Posted on 09/03/2006 5:18:40 AM PDT by Man50D
The economy says you're wrong.
?????
You'll need to explain that one to me.
Illogical.
No. No matter how much the contractor spends building the house, when you, as the end user, purchase the house then roughly 23% of the total purchase price will be taxes that go to the fed. In your example, if you spend 500,000 for the house then about 23% of that will go to the fed. Its not a matter of actual cost versus profit but rather a matter of final purchase price. The contractor, in building the house, will pay very minimal taxes becausae business to business taxes are eliminated under the FT. He may pay taxes (inclusive) on certain services he contracts out for (such as hiring a cleaning crew), but the bulk of the taxes will be paid by the end user.
You registered the name Roscoe and the profile page is still there.
If this was an easy thing to achieve, it would have already been achieved. You should seriously question anyone who tells you it will be painless, everyone will come out ahead (except illegals), and that there will be no strong enforcement authority.
It is a pipedream.
"The economy says you're wrong."
Is that a defacto admission that you like the current tax system?
here: http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/final-report/
(see section 9)
and here: http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/tax7.html
Repealing the 16th Amendment does not end the possibility of an income tax, it just gets rid of the 16th Amendment.
The account has been closed for years. Ask the mods on the way out.
Assuming your word has any value.
"Nope, I've never read the Fair Tax book or really studied this issue and I'm just talking out my wazoo."
"Finally, you admit the truth."
I made that statement about someone else, not myself. You've taken me completely out of context. This, in addition to the fact that you refuse to answer simple questions, leads me to the conclusion that you aren't interested in honest debate.
I'm all done with you.
...looks just like pigdog's page.
Funny how that works out.
The problem with boortz is he shoots off without being informed sufficiently. He "knows enough to be dangerous".
When he began writing the book, he didn't take time to understand the assumptions made by the economist who did the study and ended up misrepresenting him.
The 22% reduction he spoke of (and the 22% reduction opined by the economist) were assuming that workers reduced their pay to today's net.
It doesn't make sense to reduce contracted wages. It was just a way to quantify savings. Anyway, in the real world, contracted wages aren't going to change solely because of the nrst. So the thinking was to identify what would be saved by business. That amount was decided on as a range. Anti-nrst folks say retail prices can fall 9% and pro nrst folks say 16%. So somewhere in between would make a reasonable discussion. I always use 9%, just because it makes it possible to even talk to those guys. But I do think it will be more.
I digress. So you've read that either
take home pay decreases AND prices remain constant
or
take home pay increases and tax inclusive prices increase.
Well, postulating that contracted wages remain constant, then tax inclusive prices will increase.
Most people think this is a problem because most people have been lulled into forgetting that the income tax reduces purchasing power - and does so more than the nrst does - this is due to lower effective rates.
A basic example: I pay 25% of my earnings to fed income and payroll taxes. So to to buy a "$100" baseball glove for my nephew, I need to earn $133.
Now look at the nrst scenario; this is where the 9% price drop ocmes in. THe previously priced glove goes to $91. Then, under the nrst, my effective fed tax rate is 17%. So I'd need to earn $109.64.
So tax inclusive prices rise , but the amount you need to earn to buy the thing is significantly less (133 vs 109.64). 6 of one half dozen of the other - but because contracted wages won't change, we use the latter assumption - that take home rises (to gross pay) and prices fall 9-16%, then rise by the nrst. 'Course the marginal rate isn't what we pay - it's an effective rate we pay. You can go to www.pafairtax.org to get an estimate of your effective rate.
That the income tax reduces buying power somewhere besides where you spend it is another socialist tactic to remove taxes from your mind as preventing you from buying more.
Zon: If I can prove that you have two screen names, you never again post to FreeRepublic under any screen name? If I can't prove it I leave. 222
Mojave: Agreed. 228
If a house sells now for $500,000 including everything then that same new house under the FairTax regime would sell for about $600,000, assuming that workers are keeping 100% of their paychecks.
You still are straddling that fence-- what do you say will happen to wages under the FairTax regime?
And business would not pay the FairTax on any services or goods purchased in the course of doing business-- including the business trucks, and gas, and any travel expenses, cleaning crews, landscapers, etc, no FairTax on any of those costs. At most, the builder could save 8% which drops his pretax "selling price" to $460,000 and then the 29.87% FairTax is added and the actual full selling price and the mortgage needed is $597,400.
I would be very careful about putting words in peoples mouths (or posts). It is gravely frowned on by the mods - nearly as gravely as profanity and insults.
In case you didn't notice, I'm trying. And Boortz and Linder co-wrote that book so it's not just Boortz.
THen there was the guy (lewislynn) who went on for a week or so saying that those eeeeevil afft guys are eeeeeviler than ever, because on their website, they say that 100-22=78. He went on for gosh knows how long about 100-22 is really 88 and those eeeevil nrst guys are fooling us all. Really.That's another of your lies. It didn't go on for a week and it was a hasty mistake. Unlike my mistake, you're just stupid. And unlike you I can back it up with links to prove it.
"It is true that 100*.9=90 and is a 10% discount and it's true that 90*.9=81 and is a 10% discountSure it's true. Everyone knows when you can buy something for less than the moron selling it paid for it, it's usually a huge discount. It's also true the moron who dreamed up this discount plan (Principled) knows nothing about math, practical applications or business and will lose their a$$.It is also true that two successive discounts of 10% result in a total discount of more than 10%.
And I'm supposed to beleive you know something about effective tax rates, among others?...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You want to see more? There's plenty more to see.
To buy the house under the income tax, I would have to earn 667,000. (25% effective rate)
To buy the house under the nrst, I would have to earn 554,000.(17% effective rate).
Sorry Rob, you can't ignore the reduction in purchasing power caused by the income tax here.
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.