Posted on 01/28/2006 1:15:41 PM PST by Eaglewatcher
That, truly, would be a singular event - I'll gladly bring the recorder.
Most Americans have a 15% tax rate deducted from their salary based onthe marginal rate tables for payroll.
You use the example of a $50K family of four. Such a family DOES NOT have 15% income tax withheld. If you believe they do, you are seriously misinformed about the income tax system. (That might explain your misguided belief in the FairTax.)
And you also forgot to add in the 7.65% payroll tax.
I most certainly did NOT:
Presuming that $50K filer earned all income from wages, they paid another 7.5% in FICA taxes. That brings the total tax burden for the prototypical $50K filer to no more than 15.5% ... not the 30% you keep falsely presenting... after you do the take home pay calcualtion you ten need to add in the prebate ...
So far, I have only corrected your assertions about the INCOME tax situation. There is no prebate under the Income Tax system. Before we can properly consider a valid comparison between the two systems, we have to correct your incorrect assertions about the current system ... assertions you keep repeating despite evidence they are incorrect.
You've argued almost endlessly that costs don't affect prices so what you consider BS is whole irrelevant. You are clearly delusional. That much has been thoroughly documented by your own posts.
$36.13B/$371B=9.74% - Nothing out of hand here.....A net profit margin of 9.74% seems pretty high for a commodity product like gasoline and it's 60% higher than the profit margin they made in 1997. But that's irrelevant. What's is relevant is that their costs went up 25% and their profits went up 44%. So what's the relationship between their costs and the price they paid? If they had some gasoline stockpiled that they produced in 1997, or if God magically gave them 20 billion gallons, what price do you think they would have charged for it? The same market price they got for the stuff they produced in 2005.
I should also have warned you that personal insults are the SQLSquad's stock in trade.
You might also ask about:
- how does it eliminate withholding taxes (I realize you did, I'm just throwing in a superfluous redundancy for Nightie to bitch about).
- how does it fund S/S & M/C.
- how does it offer border-adjustability of taxation.
- how does it retrieve additional tax revenue from the illegal econony.
- how does it keep from warping right back into the same sort of exception-ridden, favor-buying system that we now have.
- how does it simplify all aspects of tax reporting so that the taxpayer has no (as in zero) obligation to the taxing authority in submitting data to them or being hammered by them.
- how does it offer the taxpayer the precept of being innocent until proven guilty unlike the present system or any income based system.
- how does it lower prices.
- how does it lower consumption costs to the level of the FairTax.
- how does it eliminate the unfunded mandates in reporting to taxing authorities as does the FairTax.
Nightie'll probably call you some unfavorable things, but just consider that an honor. Maybe you can throw some of these things (and others) into later posts.
Are you really and truly (in front of God and all the other FairTax supporters who have suffered your "stuff" over months and months) really going to sit there and claim that you did not push the VAT, Nightie???? For shame.
He LOVES to use the term "logical fallacy" BTW which is a "superflous redundancy" (and he doubtless doesn't even know what it means)I don't know what a "superflous redundancy" is. I know what a "superfluous redundancy" is and "logical fallacy" isn't one. "Logical" and "fallacy" may be redundant in your world, but they aren't in ours.
"So, let me see now if I have this straight ... the FairTax supporters may not use the economic data which is presented in good detail on the Americans For Fair Taxation website (because you say so) while you are quite free to use all of the snippets you can gather up from the known SQL defenders (who seldom, if ever, admit to being so - just like you) even if they are only op/ed pieces with little or no economic detail? By George, I think I’ve got it!!! "
Nice summary of SQL opinions on the matter of economic support. Check out my tag line for an appropriate response.
I disagree Dimples - Respectfully.
Though Jorgensen has either changed or fine tuned his 22 to 25% drop to include a wage or salary drop. Others at least at Fair Tax including Dr. Walby have not.
The American Farm Bureau Federation supports the efforts of the Fair Tax as well.
A conservative 10% price drop does not mean a wage drop in take home pay. it does means the employer saves the 7.65% employer paid payroll tax and it does mean the employee keeps tohe 7.65% payroll tax normally dedcuted form his gross pay.
So, $129 is the new gross that come home versus the $100 in take home pay under the old system.
And a 10% drop takes those $100 woth of product down to $90 and add in the Fair tax they now pay $117.
THey are $12 dollars ahead(per $100 in take home pay under the income and payroll tax) and we haven't accounted for the Prebate yet!!!!!
Think about it, if you could eliminate 7.65% payroll tax paid by the employer(not part of gross salary) and eliminate the coroporate income tax; and eliminate 80 to 90% of the economically wasted 250 to 400 billion in compliance costs. Plus pump in to the economy increaed investment and growth because of the more efficient tax system. The result is booming economic growth and job creation.
Now multiply the savings
throughout the supply chain from producer of seed and fertilizer to the farmer to the grain mill to the baker to the grocery store.
Most of these people paid business income taxes and payroll tax; most paid accountants and tax attorneys to keep them compliant with the code. inefficient busineess decisions were made because of the tax code. etc. etc,.
10% price drop is conservative and reasonable expectation just to most businessmen let alone economists.
Public will expect it when the Fair Tax is passed and will punish those companies and sellers that do not lower prices. This will be a driving force to get the 10% savings.
The idea that a wage drop is required for a 10% price drop in the supply chain is false.
Are you really and truly (in front of God and all the other FairTax supporters who have suffered your "stuff" over months and months) really going to sit there and claim that you did not push the VAT, Nightie???? For shame.I didn't push a VAT. I have stated that I would prefer a VAT over the FairTax and I have answered questions (corrected Fairie's lies, more like) about the VAT. That's not "pushing" the VAT.
"The Flat Tax. It's a consumption tax without the critical problems of the FairTax."
And which addresses few of this country's economic problems which are tax system related. The "critical problems" are only in the eyes of SQLs.
Check post #239.
But on average across the board of typical purchases by families the average price drop could easily be 10%- IMHO.I'm not interested in your opinion, humble or otherwise. You aren't writing for a phoney blog here. You aren't going to get away with lying about "economic models" or anything else.
I want to see you post your:
"updated and conservative economic model of a 10% price drop"Or was that a lie?
Your across the board price drop would have to include imports. If we're going to toss around opinions, it's my opinion that at least half of what we purchase is imported and has no bearing on our tax laws. If half of our purchases are imported then the other half would have to support your across the board "price drop". ...Here we are again with the phoney unsupported 20% "price drop".
Nonsense, Nightie. And your misrepresentations don't help clarify anything.
At least I have one, Nightie ... yours seem to have gone AWOL.
"Let's make the crowd all economists. They wouldn't stop laughing at y'all's nonsense."
Let's find some SQLs with the cojones to defend this wretched tax system in a public forum. Now that would be a coup!!
Others at least at Fair Tax including Dr. Walby have not.Have you asked her? I bet she base her opinions on a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of Jorgenson's work. Why don't we compose an email and ask her what she thinks would be the price/wage response to the FairTax.
The American Farm Bureau Federation supports the efforts of the Fair Tax as well.And the National Retail Federation and the National Association of Retailers don't. So what?
The idea that a wage drop is required for a 10% price drop in the supply chain is false.First it was 23%, now it's 10%. Why don't you just admit you don't have any idea if or how much prices might drop under the FairTax.
Your mileage may vary. Let's try that again:
Now let's suppose you're a retired single filer living off of a combination of Social Security income and a small Private Pension (no savings to speak of.) You earn the same $25,944 as the AFFT example; you pay NO income Tax, you pay NO FICA tax. Prices are inflated 5% because of embedded taxes removed by the FairTax. Net spending power is $24,644.
Under the FairTax, that same retiree gets a $2.2K prebate for a total spendable income of $28,144, 23% of which is used to pay FairTax. That leaves net spending power at $21,671: a NET DECREASE of 12%.
Even if I allow the ENTIRE 10% price reduction you claim, but will not happen, the single retire is still over 7% behind!
And, until the retiree starts paying over about 10% effective income tax, the bigger his pension, the "behinder" he gets!
"If we don't love the FairTax we must love the status quo."
Correction: If you post already refuted bogus attacks and don't have a viable alternative, you are indeed an SQL.
Note: RipSawyer doesn't love the FairTax and he isn't an SQL. The difference is much more transparent than you believe.
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.