Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: groanup
The small businessman gets his whole paycheck now. He just writes a check quarterly and another at the end of the year for both taxes and FICA. The wage earner is at no advantage. What are you talking about?

If you honestly don't understand what I am talking about then you are not reading. The wage earner is promised his whole 100% paycheck by the FairTax. This will be a 15-25% increase in takehome pay for the W2 wage earner. The other end is the business owner who makes profit on the business and pays income taxes on the profit. You seem to think that the business owner will be fine and dandy if he doesn't get any increase in takehome spendable pay and that the money he saves on taxes will go to the business bottom line,

That is giving wage earners a raise and putting the business owners at a relative disadvantage, it is redistributing income.

If you are now saying that the business owner will get an increase in his spendable pay just like the wage earner, then there are no other significant taxes that the business will save in order to reduce prices.

380 posted on 08/21/2005 8:42:57 PM PDT by RobFromGa (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran-- what are we waiting for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies ]


To: RobFromGa; pigdog; ancient_geezer
That is giving wage earners a raise and putting the business owners at a relative disadvantage, it is redistributing income.

I see what you are saying. The business owner has to lower his prices for this to work and, if he does, he is getting no advantage over the wage earner. In fact he is worse off. Let me and my com-padres work on it.

381 posted on 08/21/2005 8:55:08 PM PDT by groanup (shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies ]

To: RobFromGa
If you are now saying that the business owner will get an increase in his spendable pay just like the wage earner, then there are no other significant taxes that the business will save in order to reduce prices.

Absolutely that is what I am saying. But the point I get from your argument is that the business owner must lose that advantage by lowering his prices. I see that as a valid argument. There is also a macro-economic situation here because the business owner now has a slew of wealthier customers and the possibility that business will be good. Rising tide, boats, you know the drill. But you raise a bona-fide point which will be addressed.

382 posted on 08/21/2005 9:01:18 PM PDT by groanup (shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson