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.
Under the Fair Tax plan he will have his $30,000 income plus a monthly check.....This leaves $33,600 a year in disposable income.You earn $30,000. The government will send you an extra $3600. Leaving you with more to spend than you earned....Nice try. But unless you're a Democrat, numbers don't lie.
Was someone saying something about Democrats?
Great detective work. I had given up at finding the information on the net. I googled it numerous ways and found nothing conclusive. That shows without a doubt that the 20% reduction Jorgenson talks about includes EMPOLYERS portion of payroll taxes, and that Fair Taxers are in fact perpetrating a $1 Trillion lie as I expected. No wonder Fair Taxers are pretty vague on how they reference that statistic.
Great detective work. I had given up at finding the information on the net. I googled it numerous ways and found nothing conclusive. That shows without a doubt that the 20% reduction Jorgenson talks about includes EMPOLYERS EMPLOYEES portion of payroll taxes, and that Fair Taxers are in fact perpetrating a $1 Trillion lie as I expected. No wonder Fair Taxers are pretty vague on how they reference that statistic.
Read it. Loved it. Passed it on.
I think it shows more than that, it means the Jorgenson was realistic in that the income and FICA taxes "saved" by the wage earner would revert to the "producer" (his employer) to enable the producer to cut costs.
Of course this is the only way that the FairTax makes any sense financially, but it is good to see that Jorgenson stated clearly to Congress what he meant by where the producer price savings would come from. Maybe that is why he is no longer on board?
prices received by producers, shown in the fifth chart, would fall by an average of twenty percent."Producers aren't retailers. Where does it say retail prices for goods and services would be reduced 20%?
"Workers" would get 100% of their present after tax paycheck.
100% net pay
100% price reduced to 80% (before tax)
80% plus 30%(federal sales tax)
New price...104% of the old price
Loss to "worker's" disposable income 4%
You don't see recent quotes from Jorgenson. I would bet Jorgenson's contract with the Fair Tax organization prohibits him from making negative comments. I think Jorgenson may still be a support of the idea, but I can't imagine that he supports such a misrepresentation.
cost effect on purchasing power personal income tax no increase personal payroll tax no increase employer payroll excise no increase corporate income tax no increase/possible decrease1 estate tax no increase gift tax no increase personal tax compliance costs savings increase corporate tax compliance costs savings probable increase/possible decrease2
- If the assumption made by FairTax supporters - that corporate taxes are embedded in the costs of our exported goods - is correct, then, currently, a portion of our taxes is being paid by foreign consumers. If we remove these supposed "embedded taxes," then the revenue collected by foreign sales would have to be collected by domestic sales, increasing the burden on U.S. citizens and reducing their purchasing power.
- Although I believe there would be some net corporate tax compliance savings, the amount of current compliance costs is grossly exaggerated by FairTax supporters - and the compliance costs of the FairTax are greatly minimized. The greatest FairTax compliance cost for businesses, increased credit card processing fees (the Washington State Department of Revenue estimated this cost alone at 0.76% of revenues collected for their state sales tax) is never considered by supporters. It is possible that this cost with the other compliance costs would be greater than the current system.
So, the only possible increase in purchasing power is due to compliance costs which, regardless of the ridiculous estimates thrown around, is no where near 23% of prices.
I forgot to add the Family Consumption Allowance to my list. Obviously, there would be no overall increase in purchasing power for the nation because we are the ones paying for the FCA. It's not a gift.
Sounds pretty clear that he expected the workers to give the money they saved by not having to pay taxes on wages back to the "producer" (their employer) to enable them to lower taxesThis could all be cleared up if Boortz would have Jorgenson on his radio show and just ask him directly.
If the FairTax is truly revenue neutral, as a nation, we will pay the same amount of taxes just in different ways.That would only be true if it weren't for the tax shift of "untaxing the poor" and eliminating taxes on all businesses (that aren't service businesses).
I put a lot of confidence on when Jorgenson testified in front of Congress, he was careful with his words and he told the truth. Although I would still like to see this top secret study done by Jorgenson. Boortz is not about to discredit his book and would never risk it.
This could all be cleared up if Boortz would have Jorgenson on his radio show and just ask him directly.Wouldn't that make Boortz and Linder to be fools and their #1 best seller a big lie....I thought so.
Dear Your Nightmare,
Eliminating the corporate income tax will result in overall economic savings, economywide, equal to the amount of the tax, which was 1.3% of GDP in 2003.
In theory, this should result in an overall 1.3% price drop, including the prices of imports. However, although price competition is a critical component of overall competition between businesses, I'm not sure that large numbers of folks will choose to buy at ABC Retailer because a pair of jeans is now priced at $39.49, rather than at DEF Retailer, where the identical jeans are $39.99. My guess is that non-price elements of competition would overwhelm any advantage gained by the slight price drop.
I think it's more likely that in the short-term, businesses would use the rescission of corporate income taxes to regain some of the net profit margins that have been lost over the last few decades.
As well, I suspect that many publicly-held corporations would significantly boost their dividend yields, as the double-taxation of dividend income would come to an end, eliminating the bias against the distribution of dividends.
sitetest
Despite what the experts say, 94 per cent of German citizens are convinced that there has been drastic price rises after the introduction of the euro, and this conviction has made people spend less money, according to a research quoted by Der Spiegel.
52 per cent of Germans visit restaurants less frequently and 42 per cent buy fewer clothes, while 39 per cent are spending less on holiday trips because of their belief that the euro has meant higher prices, according to a research made by Offenbacher Marplan Forschungsgesellschaft and quoted by Der Spiegel.
Experts maintain that prices have not risen, and statisticians explain the popular distrust with something they call "felt inflation". According to them, people often spend money on things like restaurant meals and food and that makes them immediately aware of price changes. Heavy expenses like rent are only drawn from their accounts once a month and consequently the impact of them tend to be perceived less acutely. And, say the statisticians, the price increases tend to have happened on small items, writes Der Spiegel.
Eliminating the corporate income tax will result in overall economic savings, economywide, equal to the amount of the tax, which was 1.3% of GDP in 2003.No, because if the corporation isn't paying the tax, who is? That revenue must be generated from some other source. The answer is - the consumer. So if the corporate income tax is 1.3% of what we buy, and they reduce their prices 1.3%, then the FairTax would be 1.32% higher to get the same revenue.
The example is certainly simple enough and clearly indicates cascading of income tax.It is? Your first "level" shows a product bought for $1.00
A profit margin of $0.33
25% tax @ $0.08 and a sale price of $1.41
Guess what. After you added the tax to the sale price your profit isn't $0.33, your profit is $0.41 and your tax due is $0.10 not $0.08 then your idiocy "cascades" on from there..
Wish I'd have done it myself (sorry, but no I didn't).The quuestion is, which one is the idiot? The person that cobbled the mess together, the idiot posting it as gospel truth or both?
Dear Your Nightmare,
I agree with your global evaluation, but I was just looking at pricing before the NSRT is applied.
Certainly, the NSRT, if it's actually revenue-neutral, results in approximately same overall price level, once the NSRT is applied.
sitetest
prices received by producers, shown in the fifth chart, would fall by an average of twenty percent."
Producers aren't retailers.
Of course it helps to know the definition that economists are speaking about in an equilibrium model when discussing "the price received by producers"; that it is the consumer price discounted for taxes and subsidies.
Producer price is the price received by the supplier (i.e. for the market considered) sans tax and subsidies as opposed to the total amount including tax and subsidies that is actually paid by the consumer to purchase a product.
| Algebraic Solution of Linear Supply and Demand Models R. Wigle Director Masters Program in Business Economics Wilfrid Laurier University May 9, 2001 http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwsbe/faculty/rwigle/ec238/ref/pe-algebra.pdf
|
I guess that this economist (along with most others) hasn't read the Squirrels interpretations that taxes are not embedded in prices - he clearly says they are.
Wonder how he could be so wrong??? Could the Squirrels be too busy sorting their nuts to be able to understand the real world?
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.