FAIR TAX BOOK- 2nd Ed. Revisions

self | May 5. 2006 | RobFromGa

[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.

[pigdog]

Guess you can't read if you try to spin what I said to mean that prices would increase. I haven't said that at all - and you know it.

But of course you also know that prices will decrease with the advent of the FairTax and only the tax will increase them back in an upward direction (most likely to about where they now are or perhaps a bit more or perhaps a bit less). Taxpayers will still be better off by having more disposable personal income even while paying the FairTax on these lowered pre-tax prices.

You just can't stop misstating, can you?

[pigdog]

That's your assessment of what he says, Nightie.

I see takehome wages going up noticeably AND pre-tax prices going down at the same time as I have said many times. I couldn't care less what you like to interpret a particular economist as thinking. Most on these threads have noted your ability to miststate things to help defend the Status Quo. And you certainly misstate what he has said.

You are the guy who was in error by over 400% and would never admit it, remember??? So your analysis oif what you think was meant doesn't cut any ice at all.

[pigdog]

Indeed you will, Dimp-Dimp. Every time you do so.

That's a very popular techique with you guys.

[pigdog]

Sorry Rongie - I've "admitted" no such thing.

I would have thought that such wonderfully discerning gents as you Squirrels would realize that wages increasing due to the FairTax indicates takehome wages ... you know - what you can actually spend and not the amount that is shorted by what the government withholds/takes from your wages without your consent. You guys are dumb enough to thing that wages including the income/payroll taxes are indeed your "wages" when in fact they are your wages plus taxes. Perhaps you've never noticed your check is less that what you supposedly "earn".

You guys will benefit from the visibility of the FairTax since it will be plain enough so that you can understand it ... or at least a few of you (some are no doubt too ignorant).

[Dimples]

Looks like we both called it right:

pigdog Post 400: "I have always said..."

pigdog Post 401: "I haven't said that at all..."

Though he has no clue what he's talking about, he's least predictable...

[Your Nightmare]

I see takehome wages going up noticeably AND pre-tax prices going down at the same time as I have said many times. I couldn't care less what you like to interpret a particular economist as thinking.

The real wage is not open to interpretation. It is what it is.

You are the guy who was in error by over 400% and would never admit it, remember??? So your analysis oif what you think was meant doesn't cut any ice at all.

I was not in error. And how can you say it was 400% when you refuse to give a number yourself.

You need to crawl back to the nut house.

[pigdog]

... and at least you're ignorant of what was said in the two instances.

In 400 the post related to prices decreasing pre-tax where I said "... prices will decrease a good amount ...".

In 401 the post related to straightening out his "error" (ha) where he was trying to say I agreed prices would increase. The operative part of the post was:

"... Guess you can't read if you try to spin what I said to mean that prices would increase. I haven't said that at all - and you know it.

But of course you also know that prices will decrease with the advent of the FairTax and only the tax will increase them back in an upward direction (most likely to about where they now are or perhaps a bit more or perhaps a bit less). Taxpayers will still be better off by having more disposable personal income even while paying the FairTax on these lowered pre-tax prices."

You should also actually read the last sentence in 401 since it also applies with the rest of you Squirrels who so love to warp and misquote:

"You just can't stop misstating, can you?"

So in fact you "both called it wrong", Dimp - but that's hardly new.

[pigdog]

Thanks but I prefer not to visit your house (and would have no reason to crawl IAE) since it is far too full of misstatement, out of context quoting, and just outright untruths (such as your old chestnut about the WA state tax nonsense which isn't even applicable to the FairTax - and that's been pointed out to you before).

You're apparently one of those who - when asked what he earns - quotes his takehome pay, thinking that's your wage and in fact that's probably more truthful that stating what it costs your employer to hire you since that includes the additional amount the employer pays you for taxes but whiah you don't get to disburse for living expenses or investments (it's gonzo to Uncle Sugar to partially help support our illegal aliens). You never have control of the amount above your takehome pay so it is hardly "yours" but merely the premium you cost your employer.

Your interpreatation of the economists palaver isn't at all convincing, but nice try. Your 400% error is still a 400% error and the numbers it was based upon were given when the error was pointed out ... and they came not from me but from the source who first alerted us to your "misinterpretations" on the matter. You were off by over 400%.

Tough you don't like it! You even made Looey (our previous error percentage record holder) jealous.

[Always Right]

pigdog (post 388):  "IOW, wages will increase markedly and prices will increase (with the tax) relative less so allowing benefits to most people."

pigdog (post 400):  "Indeed, prices will go down and takehome wages will greatly increase."

pigdog (post 401):  "Guess you can't read if you try to spin what I said to mean that prices would increase. I haven't said that at all..."

 

It's not spin, pigdog, it is all there in black and white. You said it, then you try to re-spin what you said, then you lie about ever saying it.  How can you lie about something so plain as day? Dumb question I guess, because you do it all the time. Debating you is pointless, as you have zero intellectual honesty. All you do is get mad and name call.

[RobFromGa]

EITHER BOORTZ IS STUPID, OR THINKS ALL HIS SUPPORTERS ARE

Today on his website Boortz posts the following about the Fair Tax Book 2nd edition paperback:

"Yesterday we got the first numbers for sales of the soft cover edition of The FairTax Book. We debuted as No. 3! Now ... a little historical perspective. In the 1950's Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Weisel's book "Night" debuted as No 1. on the New York Times paperback list. Then in 1966 Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood" debuted as No. 2. Now, in 2006, The FairTax Book debuts as No. 3! This is the highest first week for a paperback in 40 years!"

First of all, I am NOT disputing that FairTax Book will be at #3 on the NYT NONFICTION PAPERBACK book list when the list comes out next week. But the rest of Boortz's over-the-top comparisons are simply flat-out wrong.

First, "Night" by Weisel is #1 on the NYT Nonfiction Paperback book list right now, TODAY, and probably also next week as well. It is the OPRAH book of the moment.

Second, "In True Blood" by Capote is #2 on the NYT Nonfiction Paperback book list right now, TODAY, and probably also next week as well. It is tied in with the movie CAPOTE.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/bestseller/index.html

PAPERBACK NONFICTION (as of May 11 on website)
Top 5 at a Glance
1. NIGHT, by Elie Wiesel
2. IN COLD BLOOD, by Truman Capote
3. THE COVENANT WITH BLACK AMERICA.
4. MY LIFE SO FAR, by Jane Fonda
5. THE TIPPING POINT, by Malcolm Gladwell

So, of course Boortz is confused about whatever the NYT sent him about his book and thinks that his book is #3 highest all-time debut instead of #3 for a singel week, with two books over forty years old ahead of his beloved tome.

He is either stupid or can't read. I am not taking anything away from a #3 debut on any list, even if it is the Non-Fiction Paperback list. But he can't stop there, he needs to claim highest debut in over forty years for a paperback.

Does he even think? Isn't it likely that when the Clinton bios came out in paperback they debuted at #1 on the paperback lists?

There are probably many nonfiction paperback books that came out in the past 40 years that opened at #1 on the paperback list, this is a relatively low-volume list to start with (compared with Fiction numbers).

Why does Boortz have to mis-represent everything?

[Dimples]

There must be some mistake...

The FairTax Book should have been categorized on the Fiction list. Calling the FairTax Book "non-Fiction" is like calling a Michael Moore film a "Documentary."

[xcamel]

D) All of the above.

(the new subtitle)
"Tax reform from dead raelian cultists for dead raelian cultist"

[Your Nightmare]

Hmmmmmm...

[RobFromGa]

I couldn't find the NYT bestseller archives-- Good Job!

So in that week in 2002 alone, there was a #1 and a #2 debut on the NYT Paperback Non-Fiction list, both higher debuts than The FairTax Book.

I called Boortz and brought this up on the air, and he was belligerent and cut me off.

[Your Nightmare]

Does this clown think it's a coincidence that the books he thinks were the last to debut at #1 and #2 just happen to currently be #1 and #2 - forty years later?!?

He's a joke.

[Your Nightmare]

I also wouldn't be shocked if the book had a little "help" getting to #3 (it's #30 on the Amazon nonfiction list). I'm sure there were a few bulk sales in there.

[RobFromGa]

No, I think he just gets confused by big sentences, and hears selectively. When I was on the air with him, he wouldn't even listen to a word I said, he just cut off my voice and kept right on going... answering a question that was never raised.

His penchant for wild embellishment is well-known to anyone paying attention to his FairTax antics. He has no problem making things up...

[RobFromGa]

Here's an even better one...
1 NIGHT, by Elie Wiesel. (Hill & Wang, $9.) WEEKS ON LIST 1 (Feb 5, 2006)

[RobFromGa]

A few more from the past YEAR:

Million Little Pieces debuted at #1 on NYT Non-Fiction Paperback list on October 9, 2005.

and Worth More Dead debuted at #3 (same as Boortz) on Dec 18, 2005-- about 6 months ago?

Best Paperback Debut in over 40 years-- GIVE ME A BREAK.

[Beagle8U]

"Best Paperback Debut in over 40 years-- GIVE ME A BREAK."

I think he meant to say, It was the best book debut HE had in 40 years...lol