"On review, and after reading the critiques of opponents to the FairTax plan, we have concluded that there is one element of the FairTax that could have been present with more clarity in the book; the concept of embedded taxes and keeping 100% of your paycheck....
...Now here's what we didn't explain well in the book. Every employee of any company involved in American commerce is also a provider of a service, and, as such, the employee incurs a tax liability as a result of his or her work...
...We write in The FairTax Book that the competitive pressures of the marketplace will force prices down when embedded taxes disappear from the cost of retail goods and services, and we cite 22% as the average amount of those embedded taxes. Does this 22% include the income and payroll taxes that are paid by employees? Yes, it does. So ... what does this mean to your paycheck after the FairTax becomes law?...
When the FairTax is implemented, and when business and personal income and payroll taxes disappear, your employer is going to have to make a decision. He will either take some or the entire amount he had been withholding for federal income and payroll taxes and add it to your weekly check, or he will readjust your pay figures so that your entire paycheck will be equal to what you used to call "take home pay" before the FairTax. The employer may also decide to do a little of both. Either way, you can see that the amount of money you actually receive as pay – the amount you can put into your bank account – will not decrease, and may actually increase.
END BOORTZ "CLARIFICATION"
This is compared with Boortz's repeated statements in the FairTax Book about the takehome pay rising by a substantial amount:
CITES FROM FAIRTAX BOOK
page 59, they state: “Once the FairTax takes effect, you’ll be receiving 100 percent of every paycheck, with no withholding of federal income taxes, Social security taxes, or Medicare taxes and you’ll be paying just about the same price for T-shirts and other consumer goods and services that you were paying before the FairTax.”
page 83: “Remember that the poor, along with everyone else—will no longer have Social Security taxes or Medicare taxes removed from their paychecks. Whatever they earn, they get on payday. For most of those we categorize as poor, this would mean an immediate 25 to 30 percent increase in their take-home pay.”
page 84, they make it clear though that even though the workers will keep all of their paychecks for a big raise, they still believe that because of “the disappearance of the embedded taxes, the total price paid for consumer goods will remain very nearly the same”.
And then on page 111, they tie it all together with a Quick Review in which they erroneously assert “Here’s what happens when we pass and implement the FairTax plan:”
“We start collecting 100 percent of our earnings on our paycheck.
“We all get virtual raises, since payroll taxes are no longer siphoned from our checks.
“The prices of consumer goods and services remain essentially the same, with the removal of the embedded taxes compensating for the added consumption tax.”
Page 82: "it would create a financial bonanza for the poor and the middle class."
Page 85: "it's clear that low-income Americans will be better off, much better off, under the FairTax Plan... income tax abolished...whole paycheck with no federal withholding.. and they would recive a payment each month...Wow.
Page 88: "for those in the lowest income levels...it's all benefit and no burden."
Page 138: "The FairTax would give the average income worker a 50% increase in take-home pay."
Your claim that Boortz was misrepresenting things in the book is foolish since it was you doing the misinterpretation; not Boortz. He was trying to straignten out things for morons that misinterpreted things in making his effort at clarification.
You can read these quotes from the book and claim with a straight face that I am a moron who misinterpreted his book? He clearly was promising 100% of current pay, and then he backed off on those claims and acknowledged that the 22% embedded taxes included these withheld income and patroll taxes.
Boortz was busted over a major selling point of the plan and he acknowledged that the argument many have been making for so long was correct. He changed his understanding of the plan in a very major way.
His explanation of embedded taxes is not correct - but that's beside the point. the fact remains that no book author affects the agreements and contracts that determine gross pay - and that gross pay will still apply after the FairTax passes so that employees will be getting their entire gross pay. The employer will have little wiggle room in most cases to fiddle with gross pay so your claim of all wages dropping is ridiculous - it's out of the hands of both you and the employer as well as book authors or even the FairTax bill itself.
As for your assertions about the original book, let's take them in order:
"page 59, they state: “Once the FairTax takes effect, you’ll be receiving 100 percent of every paycheck, with no withholding of federal income taxes, Social security taxes, or Medicare taxes and you’ll be paying just about the same price for T-shirts and other consumer goods and services that you were paying before the FairTax.”"
pg. 59 - The only thing I see to quibble with here is the use of "just about the same price" since it allows opponents such as you to claim that phrase in incorrect. The phrase, though, is quite open to interpretation (and, in your case I think, misinterpretation) and would be true DEPENDING ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PHRASE. The rest of the statement is certainly correct notwithstanding your attempt to warp the author's garbled "correction" into something it is not. As I pointed out it is the economy itself that determines the pay as 100 % or not and it is very clear that it will be 100%. Certainly the taxes mentioned are gonzo.
"page 83: “Remember that the poor, along with everyone else—will no longer have Social Security taxes or Medicare taxes removed from their paychecks. Whatever they earn, they get on payday. For most of those we categorize as poor, this would mean an immediate 25 to 30 percent increase in their take-home pay.” "
pg 83. Are you objecting to the numbers here? The increase quoted is certainly open to whatever the author used as the percentage base and SINCE YOU DON'T KNOW THAT BASE it is certainly your own misinterpretation of either his statement or his base numbers. the rest of the passage is certainly true.
"page 84, they make it clear though that even though the workers will keep all of their paychecks for a big raise, they still believe that because of “the disappearance of the embedded taxes, the total price paid for consumer goods will remain very nearly the same”. "
pg 84. Very similar to pg 59 in that the phrase "remain very nearly" is in the eye of the beholder and you have beheld (interpreted it) differently. That certainly does not mean it is a misrepresentation on the author's part. I have shown several times on these threads that there is obviously a good bit of room (without considering payroll/withhholdings) for prices to decline with the removal of embedded tax costs. The writer's choice to use the phrase "remain very nearly" apparently grates on you, but it is certainly not incorrect or a misrepresentation - except in your own somewhat biased view.
“We start collecting 100 percent of our earnings on our paycheck. “We all get virtual raises, since payroll taxes are no longer siphoned from our checks. “The prices of consumer goods and services remain essentially the same, with the removal of the embedded taxes compensating for the added consumption tax.” ""And then on page 111, they tie it all together with a Quick Review in which they erroneously assert “Here’s what happens when we pass and implement the FairTax plan:”
pg 111 - let's identify the 3 claims as a, b, and c. For a) - we've already covered that as no doubt correct and determined by the economy. For b) - that's certainly a correct statement unless you wish to somehow misinterpret the word "virtual". For c) - we've just covered that as on pg 84 with slightly different wording so that my comments on pg 84 apply here. In view of these notations, I see no validity at all for you to include these three in your carping and misinterpretation of the book.
"Page 82: "it would create a financial bonanza for the poor and the middle class." "
pg 82. That seems an accurate enough statement though the term "financial bonanza" may be what sets you off here. Again - the author's choice whether you believe it to be overblown hyperbole or not. It is hardly a misrepresentation - except perhaps in your biased view.
"Page 85: "it's clear that low-income Americans will be better off, much better off, under the FairTax Plan... income tax abolished...whole paycheck with no federal withholding.. and they would recive a payment each month...Wow. "
pg 85. Hard to see what puts your teeth on edge here except, perhaps, the word "wow". the statement is accurate enough and definitely not a misrepresentation as you claim (the "wow" notwithstanding).
"Page 88: "for those in the lowest income levels...it's all benefit and no burden." "
pg 88. True. If you think this is a misrepresentation or lie of some sort then you don't understand the economic help the FairTax bill offers the lowest income levels.
"Page 138: "The FairTax would give the average income worker a 50% increase in take-home pay." "
pg 138. There is no definition of "average worker" so its quite possible that the 50% figure is targeted at some wage he was looking at. Calling it a misrepresentation is a real strech since certainly there will be a substantial takehome pay increase for most workers. Had I written that part of the book I might have used "substantial" rather that "50%" or perhaps included the case being looked at for the claim. The author made other choices but I can't see that "misrepresentation" would be one of them.
I say again: "Your claim that Boortz was misrepresenting things in the book is foolish since it was you doing the misinterpretation; not Boortz."
""Boortz was busted over a major selling point of the plan and he acknowledged that the argument many have been making for so long was correct. He changed his understanding of the plan in a very major way.""
The only thing I can see that's "busted" is your own arse in trying - and failing - to make your case of lying and misrepresentation. I've said several times that you whould withhold your fire ... and you should.