Posted on 08/18/2005 6:34:27 AM PDT by GPBurdell
NUMBER ONE ---- AGAIN!
The word came in yesterday afternoon. The FairTax Book will remain No. 1 on the New York Times Bestseller's List for the second week in a row. Our editor at Regan Books told us yesterday afternoon that it is much harder to make this list the second week than it is the first. Needless to say, we're excited and gratified. Interview requests for Congressman Linder and myself are pouring in, and the crowds at the book signings remain strong.
Our greatest hope is that the book generates a buzz and momentum of its own. Across the country people who have never heard of The FairTax before are learning that it is possible to get rid of all income and payroll taxes and replace those taxes with a one-time tax on consumption at the retail level. These people are learning that:
* They can say goodbye to the death tax, the gift tax, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, the Alternative Minimum Tax, capital gains taxes and the trouble of filling out tax forms; * That they can just go enjoy themselves on April 15th, just as they do on every other spring day; * That American corporations who have fled overseas to escape our crushing tax system can be brought home again; * That they can invest and save with no federal tax consequences whatsoever; * That the trillions of dollars that are working in offshore financial centers, again to escape our crushing taxes, can be brought back to work in the American economy again; * That we don't need to spend $500 billion a year to comply with an obscene tax code; * And that all of this can be accomplished while eliminating the federal tax burden on the poor, and without increasing the cost of living for everyone else.
I was discussing the book with some friends last night. I told them that over the past ten or so days I think that I have signed about 8,000 copies of the book at various book signings. Since many people buy multiple copies of the book, I would guess that I've seen about 6,500 people during that time. So .. how many people had something negative to say? Two. That's it. Just two. One man at Ft. Bragg came through the line twice to have two books signed (he went and bought an extra copy) all the while grumbling that we didn't include enough of the research in the book. Well, there's a reason for that. You can find the research at the FairTax website. Knock yourself out, pal. One other man stood in front of the table and demanded an opportunity to point out all of the typos he had found. We politely declined his incredible offer. But that's it. Two complaints. On the other hand, we've received hundreds of comments from people who doubted whether or not this idea could work ... until they read the book. Well, that's what we were after.
Again ... thanks so much for another week at No. 1! The FairTax is becoming an idea that can't be ignored.
You do backflips when you eat shit? I will let my record on this board stand up against anyone's. I say what I think and I ask when I don't understand. If you think that is dihonest you don't know the meaning of the word.
Your appeal to ridicule is telling.Your ridiculous view of how a service can reduce their prices 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.It's his personal income from the business. If it makes it easier for you to understand, let's add a couple of people to the scenario. So there is one guy who owns the service business and makes self-employment income (technically) and two other who are paid a wage. Explain again how they are going to be able to reduce their prices without reducing wages/salaries/personal income (whatever you want to call it).
Second, your characterization of my post is preposterous.Your lack of understanding that you were only able to accomplish a price reduction by reducing the person's wage/salary/personal income is preposterous.
The post indicated that a random service can collect largely the same fee from consumers after nrst and keep the same profit.Only by reducing what he, as an individual, makes. As I said, try adding a couple of people to the business and you will see.
The SS savings, along with IRS compliance costs, PLUS embedded taxes from vendors. Granted, the embedded tax figure is nebulous, we can debate that all day. And it would be different for every business, let alone every industry.
Then there's the effect of turning America into a giant tax haven. Industry will relocate from overseas, making supplies cheaper, since they won't have to be transported through customs, etc. That alone will free up God knows how much money, further reducing costs.
There are probably many other angles that I'm not even thinking of, that's just off the top of my head.
Sir, I am sorry you feel that I am being dishonest. I am an experienced businessman and this whole FairTax thing sets off my BS meter at high levels. That is honest. I have talked to John Linder about it personally and he told me that he would have his staff send me some answers (this was two or three years ago) to my question of how will the prices some down if we pay the employees their full salaries. I never received the answers.
There have been real world (but hypothetical) business examples postulated there asking where does the 25% embedded tax come from in a service business? There are few supplies so savings there are small, and the labor cost is the same, so where is the money? THe only possible answer is employee takehome and business owner takehome.
The examples and scenarios are dismissed as hypothetical, even though the entire FairTax plan is hypothetical. If you ask a specific question, you rarely get a straight answer to that question.
I certainly wish that these threads could be handled in a decent manner and debated but in my experience anyone who questions the plan and soes not quickly buy off on the economics reports provided is ridiculed, name-called, and eventually his motives and honesty are called into question.
And yes I do think that it is up to those who wish to make such a revolutionary change in our tax structure to answer questions, objections and to discuss the merits of the plan in a sane, calm rational manner.
I have over ten thousand posts on this board. I took the time from my life to attend the Reagan funeral, the Bush second inauguration. I have had dinner with the DC Freepers, attended numerous pro-troop rallies here in Georgia, attended the recount Freeps at CNN, and I am as much of a Republican as they come. I have been accused of being a Bushbot before on many occasions, usually when I defended the politics of a Bush decision rather than the actual policy.
I know I am not a dishonest FairTax hater because as I have said before if you can show me how it will work like you say it will, I'll be right there in the boat rowing with ya'll. But, all of this debate makes it clear to me that the embedded taxes are there in products (which I always knew) but they are mainly the income and payroll taxes of the wage earner and the business owner.
To boil it all down, the 100% paycheck myth (same pay as before but no taxes removed) is the main lie of the FairTax plan.
And how am I missing that? I use every penny of tax that the IRS collects from businesses. I am using every penny of compliance costs that the fair taxes claim. I am using business share SS savings. That gets me almost half way there, but I am still over $1 Trillion short. It has been 6 or 7 years and I have yet to get one straight answer from fair taxers on this. My only conclusion can be there is no answer. The fair tax rhetoric is a fraud. There is nothing wrong with my analysis.
I agree. There is even quotes from their experts that say one or the other must happen, not both. Employees can not keep 100% of their paycheck AND prices can not come down 20%. I firmly believe that is why Dr. Jorgenson does not endorse the fair tax anymore, they twist his analysis. This is a $1 Trillion lie, it is not a small deal.
They always point to a 1997 Harvard study by Jorgenson, but there is no trace of this on the web. The methodology and his definition of 'embedded tax' might very will clear this up. Perhaps this study is what Sandy Burger put down his pants.
So are you basically saying that it doesn't have to be 23%?(inclusive)
Or people could keep the same amount (about) as they take home today (the biz would save the taxes allowing them to lower prices) and prices (with FairTax) would be about the same as now and your takehome also about the same. So it's be equal to today when you net it all out. (Is this deflation?) This could work, maybe, but people would need to know the pay drop was going to happen, it couldn't be sprung on them later.
And then, when the growth kicks in prices will come down further and we will be in a golden age of expansion and growth.
And the second problem is that if things cost more once the FairTax is passed, then it targets those with savings much harder than those still earning income.
No one is arguing the rate at this point. This centers around how much businesses save by elimination of income tax and how much the employee saves. There is rougly a $2 Trillion pie of savings, and the fair tax position is the employees save $1 Trillion and businesses save $2 Trillion. I just don't buy that 1 + 2 = 2, call me crazy.
I'm not even thinking in terms of national budgets, trillions, billions and such. Let's stick to percentages and please explain your position again.
The Flat tax still leaves in every other tax. For instance, capital gains, ATM, etc....There is no tax on capital gains with the Flat Tax and there is no AMT (I'm assuming that's what you meant). The only things taxed on the personal level with the Flat Tax are wages, salaries, and pension benefits. Period.
Except the tax-included price is about what it is today. JEEEESUS! So why would he need more money! GAAAWD!!!
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.LOL! Where is that written? Just saying both are true is no longer good enough. Parroting the lies and no straight answers is getting old.
(7.5%, IIRC-calculated as an exclusive rate, or inclusive, I don't know.)On the one hand you pretend to be the expert on how it would all work, on the other you admit you don't know even the basics...That's very telling.
If that doesn't convince you, maybe we could get Harry Reid to contribute some of that retirement money...The Fairtax won't change that either and you can bet he'll see to it his retirement would be increased 30% (not 23%) to cover any future taxes he'd have to pay from it too.
Is it because you see this as the only possibility from which savings will come that you insist that takehome must reduce?
If this is the case then your position is logical. But the problem is that there are more places for the money to be gotten.
That is what someone has prevented you from seeing. Of course, this is in the case that you are being honest...which is in question.
"I'm a Republican but...."...
I disagree. I don't know why it's hard to understand that the timing of paying taxes changes from being withheld from pay until time money is spent.
Why is that impossible?
That your only conclusing is such does not mean anything at all. It only means that is your conclusion.
Why is it hard to believe that taxes can be paid AFTER one receives his paycheck?...like maybe tax can be paid out when money is spent?
Meaning one would receive his paycheck without withholding - and would have to pay his taxes by coughing up the dough at the counter.
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.