...said Captain Smith, aka "RobFromGA", as the Titantic sank out from under him...
Posted on 05/05/2006 1:35:32 PM PDT by RobFromGa
In my letter to Rep. Linder and Mr. Boortz of August 24, 2005, I pointed out a number of what I called “serious misrepresentations” of the Fair Tax plan contained in “The FairTax Book”. I specifically named many of these by page #.
Now that the revised second issue is out, let’s see what they did to these passages in the book:
First edition page 55, you go on to explain that these embedded taxes are “in addition to the money taken out of your check in income and payroll taxes.”
Second edition- this line was eliminated. This means that they are acknowledging that the 22% embedded taxes INCLUDE the income and payroll taxes which was one of my points all along.
First edition page 59, “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.”
Second edition- “Once the FairTax takes effect, you’ll be in complete control of your paycheck as nothing will be withheld and your purchasing power for t-shirts and all other goods and services will be almost exactly what it was before the FairTax.”
This means that they are acknowledging that “purchasing power” will remain the same, not a big increase in purchasing power as they previously asserted with their larger paychecks/same prices verbiage. They eliminated the “100% of paycheck” wording.
First edition 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.”
Second edition- “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. If employers leave this money in paychecks instead of taking it out of price, most of those we categorize as poor, this would mean an immediate 25 to 30 percent increase in their take-home pay.”
Of course, this acknowledges that the employer has a choice to make—to pay the worker his current paycheck and not reduce prices (meaning prices with FairTax added go up 30%) or to cut paychecks to present takehome levels. They cannot both give workers more takehome pay and reduce prices. The Free Lunch described in the first edition is eliminated.
First edition, page 84, you make it clear though that even though the workers will keep all of their paychecks for a big raise, you still believe that because of “the disappearance of the embedded taxes, the total price paid for consumer goods will remain very nearly the same”.
Second edition—“when you factor in the combined lower prices/higher takehome pay caused by the disappearance of the embedded taxes” prices will remain about the same.
This again acknowledges that they money currently deducted as taxes can either be used to increase take-home pay or reduce prices but not both at the same time. If they were being more honest here, they would have referred to purchasing power remaining the same rather than prices, but they are trying to put the best possible spin on this major admission.
First edition page 111, you tie it all together with a Quick Review in which you erroneously assert that “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.”
Second edition:
“We start controlling our earnings in every paycheck” (whatever that means)
“100% earnings” line is eliminated from the second edition. "virtual raises" is likewise eliminated.
“Our purchasing power for buying consumer goods and services remains essentially the same, with the removal of the embedded taxes compensating for the added consumption tax.”
This is a MAJOR difference in the Quick Review! In the first edition, they promised larger paychecks and prices remianign the same—which means a major increase in purchasing power. Of course this was a ridiculous promise. In the second edition, they say our purchasing power will be about the same.
They still left a lot of wrong and misleading verbiage throughout the book, but they addressed most of the concerns that I sent to them and removed those claims in the second book.
I haven't seen an argument against the fair tax that was worthy of attention. None of you guys debate, you just get on here and rant about the fair tax lies which you fail to show proof of. You get a pass as an official defender of the status quo, however. If that is what you want. At least it is an honest position to take.
You are not the final arbiter of what is worthy, groanup. There are probably a dozen or more serious issues with the FairTax that have been discussed in detail on these threads-- everything from the double-counting of the wage/price savings, the probable impact on the black market, the effect on business purchases, the effect on savings, the effect on poor people, the stupidity of the prebate, the socialist aspects of the prebate, how consumption is likely to be affected, how it affects spending reduction...
To say that there has been no debate is just stupidity.
None of you guys debate, you just get on here and rant about the fair tax lies which you fail to show proof of.The above sentence happens to be the sum total of your debate about the Fairtax...
Can you show, other than in your mind, where the Fairtax is working or has worked?
Most of the arguments used against the Fairtax are from the Fairtax itself, if you're making it up so be it.
Sure there's been some debate by one of two of you guys. The rest of you aren't even close. Name calling, harassing and snide remarks aren't debate. They ARE the hallmarks of most of the anti's. I know I have been repeatedly ignored when I have asked for alternatives to the current income tax.
When I post comments or opinions I am called stupid and ignorant but no rebuttal is forthcoming. That isn't debate it is third grade playground comment.
You're right, we should have followed his lead and just cast it off as just another example of your ongoing idiocy.Actually, I didn't know he said that about me. I rarely read his posts!! I thought he said that about RobFromGa.
no-where-on-the-planet.
Unlike the Flat tax, which is sweeping the planet like sunshine in springtime.
Can you show me, other than in your mind, where the fair tax has been tried and has not worked? Of course you can't. Just like I can't show you where it has worked. It's a new idea. A very well researched one BTW. Spin it anyway you like new ideas can be good. This one threatens thousands of very lucrative jobs, though. Could such a threat create stone walls of resistance? Yes.
LOL. I'm calling BS on that one. You stick to these threads like beef on a steer.
You don't post to me because I want a better idea from you guys. Okay, we have Rob who has admitted that the current income tax system is OK. Will you admit the same? Or do you have a better idea. Give us the VAT!!!
LOL...If the IRS is the equivilent of a bad haircut, I think you need a new barber.
You're right. I was giving them too much credit when I called them sophmores.
(paraphrased for those of you in Rio Linda)
"Should a Fisher-style pure consumption tax be implemented, government could easily manipulate the retail prices of non-prebatible consumer goods for their own tax gain by import tariffs, de-zoning or banning increased production, filing lawsuits, restricting access to raw materials (such as logging and mining), restricting transport, or in the simplest form, raising the cost of transport and motor fuels. Political acts decreasing supply by artificial means, causing unconscionable increases in retail prices of said [necessary] goods, and the subsequent onerous levels of taxation.."
see http://www.mises.org/story/1768 for the entire essay.
It was a simple self-evident fact for any fairminded person reading this thread. That would not include you, obviously.
We'll call that the "Something else bad might happen in the world so let's keep the IRS and the income tax argument."
...said Captain Smith, aka "RobFromGA", as the Titantic sank out from under him...
Not with the Flat Tax. That is spelled out very clearly and easily.
At least until the IRS disagree's with the business' characterization of a deduction as being allowable as a business expenditure. Then comes the expensive administrative and court battles to decide the issue.
No thanks, I'll take a basic retail sales tax system over the inevitable battles that arise of deductibility of expenditures that occur with any system in which the citizen is required to self declare his tax liability to government with tax bureacrats standing by to second guess and contest the citizen's determinations.
You don't post to me because I want a better idea from you guys.LOL! I didn't read the post. It is pretty funny though.
"You are nothing more than a K-Street lawyer. The most vile human of all time, the most evil wariour of the elite class. You have no empathy for those of us who actually PAY these taxes. You obviously have a lot to gain from us."
It must be frustrating to belong to the fair tax cult.
Actually, I didn't know he said that about me. I rarely read his posts!! I thought he said that about RobFromGa.I know, I rarely read them too unless I happen across them in a thread. They're always riddled with insults then accuses the recipient of not debating the subject or proving their point. Besides, they're always written to impress or inform the casual lurker of his opinion of YOU rather than a "debate" on the subject.
Actually it doesn't matter who he said it about, it's still low-life...No surprise from someone who's made it a point on several occasions that he thinks the (never happen) Fairtax is their only chance in life at "creating wealth".
More gobbledygook. You have such a clear and lucid writing style, a_g.
With the exemption of business purchases from the FairTax, the problem of proving business use for deductibility is not going to be improved one bit. It might be much worse.
Or to put it in geezereze:
The resultant cost vector formulation of quasi-business equivalences shall show the potential for serious cross-tabulations into semi-personal expenditure ranges when accounting analyses are undertaken; however additional layers of provenance could indeed morph the nominally more simplistic FairTax structure into a bestial abomination.
Right now I think it's still happy days in Jonestown. They think they've got a big groundswell of support. Only the leaders know that the whole thing has fizzled like a wet match.
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.