My response to you on this "its-a-wash" nonsense with the underground economy and the SQ vs. the FairTax from an earlier thread ...
==============================================
"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've been all over the fact that in any income tax system, some component of tax cascades and becomes embedded into prices. That's why several of the Euro (and other) countries tried the VAT - to remove the tax component from prices; didn't work too well. The claim you make that wages must decline across-the-board for a price reduction is absurd as is your claim to know what the Panel did in ASSUMING that prices would rise. That's equally unfounded.
$10B is trivial??? Hmm - shows your SQL mindset - that's for sure. And with the FairTax, the paying for the businesses and the states collecting the sales tax comes out of the tax revenues, It is not an unfunded mandate as with the government putting an unfunded mandate on all taxpayers at present to comply (or attempt to) with the income tax laws. Perhaps you also believe that the many BILLIONS not now gained in income taxes from illegal aliens (that would be gained under the FairTax) is "trivial" also???
The end is nigh, all right, but not for the FairTax. It is only a question of when it will be passed into law. Your desperate pronouncements of unreality make no difference at all. If anything, the Panel Staff has marginalized itself by making such obviously-flawed analyses.
It's a shame you "don't do requests" since you do sit-down comedy so well. I guess your prognostication of the Panel's 9/30 output is worth what it costs.
$10B is trivial??? Hmm - shows your SQL mindset - that's for sure.Compared to $2 trillion, $10 billion is trivial.
And with the FairTax, the paying for the businesses and the states collecting the sales tax comes out of the tax revenues,Yeah, just like the IRS budget. What's your point, or do you even have one?
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."Um, the income the drug buyer is using to buy the drugs with is taxed. He had to make ~$125 dollar to buy $100 worth of drugs. The government got the other $25.
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.Legal or illegal you can't come up with a 20% price reduction by eliminating the income tax. In fact the best you can do is 3.75% and that's on "a good margin of 25%"
Thank you Lapdog for exposing another of your Fairtax frauds using your own math and your own words.
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 FairTaxIs that supposed to impress us?
Legal or illegal the same tax principle applies.
Once again Lapdog using your example, curently the consumer would pay 3.75% "imbedded" tax...the Fairtax way would be 23% "imbedded" tax...
In other words, just as some of us have been saying all along, the seller would have to increase his prices 30% to cover the increase of the new 23% tax.