Posted on 04/04/2006 2:17:28 PM PDT by Eaglewatcher
Take a look at Shalom Israel's posts #407. 408. 409. 410. 413, 415,& 418.
All are off-topic and no doubt intended to derail the discussion from tax issues. This person is nothing but an intentional disruptor and I believe should be banned if he's not interested in contributing to the subject at hand but only disrupting it.
Might very well be the same guy with a different screenname.
He of course has the right of free speech, meaning that he can say whatever he wants--however banal and vacuous. But luckily, I have the right of free association, which means I can ignore his twittering. I've amused myself a bit by replying with non sequiturs this evening, because I think it nicely illustrates the utter one-sidedness of his posting: he can even incorporate a post about food into his imaginary debate, and convince himself that he's gained advantage into the bargain.
That you're willing to join him in his fantasy doesn't speak terribly well of your own qualifications as a discussant, but of course that isn't news. By all means continue flattering each other.
As for the actual subject of this thread, I've said enough. Nobody has made even an abortive attempt at disproving any of my arguments, so until or unless someone does so, the ball is not in my court.
You were told earlier to knock off the personal attacks. Now you're spammimg this thread.
This is your last warning to knock it off!
Pigdog's posts are in the nature of ad hominem attacks, and having already been asked not to say mean things to people, I am powerless to respond. If you check each of the posts flagged by Pigdog, you will see that I was replying in each case to yet another post by Pigdog and directed at me.
This situation has me a bit perplexed. I'm more than willing to comply with the request not to say anything mean to anybody, but the same courtesy is not being extended back to me. I will stop reading this thread, in hopes that future trouble is avoided.
Bye, fraud.
Intellectual discourse requires at least two discussants, both of whom must have the intellectual wherewithal.
Indeed it does. You showed your tail at #232, with your failure to answer AG.
I've amused myself a bit by replying with non sequiturs this evening,
Yes, you have. -- It nicely illustrates the utterly inane one-sidedness of your posting.
That you're willing to join in [t]his fantasy [of mine] doesn't speak terribly well of your own qualifications as a discussant, but of course that isn't news.
I'm not joining in your fantasy, I'm laughing at it, -- and you.
As for the actual subject of this thread, I've said enough. Nobody has made even an abortive attempt at disproving any of my arguments, so until or unless someone does so, the ball is not in my court.
Ancient Geezer utterly destroyed your arguments, -- and you abandoned the discussion at #232. -- Admit it.
The FairTax base (retail goods) is much, much larger than the number of incomes tax base (incomes).But it collects the same amount AND pays out MORE in negative taxes...so (without more personal insults if you're capable) what's your point?
It was incorrect to ban Shalom Israel. His comments were ridiculous, but he was making a point. Pigdog was using the same tactic making asnine comments in posts in 318, 319, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 328, 329, 331, 332 and many more. Pigdog made no intelligent point, just stupid attacks to bump the thread to shill for the fairtax. Shalom was just responding in kind.
You notice my example did not include guesses. Guesses are not necessary.
All that is necessary is for everybody to sit down and run their own numbers. I realize that is more effort than simply promising everybody some generalized benefit. I feel confident that enough voters would like the results they see to pass the FairTax.
Shalom Israel was banned because he was a retread.
Nihao, Mathemagician are two of his previous names.
Intellectual discourse requires at least two discussants, both of whom must have the intellectual wherewithal.
Take a look at Shalom Israel's posts #407. 408. 409. 410. 413, 415,& 418.
421
Other gems by Shalom Israel include prohibited personal attacks...
As far as I can tell Shalom Israel does much, much more to discredit the few anti-FairTax detractors while benefiting the FairTax revolution.
. The FairTax (H.R.25) explicitly taxes only retail goods for consumption with the expressed intent of taxing those items once and only once.` (12) TAXABLE EMPLOYER-----
BTW, thanks for assisting me in correcting my error in order to make sure I accurately and specifically identified your dishonesty.(shaking head in near disbelief) You're sooo easy
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `taxable employer' includes--In case you don't understand it, it's your 30% (not 23%) fairtax imposed ON wages, salaries and benefits of "any government employee"....And it's HUGE! Not to mention you omitted the Fairtax is also imposed on services....(shaking head in near disbelief) You're sooo`(i) any household employing domestic servants, and
`(ii) any government except for government enterprises (as defined in section 704).
----
`(C) CROSS REFERENCE- For rules relating to collection and remittance of tax on wages by taxable employers, see section 103(b)(2).
---
`103(b)(2)
CERTAIN WAGES OR SALARY- In the case of wages or salary paid by a taxable employer which are taxable services, the employer shall remit the tax imposed by section 101.----
`(17) WAGES AND SALARY- The terms `wage' and `salary' mean all compensation paid for employment service including cash compensation, employee benefits, disability insurance, or wage replacement insurance payments, unemployment compensation insurance, workers' compensation insurance, and the fair market value of any other consideration paid by an employer to an employee in consideration for employment services rendered.
so (without more personal insults if you're capable) what's your point?
It is not a personal insult it is a statement of fact. You know full well what the Fair Tax Act, H.R.25 S1493 say. And you dishonestly imply otherwise (see below the ****). Those are facts. If you feel insulted look in the mirror.
****
lewislynn: The Fairtax tax base already taxes everything new, what's it going to expand to, taxing everything used, taxing income?390
As previously said at 392: The FairTax (H.R.25) explicitly taxes only retail goods for consumption with the expressed intent of taxing those items once and only once. As well, the FairTax eliminates the income tax code and its muscle, the IRS. The FairTax base (retail goods) is much, much larger than the number of incomes tax base (incomes). But you already know all of that. Thus you were being intentionally deceptive when you wrote: "The Fairtax tax base already taxes everything new, what's it going to expand to, taxing everything used, taxing income?"
Well take a look at many of pigdog's responses. Pigdog started responding to dozens of comments around post 310 to three days old comments and most of his arguements were void of any substance. All he did was call all these arguements wrong, and when he did make a point it had little to do with the subject. Just pure shilling.
I offered you $500 to contact your buddies at AFFT to straighten that out. Boortz, Jorgenson, and most of your fairtax buddies have stated or conceded that Dr. Jorgenson's 23% embedded taxes included taxes paid by the employee. It is well documented. Put up or shut up.
The tax base is people and you know that. It figures you'd deceptively switch the tax base -- people -- into new/used products being the tax base. Lewislynn, you're dishonest to the boneLOL! Those are all your words sooo, who was being what again?----
Okay, the FairTax base is new retail items for consumption. The income tax base is incomes. Now it's correct.
---
Thus you were being intentionally deceptive (when you wrote: "The Fairtax tax base already taxes everything new, what's it going to expand to, taxing everything used, taxing income?"390
Shalom Israel was banned because he was a retread.
Nihao, Mathemagician are two of his previous names.
I appreciate your efforts. Does that mean that Shalom Israel's behavior on this thread is acceptable and do not warrant suspension or banning? If acceptable I find that degenerative to FreeRepublic's longevity.
His behavior was unacceptable. He was suspended for it before he was banned after we discovered his previous identies.
Just how fair is the 'FairTax'?
Money Magazine
Part of the problem is the way Boortz and Linder are using the idea of embedded taxes. In an eight-year-old study paid for by AFFT, Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson noted that because the taxes paid by everyone in the chain of production are embedded in the cost of goods, prices could decline an average of 20 percent if all those taxes were scrapped. The FairTax Book devotes an entire chapter to this idea.
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.
-----------------------------
JORGENSON EXPLODES FAIRTAX MYTH (FR Exclusive)
August 25, 2005 | RobFromGa
Dr. Jorgenson,
Excuse me for my lack of understanding of your answer, when you say "workers would keep that after-tax pay" are you saying that if they are making $1000 a week now, and paying $200 payroll+income taxes now, that under the FairTax you were assuming that workers would get paid $800 and keep all of that? Or are you saying that you meant they would make $1000 under the FairTax?
Regards,
Rob (freeper RobfromGa)
Dr Jorgenson responded:
August 24, 2005
Dear Rob,
I am saying that the worker would continue to receive the after-tax amount of $800. Prices received by producers would decline to cover the cost of after-tax wages to workers and after-tax dividends and interest to investors. However, taxes paid at the retail level would include the Fair Tax.
Best,
Dale
-----------------------------------
Fair Tax - Straightening Out Some Confusion
Nealz Nuze ^ | 9/15/2005 | Neal Boortz
Now here's what we didn't explain well in the book.
Every employee of any company involved in American commerce is also a provider of a service, and, as such, the employee incurs a tax liability as a result of his or her work. This tax liability is incorporated into what the employee charges the employer for their services, and is eventually incorporated into the final retail cost of the employer's product or service. Each employee is essentially a separate business entity providing a product, be it physical or mental labor, to the employer.
The extensive research behind HR 25, The FairTax Bill, shows that the average embedded taxes in every consumer product or service is about 22%. In some industries, such as leather goods, the embedded tax is smaller. In other industries, such as homebuilding and construction, the embedded tax is higher, but it averages out to somewhere between 22 and 23%. With the passage of The FairTax Bill, those embedded taxes disappear. These embedded taxes include the combined tax burdens of all entities involved in bringing those goods or services to market, and that includes you, the employee, and the taxes you incur as a result of your employment.
We write in The FairTax Book that the competitive pressures of the marketplace will force prices down when embedded taxes disappear from the cost of retail goods and services, and we cite 22% as the average amount of those embedded taxes. Does this 22% include the income and payroll taxes that are paid by employees? Yes, it does.
-----------------------------------------
There is no wiggle room. The 22% embedded tax number AFFT quotes so often from Dr. Jorgenson includes taxes paid by the employee. There is no keeping 100% of your current gross wages AND prices falling 22%. It is a lie that AFFT keeps on telling. And it is a lie because they damn well know better.
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.