Posted on 01/28/2006 1:15:41 PM PST by Eaglewatcher
"I don't know if I'm supposed to be impressed or afraid...."
Neither. Nothing said about the FairTax would impress you because your mind is closed. The only thing that you fear is having to defend your beloved Marxist progressive income tax in a public forum where your qualifications and motives will be exposed.
The idea that a wage drop is required for a 10% price drop in the supply chain is false.Yea taxes is the only reason why company's outsource labor or make purcases from the "supply chain" offshore. < /sarcasm >
A year ago or less, you would have been lambasted by Fairtax supporters for suggesting only 10% price drops...now for some reason it's OK.
Though Jorgensen has either changed or fine tuned his 22 to 25% drop to include a wage or salary drop.No he didn't. He's standing by his exact words.
Others at least at Fair Tax including Dr. Walby have not.You don't say?...based on what?
Whoa! I just overheard Sheperd Smith on Brit Hume's Special Report cite a new economic report just out which said that the national savings rate is now in negative territory - first time since the great depression.
It should be interesting to see how the SQLs spin this one.
The National Retail Federation (lobbying for retailers group) paid for a purposely negative study many years ago to look at an retail sales tax (there was no FairTax at the time) so the "study" that came out (still only available if you will pay for it) was - surprise - negative as could be.Sounds like the retailers don't like the FairTax. Hmm...
It was also well-refuted on the FairTax website - but you know that.I have never seen anything well refuted on the FairTax website - so, no, I didn't know that.
So you like S 1099? Isn't that the Shelby bill?
Let's do a better analysis but let's be realistic and keep the standard of living the same (e.g., the same amount of spendable income since including the prebate would be increasing the purchasing power) so that we can see the real effect.
Income tax FairTax Spendable $24,644 $25,944
... this yields a 5.3% INCREASE for the FairTax single person recipient (which as noted is a biased interpretation due to your 5% price increase figure). This same increase holds true if you take a single-person S/S income of 1/2 the two-person income.
The same example but with the 10% price increase due to income tax as put forth by merrillbender:
Income Tax FairTax Spendable $23,350 $25,944
... this yields an 11.3% benefit for the FairTax single person and about the same if you use the single person income as above. The upshot of this is that even with your (attempted) heavily biased analysis, the FairTax works out better for the taxpayeer. In fact it is even much better that that since under the FairTax also proivides the prebate and the portion spent for M/C from the S/S payment is not taxable increasing the FairTax benefit even further. Tha point is, if anything, the example on the FairTax website understates the benefit. Your example is meaningless.
Are you saying there are no single retirees? (better tell my Uncle!) And, yes, I've lowered the price reduction potential ... and backed up the number with prior posts to this thread; I even gave the result using the full 10% claimed by merrilbender and the retiree STILL loses.
In addition you assume the one person family will have the same income as the two-person family in the example - not true ...
Let's see, did my Uncle's income decline when his wife died? No. It stayed the same. In what universe does family size determine income?
The point of all this, since it obviously has escaped you, it that the examples used by FairTax proponents ingore those segments of the population that will be net losers under the FairTax. We should consider more situations than those offered by the FairTax advocates to fully grasp its impacts.
... as well as an "anything but the FairTax" supporters for many years.
Note: RipSawyer doesn't love the FairTax and he isn't an SQL.>>>>>>>>>>
The prospect of the fair tax is like a radiant smile from a beautiful woman, I am afraid of getting my heart broken 8 0 ) But then when I consider the ugly witch I am dating now (the current tax system) how could I end up any worse off? I need to go back and study this some more, I really don't know all that I should know.
Your Spendable Income Tax income of $24,644 it AFTER taxes. Your Spendable FairTax income of $25,944 is BEFORE taxes.
After you pay FairTax from your $25,944 you're left with $19,976 of after-tax purchasing power.
That yields a net DECREASE in real purchasing power of nearly 19% !!! Even the 10% decrease is more than a net 14% loss.
You should proofread before you post.
No Dimp - what I am saying is that you intentionally biased the example given in the FirTax site and that, moreover you were incorrect in doing so (and I explained the errors you made whether you wish to acknowledge them or not).
I know of no provision is S/S that allows full benefits to the survivor after a spouse dies, do you??? Reagardless of that even your 5% price reduction at the full benefit level (income for two going to a single indiidual) still favored the FairTax by 5.3% as I showed in the example. If your uncle is still receiving full benefits for 2, perhaps he should let S/S know that he's now single. After all, you and I are picking up the tab for him.
You may like that ... I don't.
The point of all this, since it obviously has escaped YOU in that the FairTax benefits even the highly biased example you presented making you clearly wrong. Why don't you just admit it and move on? The FairTax offers far more benefits for most people that any of you Squirrels would ever admit.
No, just "national retail federation" doesn't like the fairtax. You know why? If you ask them, they'll tell you... they're afraid that people may choose to save some of the money that they're now spending.
Ask national small business united, us chambers of commerce, or some other retail group and you'll get quite a different answer.
Funny, you don't assert that he believes taxes aren't a problem. He knows they are. So do you.
"The prospect of the fair tax is like a radiant smile from a beautiful woman, I am afraid of getting my heart broken 8 0 ) But then when I consider the ugly witch I am dating now (the current tax system) how could I end up any worse off? I need to go back and study this some more, I really don't know all that I should know."
LOL!! Great analogy, you have a way with words. You are smart to be skeptical, but there is a difference between cynical and skeptical.
If you recognize the "ugly witch I am dating now", then you are WAY ahead of the SQLs.
"The distributional analyses I've read show the upper and lower classes doing well under a NRST. That's leaves the middle class. Generationally, the young generation does better at the expense of older generations. Winners and losers."
In reality, this is no different than the current socialist argument against tax cuts. Are you against tax cuts? Generally, the socialists state that the only way to make money is at the expense of someone losing money. Do yo believe the same as the socialists? I might have misunderstood your statements.......
In addition you haven't responded to the fact that you have intentionally biased the example both by using a full S/S 2-person benefit for one person and by using a 5% price increase when the true increase is undoubtedly more than that. There has never been a rational analysis that I'm aware of showing anything as low as 5% of taxes embedded in prices. Nor are your claims to the contrary sufficient to sway anyone. If you'd agree to, say, a more reasonable 15% in embedded taxes then I'll play your silly little biased geme with you. Even then, that may be low but claiming only 5% is beyond the pale.
Moreover the biased example you've chosen is for someone about 275% of the poverty level - so he's relatively comfortable and hardly representative. Any lowering of the embedded tax rate he pays benefits him greatly while cutting the recipient quantity to 1 rather than 2 also helps him dramatically when compared to the FairTax example given on their website. Perhaps you should have taken an example of a single guy on S/S and nontaxable pension at an income rate of $50,000 or $100,000. That might be too obvious a loaded example for you to pass off in your mind though and is probably why you chose as you did.
In addition since your example is relatively well-to-do he is probably not going to be consuming all the money but saving a good bit of it. After all, your example claims almost no taxes anyway at 5% so why not savea goodly amount?
Yup. Surviving spouse was the primary (and only) wage earning recipient of the pair.
And my example is no more biased that the FairTax example.
And you didn't get it right in any event.
Lynn and his Marxist buddies think that the current tax system is better than anything else out there.So far it is the only thing out there. Are you afraid to post your drivel about me directly to me?
Facts and logic mean nothing to them.Facts, logic and even basic intelligence mean everything to me...You have yet to show any.
You can be the first to prove my tag line wrong... Unless you're afraid to try.
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.