Posted on 05/27/2006 5:12:45 AM PDT by RobFromGa
Right, every other scenario would have less than a 9% cost reduction like I said.
See, the thing is that only labor is taxed under the present system, and some corporate profits to a a lesser extent. And the amount of tax that is going to be eliminated through all the chains of production is going to be that component of domestic labor called the Employer half of MM/S.
So, you can look at any product and trace it all the way back down to when it came out of the ground or when the labor was performed, and there will be some component of that cost that was attributable to some domestic laborer getting paid wages to do work. And that is the area that will get to save money under the nrst-- and it is 7.65% of whatever part of that product was made up of labor.
if there was a lot of labor, then there will be at most 7.65% that can be removed in total from the cost. Then there is a relatively negligible amount of compliance savings, and some coporate taxes which are paid as a percentage of some of the profits at each stage of the production.
If that totals up
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Although I don't mean to speak for Rob, I believe he was being sarcastic. When someone puts a prased in quotes, it's the same as saying so-called, as in so-called reciprocal inclusive. Rob was not being literal.
Rob did say 9% (or 8) on another thread. I not referring to the comment you quoted.LOL! I can't speak for Rob but like I said, I'm not a mind reader.
I don't know enough about tax policy to comment on this intelligently, but I STILL say that telling people they can't disagree with the author because they aren't published authors is hogwash.
And I am not surprised Boortz was rude to you, Rob. The few times I have listened to him I found him quite abrasive, and not my cup of tea at all.
In fact, I have gotten to the point that I don't listen to ANY talk radio. Life seems to go on just fine without them, and I get my news here.
Yes, very simple. Only the simple-minded can't understand it.
Other costs don't affect the savings %. Have you ever tried to construct a sheet?
He was until it was pointed out that he incorrectly used inclusive and exclusive - a point he continually complains about with other posters - only this time, he did it himself.
He should just own up to the error. Even lewislynn does that much.
LOL! that should be clear as you tried to read my mind and predict what I was talking about. You were wrong.
I can tolerate him waggling on about his book. What I caouldn't take was his vicious treatment of a "good ol boy" that dared to suggest, at the beginning of the Duke Lacrosse saga that "whale....weee don't knows all thee fax yet, Mr Boortz." Boortz went to town on the fella, charging of everything racist short of keeping black skeletons in his cellar.
The truth still isn't out in the Duke case, but Boortz's knee jerkiness has hit record proportions, when a little skepticism seems warranted at this time.
I usually manage to get to the radio within 15 minutes of his show following Rush to turn it off. But the other day I heard Boortz ask why Rush hadn't invited him to play golf, to which his straight-man Royal teed up "Maybe he's afraid of getting beat." And Boortz replies "Well that's just loaded in more ways than one."
If the thought was that the "Godfather" fears Boortz in the ratings, I don't have the numbers, but I've got to imagine that Rush has no need to lose sleep over this guy nipping at his heels.
-------
Finally, even as Boortz has conceded, as long as spending is out of control, all tax systems will be unfair.
Once again, only two things make up the bulk of taxes paid in this country-- taxes on labor and taxes on corporate profits. These taxes make up the vast majority of the tax revenue in the US.
In 2004, taxes on labor were $1.588 billion, and Corporate taxes were $212 biilion. (there was also $25 billion estate taxes which are negligible for the purposes of this post). The total federal revenue was $1.825 billion. Of the labor taxes, $839 billion were personal income taxes, $374 billion was employee half SS/M, and $374 billion was employer half of SS/M.
So, the money that the FairTax is going to remove from the costs of goods and services is $212 billion corporate taxes, plus $374 billion employer half SS/M for a total of $586 billion. $839 billion income taxes plus $374 billion employee paid half of SS/M is now targetted to go back to the employees in the "keep 100% of your paycheck promise". So, $1.21 billion is being given to the employees as a windfall pay increase, and is not available to reduce costs.
This $586 billion is only 32% of the original taxes that were intended to be wrung out of the producer cost structure.
The FairTax people tell us that 22-23% of the cost of the average goods and services is embedded costs of the present tax system. So, now we are only getting 32% of that embedded cost out, which is 7-8% of the original 22-23%. Adding another $200 billion in compliance savings and we arrive again at the 8-10% savings number I have previosuly estimated for what can be removed from the cost of goods under the FairTax.
Assuming an 8-10% reduction in shelf prices, the addition of the 30% Fairtax means prices paid go up 17-20%, also as I have been saying.
I listen to less and less talk radio all the time. Once you are staying abreast of what's going on from FR and the Internet, the talk radio hosts are a few days behind ususally, and they also usually lack facts.
If I was a talk radio host, I would definitely be staying on the pulse of FR.
For a 9% drop to occur, each component in your example would have to drop 9%.Huh? See I told you, simple logic confuses them.---
We're talking about whether or not a savings of 9% at each stage of production leads to a total savings of a higher percentage. It does.
----
Tony was also very civil and humble, something sorely lacking in most hosts (whose names I will not use).
When I see famous people who are supposedly "experts" in politics and yet have kneejerk reactions, or worse...deliberately ignore facts, it sosrt of sours me on the whole medium, which is why I quit listening.
Principled, re your post #148, the...er...principled thing to do would have been to ping Rob to it since you were discussing him.
What you WERE saying was that a percent saving at each stage will result in an equivalent percent saving at retail - that is false.
I won't argue about nominal prices changing - they may. But that is immaterial. Purchasing power will remain stable.
Instead of paying 3.50 for a gallon of milk with 10.00 you may pay 3.85 for it but have 11.00.
Why the hoopla about nominal prices?
As I explained before, there is no right or wrong way to use percentages when comparing rankings on a list-- it is meaningless. So, I have already admitted that I was being sarcastic, there was no "error".
What about Boortz's error about the highest paperback debut in over forty years? Do you like that this man is leading your cause?
I have no idea about what that idiot will say. He's an entertainer. Taking him for more than that is dumb.
Do you like that this man is leading your cause?
Thank goodness he's not. The radio gives tax reform publicity, but boortz does not lead anyone I know.
It's the need for tax reform that has the populace ready to hear about reform proposals. We are primed and ready for a change. It's coming. People hunger to eliminate the beast, which only prepares them to hear options. Boortz often talks about one of them - I don't listen to him nor howard stern nor barbra stresiand nor michael moore. They're all paid entertainers.
Also about 200 million in various federal fees, tariffs, estate taxes, and special purpose excise taxes.
Perhaps not, but that is not what was erroneous. Your usage of inclusive and exclusive was wrong.
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.