Posted on 09/03/2006 5:18:40 AM PDT by Man50D
Abolish the federal income tax!
No more taxes on savings and investments!
A "Fair Tax" can completely fund the federal government, Social Security and Medicare!
You control how much you spend!
So what are we waiting for?
You, the taxpayers of America burdened with an income tax that is costly, wasteful and sinking America into inevitable bankruptcy. All current forms of federal taxation would end! You would keep 100 percent of your paycheck. You control how you spend your paycheck. It's your money. You make the decisions as to how you want to spend your money.
The Fair Tax would create more jobs and give the USA a level playing field when selling overseas. United States Senator John Linder (R-Georgia) is sponsoring the "Fair Tax Act of 2005." If enacted by Congress, it would accomplish all of the above. Simple. Easy. And affordable.
It's the best way to downsize government without disrupting the economy.
To join the "Fair Tax" movement in America, just sign the "Economic Freedom & Fairness" Petition supporting forward-thinking solutions. Go to www.grassfire.net and liberate the working class of taxpayers. Grassfire is trying to give the working class the same kind of freedom America's founders gave to those who joined the American Revolution in 1776 with the "Declaration of Independence." We won the Revolutionary War, but have lost our country since the 16th Amendment (income tax) became "Law" in 1913.
(Excerpt) Read more at bayshorenews.com ...
Your retarted use of statistics does nothing to promote you cause. Arguing with you is beyond dumb.
"pigdog stated for average taxpayer, the tax paid under the FairTax would be $3,128 and the tax paid under the Income tax now is $6,488. "
An interesting observation ... but not accurate. What I actually said was very clearly delineated by certain observations and did nothing so broad as to say anything at all about any average taxpayer in general. The quote I made was:
""The effective tax rate for the mid quintile guy married with 2 kids will be about 7.82% (tax paid $3,128) under the FairTax while it was 12.5% ($6,488) under the income tax ... can you tell us which is better for the taxpayer???""
I made no such broad generalization as you pretend. And, it's not a "claim" at all but an example derived from actual valid and readily available figures using simple arithmetic and covering both the income tax and the FairTax.
Perhaps you'd like to calculate your own effective tax rate under the FairTax and post it here. You can certainly do so anonymously and it would illustrate you knew what an effective tax rate actually was.
pigdog post 427:
Even at the present 23% ti rate, the average (middle CBO quintile; married, 2 kids) taxpayer who has an effective income tax rate of 12.5% ($6488 in income tax paid) will have an effective FairTax rate of 7.82% ($3,128 in FairTax paid). So, you see, the actual tax rate paid (the effective rate) is much, much lower that those repeatedly put forth by opponents.
Have you calculated your effective FairTax tax rate yet?? If so, it would help verify you knew what an effective tax rate actually was.
You're welcome to show the verifiable numbers that show this is incorrect.
You're also welcome to derive your own FairTax effective tax rate and post it here so it can be verified that you understand what an effective tax rate actually is. There's a general guide in post #1052.
Whatever. If that makes sense to you, go for it.
Yes there was-- see your tagline in 1019, 1026 and 1032 for proof that you are mis-stating facts which are readily in evidence.
Paging Bill Clinton.
And there's nothing in that post that generalizes - as you attempt to do - to make it a claim about any general average taxpayer. It's about a very specific "average" taxpayer and is also very correct.So now there are two averages... You are a real piece of work, pigdog. I've said it before, you would deny your mother if you thought it would help the FairTax.
Checkmate.
I surely was not saying that all average taxpayers have the same tax parameters - not would most reasonable people read it that way. The facts that I gave are easily verified.
BTW, how about calculating your own FairTax effective tax rate and posting it here for us. This would show everyone that you've finally learned what an effective tax rate is and how surprised you'd be by seeing it come out to be so low. See post #1052 for some help.
There is certainly more than one average taxpayer, but identifying a specific average taxpayer by specifying the tax parameters is hardly the same thing as saying "all average taxpayers ..." have such and such.You are a joke. There is no such thing as a "general" average and a "specific" average. There is only the average.
BTW, how about calculating your own FairTax effective tax rate and posting it here for us. This would show everyone that you've finally learned what an effective tax rate is and how surprised you'd be by seeing it come out to be so low.Let's see. I have a family of 3 and we make $23,000. So I spend all of that and pay $5,290 in FairTax. Wait, that's not right. I only got $17,710 worth of stuff. I haven't been able to buy my $23,000 worth of "essential goods and services" that the AFT said I would get tax free. Oh wait, that's right - the Family Consumption Allowance. OK.
You're doing the same thing in this "example" of misuse of the comparative tax concept as you were earlier - as I clearly told you in post #1052 except that you've dropped the income under each tax from $100,000 to $23,000 and you've continued to include the prebate in the same erroneous manner biasing the result in favor of the income tax. In addition, you aren't removing the untaxed things from the FairTax base for yourself as shown earlier. Study #1052 or, better yet, do as I've suggested and calculate your FairTax effective tax rate and post it here so we can all be sure you now understand it since presently it's apparent you do not.
You've merely done the same calculation again changing nothing but the "income" (your term) numbers. As I've pointed out that isn't a valid description of the effective tax rate or the comparison between the two tax systems.
You could easily have a taxable base of $18,500 rather than the erroneous $23,000 and this would make your effective FairTax rate -5.59% ($1,035 extra dollars to your benefit). Even ignoring that you could have spent the entire $23,000 since the prebate would pay the entire tax amount on that much spending so you claim of being able to buy "only" $17,710 is quite incorrect. You can use the entire $23,000 for taxable purchases (if that WERE possible - and it's not) and it's hard to see why you choose to be so obtuse about it since you surely know better.
The $23,000 is your income under either tax system and you can spend that much under either - though you'll get a good deal more "bang for the buck" under the FairTax due to the price decrease when the income tax goes away. In fact, you'd pay income tax of $1,152 (effective income tax rate of 5.01% while with the FairTax you'd actually receive $1,035 more due to the effects of the prebate and your FairTax effective tax rate (which you haven't calculated correctly). That's a net swing of $2,187 in favor of the FairTax which on a $23,000 income is about like getting a 9.5% tax free raise.
As I mentioned earlier most people would no doubt like to find out how they'd fare under the FairTax as compared to the experience they already know about under the income tax. The only way to show this is to honestly show the effects of the same income in each rather than biasing the result as you've done (whether intentionally or not).
"The FairTax people told me I wouldn't be taxed on my "essential goods and services," but I ended up paying $1,216.70 in net Fairtax!!! What gives? They wouldn't lie, would they?"
No, absolutely not ... nor have they. You've merely done your example incorrectly, now, a second time in exactly the same manner as the first. Seems odd.
A family who today earns 23,000 and an overall federal effective tax rate of 5% would be able to spend 21,850.
The family under the nrst (the one in the posts above) would earn 23,000 and get a rebate of 5290. They'd have cash on hand of 28,290 which would be reduced by tax down to 21,783. And that 21,783 buys more under the nrst that today. A 9% price drop means that 21,783 would buy 23,937 worth of stuff.
9 out of 10 anti nrst arguments are fraudulent in that they neglect the effect that the income tax has on earnings. It's silly why they do that. Do you suppose that while discussing the comparison of systems that people notice their omitting one of the sytstems? LOL!
Goodness, gracious ... why would they do a thing like that???
In addition, under the income tax the after-income-tax money ($21,850 approx) buys "stuff" that is actually of lesser value due to the embedded taxes which works to reduce the value of things purchased under the income tax - truly a lose-lose proposition.
And, what's even worse under the income tax to even have the $21,850 the taxpayer had to earn (guess what ...) $23,000. Ironic, ain't it??
You need to straighten out your example as well as your single-minded definition of the word "average". It has a number of meanings.Only pigdog....
If 30% can equal 23%, "average" can mean whatever they want it to.
You need to straighten out your example as well as your single-minded definition of the word "average". It has a number of meanings.Only pigdog....
And Principled:
"Do you know what average means?Actually the other wrong answer would be 1.8
Do you know what selling price means?The math is simple - if you say 9% can come off prices at retail in a 5 stage pricess, the average is trivial (although I'm certain you can't find it without help).
I'll help you - It's appx 1.87%. That reduction amount, over 5 stages, will yield a 9% reduction at retail.
1,347 posted on 06/05/2006 9:28:15 AM PDT by Principled
principled"Actually it's pretty easy to get the average. Using only publicly available information on this thread and an approximate number of stages an average is trivial.Closer would be better than totally wrong at every angle.For example, using Rob's 9% number and 3 stages, the average price reduction would be appx 3.1% (or 3.09478917 if you want closer)".
What you don't seem to understand YN is that as trivial as all this "average" stuff is it's also very complicated arithmetic....for some.
These are the clowns calling me math challenged...Bwahahahahaha!!!
These are the clowns calling me math challenged...Bwahahahahaha!!!That's because it's not "math," it's arithmetic!
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.