Posted on 06/07/2006 3:47:07 PM PDT by pigdog
FairTax Strikes Back - Introduction On April 8, 2003 I wrote my first article on the FairTax proposal. The article FairTax - Income Taxes vs. Sales Taxes detailed the costs and benefits of moving from a system of income taxes to a system of sales taxes. In the article I concluded that "[the]FairTax is an interesting proposal which is unlikely to ever be implemented." The response I received to this article was overwhelming. I've gotten hundreds and hundreds of e-mails on the article, every last one of them from a FairTax supporter. While many of the supporters had something negative to say about the article (and its author), one FairTax supporter wrote a number of intelligent, passionate e-mails about the benefits of the FairTax system, and pointed me towards studies supporting the FairTax.
That supporter is Al Ose, author of the book "America's Best-Kept Secret: FairTax." I was quite impressed with Al's e-mails, so I invited him to write a pro-FairTax article for Economics at About.com. This is that article.
Someone please find the crayons for this poster to amuse himself with.
Since you seem to (wish to) not understand the point, I've carefully explained it again to you in #163, q.v.
And it's not JUST "corporate income taxes" as you well know, but all business income taxes that are involved. And the VAT-like I.T. cascades through them all - adding unnecessarily to the costs of things. That's one of the reasons why prices will drop with the advent of the FairTax.Not only that but:
You don't seem to understand that the hidden taxes are not taxes paid into the Treasury Dept. as income tax (business or otherwise) but are prices increased by the cascading of business income tax costs into prices that are passed on to further levels in the production/distribution chain. They cause artificially increased prices due to downstream income taxes that have cascaded into increased costs for things eventually bought by consumers.518 posted on 03/02/2006 7:15:48 PM PST by pigdogYou SQL Studs don't grasp the concept but most who think about it will certainly understand that prices are artificially boosted due solely to taxes that businesses pay and these inflated prices are merely a hidden tax on the consumer that is in addition to any income taxes paid.
Your and the other Squirrels' efforts of trying to claim that the discussion relates to taxes paid to the government are meaningless. The discussion is about prices (not taxes) being needlessly inflated by such hidden taxes. That's why they are called "hidden". DUH!!!
It's all of that AND a VAT!?
After trying to read any logic into that rant about taxes not going to the government treasury as tax (where do they go?) it's hard to figure which is hidden, the tax in the price or the price in the tax.
That was classic pigdog.
As you've demonstrated you should never, NEVER attempt "figuring". None of you disciples grasp the hidden tax concept - of course not, since doing so destroys your incorrect notion that prices will rise after the I.T. is removed and before the FairTax is applied.
You also keep trying to claim wages will decline or at leasy fall to existing takehome values. That's wrong, too.
So post all the out of context snippets you wish; you're not going to alter the truth (nor even admit it, apparently).
The amount of taxes collected from the higher prices under the embedded taxes of the present system are actually quite small. I gave an example of a $100 purchase that ended up with (very generously) a $3.75 tax revenue amount which, under the FairTax, would have been $23.00.341 posted on 07/24/2005 1:49:04 AM PDT by pigdogThe tax "contribution" of an income tax system is on the profit involved which is even smaller than the higher prices caused by the tax cascading. One determines that using arithmetic, BTW.
I guess I missed what part of the "quite small" amount collected is the VAT.I gave an example of a $100 purchase that ended up with (very generously) a $3.75 tax revenue amount which, under the FairTax, would have been $23.00.
Reading that sentence makes it hard to guess which side of the issue you're on...The big government exorbitant tax ($23.00 Fairtax VS. $3.75 income tax) side I guess.
They haven't given any advice, but I do notice you haven't called anyone names since then.
So post all the out of context snippets you wish; you're not going to alter the truthAll of your rants are out of context but how does reposting anything you've said alter the truth?...unless there's no truth to what you've said.
"I guess I missed what part of the "quite small" amount collected is the VAT."
Actually, poddner, you missed a lot more than that ... you missed the entire point of the discussion.
What was being discussed was NOT what part of the amount paid in embedded taxes was part of a VAT (which was not even being discussed at all, but thanks for the extraneous insertion of terms).
The topic was about the tax contribution of an illegal alien when he purchases things presently versus when he purchases under the FairTax. And the rationale was that almost the only tax paid by these criminals WAS that portion of income tax embedded in the prices of the things they buy.
A number of the uninformed/dishonest were claiming that the "tax contribution" from their retail purchases presently were essentially equal to what they would pay under the FairTax. I believe the term you all typically used was "it's a wash".
I had presented some examples that showed this clearly not to be the case and the the "contribution" presently in the example given was something like $3.75 while under the FairTax the amount would have been $23.00.
The point was, of course, that is is not at all "a wash" and it had nothing at all to do with a VAT or any other tax form. Your trying to misuse by OOC (out of context) posting is clever (but not very).
In fact my estimate of the $3.75 amount represented the entire I.T. "contribution". In fact, if one used the nonsensical (and doubtless incorrect) figure of 7 to 8 percent that you present as embedded tax that will be eliminated from pricing under the FairTax), the "contribution" would be much less than $3.75 at present (vs. $23 with the FairTax).
It's not a wash at all!!
Could you rephrase that to something meaningful?? Or at least understandable??
That's because I can't stand to see a grown man cry ... but my hankie's still at the ready if you burst into tears suddenly again.
"Do you support the Flat Tax?"
What is "the Flat Tax"?
"Do you support the income tax?"
"No. I support the Flat Tax."
Every "Flat Tax" proposal that I have seen is a version of income tax, the primary difference theoretically being that the rtae chart only has one level. I say "theoretically" because a couple of the so-called "flat tax" proposals in congress are income tax bills with more than one level in the rate chart.
Saying that you don't support an income tax, but rather "the Flat Tax" is therefore misleading and deceptive.
PS: Have you officially sworn off the VAT?
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.