Posted on 06/10/2005 11:13:37 AM PDT by Always Right
Piggie apparently believes that the tax base would triple, i.e., there is twice as much money spent on services as on purchases of goods in Cal. Sounds delusional to me. Since you are supporting him in this, I assumed you had numbers to demonstrate. Apparently it's all snake-oil once again.
In my example, I clearly explained the cost with tax was $130.
In addition, your continued use of tex-exclusive figures isn't accurate either, since the correct t-e figure is 29.87%, not "30".
Actually, the correct figure is 29.87012987012987012987012987........but I think most sane people would accept 30% as a round figure for 29.87%.
Let's say the tax rate is 7.75% (it varies by location in that state as in some others). The tax base presently is on a very restricted range of things with many exemptions, exceptions, exclusions, and special situations. It is nowhere near the entire consumption base since only tangible things are involved for one thing.
Conforming the sales tax to the FairTax would actually easily more than double the tax base since now services would be taxable as well and services typically are more than half of the dollar amount of consumption.
In addition, all exemptions, etc. (and there are thousands) would disappear raising the tax base further.
It is easy to see, then, that the tax base would about triple (or perhaps be even larger) which would bring the required sales tax rate into the 2% to 3% range.
It's pretty straightforward, actually.
The FairTax supporters have ALWAYS said that the rate was 23% t-i or 29.87% t-e. It's only the "anti" crowd that have tried to pretend something else.
Typically you try to present the numbers (usually incorrectly as 30% t-e) to pretend that others were being lied to. That has never been the case - and still isn't.
Fire up your search engine and you'll verify what I said.
I'm not about to waste my time with you on something you obviously don't wish to believe (and won't in any event). My statement stands. It's fine with me if you choose to not believe it.
You can laugh all you want, but that does nothing to explain how Jorgenson calculates embedded taxes and compliance costs. I enjoy your use of big words though. It makes you sound smarter than you are. It should not be that tough. You seem to have no clue what Jorgenson considers embedded taxes and compliance costs. I have seen some caculations for compliance costs, and most have nothing to do with actual costs to businesses.
Not, they all stand as of now. The only one I question is if their models assume 100% compliance. I've based that on one statement by an economist who reviewed their models. But I can't get enough information to learn what assumptions were actually used for compliance rates.
Well, no, Rongie. You clearly stated something quite different. You sopecified the "cost" was $100 which (as is called out in the bill) would include the sales tax (tax inclusive, you see).
And as for the "correct" figure, 29.87% would be the normal statistical rounding to two places and NOT 30.00%. That's merely more dishonesty. Use 29.87% and I have no complaints; use 30% and it's obvious you're trying to fool people.
LOL! You clearly have no basis for your delusional statements!
That's 'gross payment' according to your bill not 'costs'. I clearly defined what I meant by cost, so you are just being ignorant at this time.
You're kidding, right?
LOL, you boys are grasping for straws if you are going to call me a liar for not rounding off to two decimal places. The 30% number is legitimate. If I said 30.00% that would be incorrect. But for discussion purposes, 30% is an honest and correct rounding of 29.870129%. But you can continue to look like a fool to argue such a point.
You're not an honest participant in this debate, then.
But, of course, few on your side are.
As far as I know, you have always said that. However, I was trying to straighten out FairTax supporter Sprite518 who has been arguing otherwise, so you are mistaken in the above quote.
Phantom Lord did a pretty good job just fifteen posts in.
I'll assume you have a basis for that, and accept it. That could bring it down from 7.75% to about 5.2% (if the politicians don't decide to grab some extra money, as they're wont to do). The rest is just unquantifed, unsubstantiated hand-waving.
Phantom was wrong in his explaination of #1, he was incorrect in that he did not know that sales tax would in fact be charged on most state employee salaries, and his point that states might not go to the sales tax implies that states will keep the income tax which kind of destroys the whole point of the fair tax system to eliminate income taxes. If the states just pick up the income tax where the feds left off, what is the point? But if you think those are good points, so be it.
'Debating' with someone who calls themselves 'Always Right' is bound to be a fruitless exercise.
Humility is the beginning of wisdom.
So far you have contributed about 8 posts to this thread and have made 8 insults and zero points. About par for the course.
And it's been downhill for the author's claims ever since.
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.