But everything I've pointed out has proven to be fact, such as:
The bureaucrats at SS would determine the rates after the first year,
There would be a tax on some earned as well as paid interest,
Wages and self-employment income would be required to be reported,
There's no possible way prices can be reduced 20% or more by just eliminating the income tax on business,
There would be a 30% (not 23%)excise tax on "any government" wages, salaries, retirement and any other benefits.
The most recent argument (once again) is the tax, by law, "is 23% of the gross payment" and a "gross payment" has to include other taxes such as state/local, fee's, excises, etc.
to name a few.
As long as everyone knows what to expect, that it isn't going to be a tax free nirvana and that's what they want...fine by me.
It's true that after the first year the rate is adjusted to keep the SS portion what it is now, and references the IRC for this purpose. I'm not familiar with the IRC code it refernces, and would appreciate an education in that regard.
There would be a tax on some earned as well as paid interest,
Please explain. I'm not aware of this.
Wages and self-employment income would be required to be reported,
I don't know if they are REQUIRED or not, they likely are. However this is only for the purposes of determining SS benefits.
There's no possible way prices can be reduced 20% or more by just eliminating the income tax on business,
This has been discussed a great deal. There is more than just the business income tax. There is also payroll, and the cascading effect of taxes to consider. (also the effect of non-tax cascading costs such as imports must be considered as well). I expect you are correct, in that the SS & income taxes must be reduced from wages and then prices for full revenue neutrality to occure without affecting gross prices, however, leaving them in wages and allowing for an increase in price accomplishes the same net.
There would be a 30% (not 23%)excise tax on "any government" wages, salaries, retirement and any other benefits.
I don't know what you refer to here, and I would very much appreciate an explaination if you are willing to provide one.
The most recent argument (once again) is the tax, by law, "is 23% of the gross payment" and a "gross payment" has to include other taxes such as state/local, fee's, excises, etc.
This one I'm more familiar with, and I am certain you are misrepresenting the Bill, and have explained how in another post.
I have enjoyed reasoned discussions with several who oppose the FairTax bill, and have benefitted from having my own misconceptions corrected by many of them. However, it has been my experience that you seem to prefer logical sleight of hand and obfuscation to making real and substantive objections. This post is the most reasoned and lacking in deceptive tactics that I think I have ever seen you post... And I expect I could learn much from you were to avoid deceptive obfuscations. I hope this post is more representative of your future posts than your previous ones.
As long as everyone knows what to expect, that it isn't going to be a tax free nirvana and that's what they want...fine by me.
I would agree with this, and would not wish to discredit you for pointing out a valid flaw.