Wrong-O, Nightie ... and most people with common sense realize this so you may as well stop the nonsense. Your defenses of he Status Quo is both misguided and humorous.You're kidding, right? Are you really questioning this?
"Questioning" it - no. I'm saying you're wrong and the most likely result is for for prices to rise ... it's called "embedded tax costs" and most people with a grain of common sense recognize that to recover these costs prices will rise.
You're kidding, right? Are you really questioning this?
This is just proof that the truth doesn't matter to you.
But then, you've routinely and repeatedly demonstrated that on these threads.
This is just proof that the truth doesn't matter to you.Either way it doesn't amount to very much...but don't take my word for it.
"A couple of the opinions attempt the "... it's a wash ..." argument that you seem to prefer. It looks no better in their opinion that in yours and is easy enough to refute by taking, say, a $100 drug sale. The sale is not taxed under either IT or FairTax. Under the FairTax when spent by the drug dealer, the tax revenue gained is $23. Under the IT, the ONLY revenue gained (if any) would be at most the profit on the thing sold to the drug dealer ... let's say the seller has a good margin of 25% on sales or $25 on the drug dealer's $100. Of this $25, only a small portion would ever possibly end up as tax revenue since the tax on the $25 profit would likely be something like the 15% rate - or $25 x 0.15 = $3.75. This falls far short of the $23 tax "contribution" under the FairTax so the "it's a wash" arguments are nonsense no matter who makes them."We both know a "margin" isn't all profit and that a "margin" is for profit AND overhead...but giving benefit of doubt, even if a "good margin" was all profit it's at best 3.75% tax....again don't take my word for it, pigdog said so himself.