The Fair Tax: Stop the Tax Cheats

"Right. You say something exists and I'm suppose to prove it doesn't. That's what's known as "proving a negative.""

Guess you're miffed because you think I'm using the tactic you seem to prefer.

Are you trying to say Nightie that, somehow, your mythical "business" is able to sell in a way that DOES NOT include the tax component??? REALLY??? How is this accomplished? Perhaps you're just saying it doesn't matter how the selling price is derived somehow?

So you can't give us an example that shows business does not embed taxes in prices. That's hardly a surprise. I've showed you the mechanism of cascading embedded taxes. It's your problem if you don't understand it. You've never offered an example showing a non-cascading non-embedded income tax. Since you're so sure I'm wrong, present one.

"... TAX, at any level, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INPUT COST !!!!! ..."

Actually Dimp-Dimp, one of your dumber statements. You are basically saying that taxes are not passed on in the form of costs to the next level. Nonsense!

" YOU KEEP INSISTING THERE ARE OTHER COSTS in the equations ... costs that NO ONE, NOT EVEN YOU have been able to identify or quantify ... costs that add NO MORE to the price of a product than the ACTUAL TAXES (and compliance costs) PAID do."

Even more nonsense. You merely persist in trying to put words in my mouth. What I have said (if you stop misstating my example) is that the taxes cascade and embed at each level and compound when passed to the next level. The example also clearly shows that these compounded, embedded taxes are the ones that appear as "tax costs as % of sell price" in the example and which can be removed with the onset of the FairTax (in addition to other costs).

These other costs are things like compliance costs and the ER portion of payroll taxes perhaps but unlike you I've never tried to say they will be x% but have used your own assessments for them. They are certainly additional costs over and above the cascaded income taxes.

Since you don't like my estimate of 15% on Nightie's example why don't you adjust the "real world" example to not have the bias it does and tell us what the percentage is (if not about 15). Be sure to double the profit margin since that doubled one is what he has claimed is "real" (but only used one half that high) and also drop out a couple of he marginal businesses he included so that the percentage of marginal businesses represent the same fraction in the chart he claimed was "real". He has 3 times as many marginal businesses. Do those things, Dimp-Dimp, and tell us what your "real world" number might be.

You have no idea what your talking about. And you keep proving it every time you try to justify your simplistic (and just plain wrong) notion of how business accounting works.

Input cost has nothing to do with the amount of tax due (if any) at the end of the day (other than if costs exceed price, then no tax is due.)

You STILL have failed to show a SINGLE example of a price reduction that is larger than the ACTUAL TAX (and compliance cost) paid.

If there is ANY cascading going on, such an example should be SIMPLE to construct.

Problem is YOU CAN'T, because there is NO CASCADING. Go ahead TRY it.

The "tax cost as % of sell price" in my example actually includes the cascaded amounts which is why their removal allows price to drop by that much ...

NONE of your examples show any cascaded (multiplied) costs! ALL they show is how much ACTUAL tax is paid! Where's the "cascaded" amount over and above the ACTUAL tax paid??? (hint: there is none!)

Again, You've NEVER shown ANY example where prices will drop by MORE THAN THE ACTUAL TAX PAID. NOT ONCE!

It actually sounds now Dimp-Dimp that you are agreeing that prices will reduce when you say:
"... prices decline by PRECISELY the amount of the ACTUAL TAX paid ..."

You ARE dense. I've ALWAYS maintained that pre-tax prices will decline by NO MORE than that ACTUAL taxes and compliance costs ACTUALLY removed. AND that such a decline amounts to an average of NO MORE than 7.5% --- and is LIKELY LESS (around 5%) because NOT ALL savings will be passed on as price reductions. As a result, COMPARABLE after-tax prices will RISE by an average of 24% ... and I've provided REAL economic data to back that up, not some fantasy mechanism that purports to show something it does not.

Truly funny Dimp-Dimp. You STILL don't understand that my example is NOT a "business accounting" and was never intended to be - but an example of how income taxes cascade and embed into prices.

And they DO cascade as I described in my example. The fact you don't grasp what happens merely shows you mental inequity. The fact that the tax embeds into the next level and is thereby taxed again is cascading and is shown in the "tax cost as % of sell price". If the actual tax paid does not cascade as you claim then you should be able to remove the tax and show this effect but you have never been able to show this.

Truth is, Dimp-Dimp, the actual taxes paid ARE cascaded and this is what my example shows. You seem to have a hobby of making up fanciful claims but the example does show cascading which is a well-known mechanism - but apparently not to you. The actual tax paid at each level is arrived at by multiplying the input costs by some factor and these costs include the tax costs from the previous level, And that's what my example says and shows. Your claiming otherwise is just more of your SOS,

You are basically saying that taxes are not passed on in the form of costs to the next level.

No, that is NOT what I'm basically saying (weren't you just accusing ME of putting words in your mouth?) Tax is NOT calculated on the the amount of INPUT cost; it's calculated on the amount of PROFIT! For the SAME input cost, profit can be ANY amount (negative, zero, or positive!) the tax is calculated on the PROFIT amount REGARDLESS of what the input cost is or what components are embedded in it.

NONE of you examples show even a single PENNY of a cascaded amount. If they did, you'd have quantified that amount by now just to prove how much cascading adds to the ACTUAL tax paid. You haven't, because you CAN't, because THERE ISN'T ANY "cascaded" AMOUNT!!!

And if that's the case, this is the main part that I disagree with you on:

"... AND that such a decline amounts to an average of NO MORE than 7.5% --- and is LIKELY LESS (around 5%) because NOT ALL savings will be passed on as price reductions. As a result, COMPARABLE after-tax prices will RISE by an average of 24% ..."

You've certainly not provided real economic data to back that up and if you'll re-do Nightie's example with the modifications I suggested, you'll find out quite a different percentage. But then I don't expect you to do that since you like the little dream world you're in.

My belief is that disposable personal income to remain about the same or perhaps slightly increase over the short term - which certainly flies in the face of your "price increase" nonsense since you don't take both greater income and lowered prices into account but try some sort of 30%-6% simple arithmetic to promote a meaningless figure. Won't happen.

You're doing it agaain ... I did not say that tax was calculated on the basis of input cost, but that input costs included taxes from the prior level which were multiplied within the present levet thereby giving the cascaded tax effect.

Stop putting words in my mouth. My example clearly shows that taxes are calculated based upon profits (DUH!!) but that those tax costs get passed on to the next level and are multiplied there showing up at that next level in "tax cost as % of sell price". Each of the levels in my example shows this effect while in he unreal example of Nightie this is obfuscated by has manipulative selection of numbers. The actual tax paid includes the cascaded amounts and my example shows this. That's why when income taxes are removed the prices will drop.

Redo Nightie's example as I said to make it more nearly "real" and see what comes out the end.

You've certainly not provided real economic data ...

The amount of corporate profit tax (about $200 B) is real;
the amount of non-corporate profit tax (about $100 B) is real;
the amount of ER Payroll tax (about $360 B) is real;
the amount of actual compliance cost borne by business (about $160 B) is a real estimate from YOUR source (the Tax Foundation);
the amount of GDP is real (about $11,000 B);
the calculation is real [(200 + 100 + 360 + 160) / 11,000 = 7.5%

It doesn't get any more real than that.

... but that those tax costs get passed on to the next level and are multiplied there showing up at that next level in "tax cost as % of sell price" ...

Multiplied by WHAT, exactly?

Producing WHAT amount, exactly?

How is that amount DIFFERENT, exactly, from the ACTUAL TAX PAID to government?

And by how much, exactly, will price drop, IN EXCESS OF ACTUAL TAX (and compliance cost) PAID? (Please point to that amount in ANY example: yours, Your Nightmare's, ANY example!)

The "tax cost as % of sell price" in my example actually includes the cascaded amounts ...

Really? a moment ago (in Post #524) you said:

You've completely missed the point that the "hidden taxes" are not taxes at all, but artificially-increased prices caused solely by the business income tax and compliance costs.
The "hidden taxes" themselves (since they are not taxes but unproductive price increases) do not need to be replaced by a revenue neutral FairTax.

In your example the "tax cost as % of sell price" is EXACTLY equal to the amount of ACTUAL TAX PAID. Where is the "cascaded amount?"

So which is it? do the ACTUAL taxes paid include "cascaded amounts" or do they not? The only way BOTH are true is if the "cascaded amounts" equals ZERO!

That backs up nothing Dimp-Dimp. Those are just meaningless figures you've pulled out of wherever you pulled them out of.

Those numbers may be real, but so are 23%, $500 Billion, $35 Billion, 21 million, and 7.92 - as is 10.5%.

Abnd BTW the Tax Foundation isn't MY source but even if it were, SO WHAT??? Throwing figures areound as yoiu lobve to do is a meaningless exercise. And once again I note you are using the old caveat of "corporate profit tax" as though it represented all businesses.

Like I said - your "numbers" are meaningless as are most of your arguments.

You buffoon. You seem to have "forgotten" that I've always said my example was merely about illustrating the mechanism of embedded cascading taxes to show there is a good bit of leeway for price decreases. I've specifically told you - several times, in fact, that I'll offer up no values to attack since it is the mechanism I'm illustrating and the numbers will be whatever they end up being - which neither you nor anyone else "knows" (though it makes you feel superior to pretend you do).

If you want "numbers" to attack, go take Nightie's example and correct it as I directed so that it is more likely to have a relation to reality. Then you can go argue with him about his numbers since that seems like all you wish to do.

The data are indeed real measures of the real economy published in the NIPA tables, the Economic Reports of the President, Tax Stats from the IRS, and Research Organizations that do this for a living.

The difference between you and me is I look at REAL data to draw MY conclusions, you look at a spreadsheet of an admittedly UNREAL example that can't possibly be used to conclude ANYTHING about how pricing operates ... and then guess.

And once again I note you are using the old caveat of "corporate profit tax" as though it represented all businesses.

You really CAN'T read, can you?

...
The amount of corporate profit tax (about $200 B) is real;
the amount of non-corporate profit tax (about $100 B) is real;
...

Note the second line: non-corporate business, $100 B, this comes directly from Tax Stats.

your "numbers" are meaningless as are most of your arguments.

Let's see, my data, from real published, uncontraverted sources is "meaningless" and your spreadsheet that, according to you, is not meant to represent ANYTHING real, is the key to knowledge?

Get serious!

It's neither or both, Dimp-Dimp. It is as I showed in my example. The taxes cascade in the next level and are at that point merely increased costs of things due solely to taxes from the prior level. Once the business pays income tax on his profits (if he does) the income taxes accumulate and include the cascaded amounts. If there is no income tax paid, there is no reduction of the input cost which has been artificially raised solely due to taxes which means that prices remain artificially elevated due to the cascading.

Also keep in mind that I have never attempted to include compliance costs into the example. That doesn't mean there are none. It also does not mean that taxing all businesses at the same rate even when losing money is realistic - another problem your boy Nightie has with his example.

Go harrangue him with your nonsense. His example after all is "real world" (he says) yet you seem unable to view it critically at all. Does that mean you think it's correct?

I realize that you'll never understand the mechanism involved though lord knows you've had ample opportunities to do so. I see no reason to waste more time on you. You just keep stumbling along trying to dredge up any old thing to attack.

You've already admitted being a die-hard supporter of Status Quo so everything you come up with has to be viewed through that distorted prism.

So, I noticed you've progressed to completely ignoring the call to actually point out how much your "cascaded costs" are in ANY example. So, far, we have ONLY the amount of ACTUAL TAX PAID, and not one red cent of "cascaded cost."

But then you've know that all along, haven't you. Perhaps that why, after SIX year of asking, you've NEVER, EVER been able to even hazard a GUESS at how much those "embedded cascading business tax costs" might be. Not a clue; not wild a$$ guess; not a single authoritative source ...

... nothing but pigdog's magic glasses that let you see things that aren't actually there.

I guess without your delusions, you'd have nothing at all.

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.