Boortz and pro-FairTax).

Perhaps he'd be more accurate to use the term "polemic" when describing William Gale since that's what most of Gale's one-liners really are.

[pigdog]

... and it isn't one and cannot be made into one.

I'd suggest you read the bill and what a VAT really is as well.

[TChris]

To my way of thinking, if the Fair Tax is even a step in the right direction, the right direction being less IRS, simpler tax laws and taxation that is more obvious, then it is a Good Thing. What ever flaws the Fair Tax proposal has, I believe it is much closer to ideal than what we now live with.

[Always Right]

Sorry, Rongie, but no one "admitted it was a lie" when referring to Jorgenson's economic studies. What was said was that Jorgenson ASSUMED that wages were reduced by payroll/withholding taxes.

DUH, that is what I have been saying for 7 freakin years. I have said to get Jorgenson 22% reductions in prices wages have to be Reduced and you guys have been denying it. Sometimes I wonder what planet you are on.

[pigdog]

Despite your hyperbole it is not a "major article" at all but a liberal hitpiece with obvious an obvious animus.

And there is NO "fairtax deception". You keep getting more like Looey all the time ... just keep repeating something that isn't true and that will make it come true (yeah, right!). Just ignore the fact that the claim has been rebutted many times and just keep throwing it out there - maybe it'll stick, eh?

[pigdog]

Oh, I see, so now YOU'RE claiming that wages will be reduced due to the FairTax??? Would you like me to post one of your statements where you claimed you did not say that?

There can certainly be increased wages and reduced prices regardless of what you assume to be the meaning of Jorgenson's quote (BTW, he did not say that wages would decrease in the real world) - that was you Squirrels seizing upon one of your little chestnuts.

[Always Right]

Oh, I see, so now YOU'RE claiming that wages will be reduced due to the FairTax???

I have serous doubts about your grasp of the English language. I said in order to the the 22% reduction in prices, wages have to be reduced. Where on earth did you get I said that the fairtax reduces it? Really, my statement was not complex, most kindergardeners could get it.

[Always Right]

There can certainly be increased wages and reduced prices regardless of what you assume to be the meaning of Jorgenson's quote.

Come on, give me a break. Show some signs of intelligent life. It is the "22% price reduction AND 100% of current wages" that is the point of the FairyTax misrepresentation. We have been over this 100 times. What part of it do you not get?

[pigdog]

The MONEY writer is merely mamking the same (mistaken) pretense made by Robbie on an earlier vanity thread where the pretense was that Jorgenson was claiming wages would fall.

That was not at all what the economist assumed, nor - in fact - what the wording in the article says since it is quite vague and most likely means that Jorgenson was agreeing that he reduced wages IN HIS MODEL.

As has been pointed out to you many times, that means nothing at all in the real working world (no matter how large a font you use to try to give emphasis to the malinterpretation).

The liberal "tax law professor" can hardly be seen as any sort of authority on economics or even taxation (he teaches tax law which deals with the Income Tax as we know it, you see, and not Taxation per se). Quoting a non-authority as an athority is an old left-wing trick, but it has apparently fooled you.

[Always Right]

That was not at all what the economist assumed, nor - in fact - what the wording in the article says since it is quite vague and most likely means that Jorgenson was agreeing that he reduced wages IN HIS MODEL.

Again DUH. That is the fairytax source for saying prices will fall 22%, Jorgenson's model. Get it???? I doubt it. Your twisting and spinning is not impressing anyone.

[lewislynn]

And there is NO "fairtax deception". You keep getting more like Looey all the time

You should try it, applying simple logic and honesty is a wonderful thing...plus, because it makes so much sense it exposes you as a fool and it pisses you off.

You and the fairtax are nothing but deception. The only things real about you or it are lies, lying, hope, wishful thinking, obfuscation and conjecture. .

Jorgenson's model: For prices to be reduced 20%, wages would have to be reduced. No wage reduction, no 20% price reduction...The hired Fairtax economist says so...period.

[pigdog]

More nonsense. Your pretense that only one economist is the source for price decreases with the FairTax is ridiculous since there have been a number of economists study the plan. Since you have no idea of what embedded tax costs are nor how large they can be it is even more preposterous that you claim the FairTax precepts are based upon the work of a single economist.

As to the size of the price reduction that accompanys the inreased takehome pay, it will be whatever it will be - could be anything from 10% to 30%. Seems to me that anything from 15% to 25% is quite likely, but the point is that there will certainly be a price decrease to go along with increased wages. The only real question is the size of the price decrease.

Your attempt to put words in my (or anyone else's) mouth shows how desperate you might be to try to claim "lies, lies ..." which desperation you continually show.

You'd be better served to admit that, yes, there is a good bit of embedded tax costs that raise prices right now (and we're not talking about wages, here) and when these are removed with the FairTax there will be a substantial price drop quite independent of the wage issue.

[pigdog]

Well, no, Looey - that's not what "... the hired Fairtax economist ..." says at all but merely your interpretation of what his assumption for modelling purposes means. It merely means he made that to simplify the model - not that it would actually represent the real-world case.

That one economist (of many) did not address the point of cascading, embedded tax costs at all nor what would happen when they were revomed from prices. Do you honestly think that such costs when removed would cause prices to go up???

If so, then perhaps you should look inward at your own corpus of posting to see "... lies, lying, hope, wishful thinking, obfuscation and conjecture ..." rather than elsewhere.

[pigdog]

"Truth"??? From you and Looey???

Surely you jest. Perhaps in a weak moment 10% of your posts are "truth" (but more likely partial truths).