Posted on 08/18/2005 6:34:27 AM PDT by GPBurdell
tick tick tick
crickets chirping
sagebrush rolling
hmmm....
how much longer can it take you?
Li'l jumpy eh?
The point is that today, to keep $55, he has to charge $75. The reason is hidden tax the consumer must pay.
Under the nrst, the consumer has t pay about the same $75 of which tax is paid and is labeled as tax on the receipt.
Why are you opposed to having consumers be more aware of their tax burden?
Your appeal to ridicule is telling.
First you should provide your definition of "salary" that you're using to your minions. They may be disappointed when they find out.
Second, your characterization of my post is preposterous.
The post indicated that a random service can collect largely the same fee from consumers after nrst and keep the same profit.
There has been no disagreement there. Why not?
For if the random retailer/service provder can collect the same before nrst and after while retaining similar profits, why would anyone need more money to pay for anything?
And tax costs include MORE than compliance costs you've pointed out.
Why do you continue to refuse the existence of costs of the income tax system except taxes pe se and some of he compliance costs? Do you really deny their existence?
Look up the word.
Crickets chirping
sagebrush rolling
See how stupid you look when you do something like that? I'm too human to allow your continued ridicule.
They get their contracted rate - just as now - but now, income and payroll taxes are withheld. Under the nrst, there is no tax withheld. Taxes still have to be paid (did you think otherwise?) - but they aren't withheld.
That's LEWISMATH!!!!!!!
Easy to spot from day 1 of his FReepmail recruitment.
True of the antireformers in general. Pick a lie, repeat it over and over, namecall, ridicule, ignore obvious rebuttals, etc.
The other is pick a random detail and argue it. That's phun.... I guess they think the world is stupid (they sound a lot like the libs these days eh?).
So now you admit that no nrst exists. Good. Next 5 times you say it's in Europe I'll recall this post.
You know as well as I do that the cost of employment is greater than the employee's hourly rate, because of matching SS expenses. (7.5%, IIRC-calculated as an exclusive rate, or inclusive, I don't know.) If that goes away, the employee gets the full hourly rate, the employer pockets the gain, and the cost of production drops. So both are true. Competition takes care of the rest.
If that doesn't convince you, maybe we could get Harry Reid to contribute some of that retirement money for more research!
That's part of there double accounting of benefits that I have been harping on for years. Of course they are only double-counting about $1 Trillion worth of benefits, no wonder they show a 10.5% growth. That error alone takes them down to 0% growth.
ROTFLOL....oh puh_leeeeez. That is the patented method of fair taxers. You could sue us if we stole your patent.
You speaketh with fork tongue. What more is there??? Explain oh wise one. I have included every penny of tax business owners would see. I have included every penny of the overstate complinace costs that you guys quote. Excuse me, but what other 'tax costs' are there????? I am $1 TRILLION short. Maybe if I just added the 100% fair tax fudge factor I could find $2 Trillion worth of savings to business owners so prices could come down 20%. I for one think the reason Jorgenson no longer has his name on the fair tax proposal is because they grossly misrepresent his data. Dr. Jorgenson could not go along with the LIE that employees get to keep their full paycheck and prices come down 20%.
You guys need to produce Dr. Jorgenson orginal study that explains what exactly is meant by 'embedded taxes'. Your numbers are a fraud.
Saving 7.65% on labor costs to the business is nice, but that amounts to roughly $350 Billion. For prices to come down 20% on a tax base of $10 Trillion, business owners will need $2 Trillion worth of savings. We have always granted you $350 Billion on that point, but you still must find $1.65 Trillion more. No matter how much you exagerate compliance costs and business taxes, you are still over $1 Trillion short of meeting your little fairytale. Are you saying business owners are going to take $1 Trillion less in profits????
That started from the first question. I do have an honest approach to the debate, I did research the links, the links tell me that the wage earners and business owners will NOT be able to keep all of their current money 100% once the income taxes are removed. This is honest.
It is dishonest to say that everyone will get to keep 100% of their money, IMHO. I am saying that as a business owner, and if I were an employee I would recognize that my pay was likely going to take a hit.
And as I've said before, that might be an OK tradeoff for the current IRS and income tax. But we need to be honest about it because it is a major change and people need to be ready for the "less salary but no taxes means same takehome and same prices so I'm just good off as before" thinking.
To continue to delude all the wage earners in this country that you'll get 100% of your paychecks, plus prices will on average be the same, plus you'll get a monthly prebate is dishonest and pollyanish.
My first post on this subject recently said basically how can everyone win? who is paying for this and where does the money come from? I still have no answer to that question except I suspect that it is the business owner now who is expected to give up his 100% and pass along his income tax savings to the FedGov.
I disagree with most, I agree with "fanatically". If you dismiss everyone who questions your plan as a nut, then I can see where you consider yourself morally and intellectually superior.
You should be incredibily ashamed of yourself. You are not honest nor are you worthy of a screen name on this forum. You are ESPECIALLY not worth of a screen name that includes my state.
Well, I'm not ashamed of myself, nor am I planning to change my screen name. Nor am I planning to leave the Forum. You FairTax fanatics should find answers to these questions because they will need to be answered before your plan has any chance of passing.
The only threads where people are so sure they are right that I have seen are the Schiavo threads, and the evolution/creationism threads. FairTax is similar in that it is faith-based and relies on messianic viral marketing.
Except of course for the second case where he still has to pay the FairTax on every purchase.
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.