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.
Hey, rongie - coming from you we always know it's wrong. You've demonstrated that time and again.
All three of those posts are consistent and are saying the same thing but you're too iognorant to realize it. Go back and study what they say. It IS all there in B&W and it all says the same thing only you are unable to grasp the meaning apparently.
To paraphrase a quaint comment that slipped out from a total idjit:
"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."
|
LOL pigdog, I have come to expect that from you. You are the only person on this forum who can argue up is down with a straight face.
LOL pigdog, I have come to expect that from you. You are the only person on this forum who can argue up is down with a straight face.The only person besides Ancient Geezer.
Tough you don't like it! You even made Looey (our previous error percentage record holder) jealous.Making an honest error is one thing (though an honest "error" is nothing to go on and on about unless you have nothing else) but purposely making up lies in the form of a phony spreadsheet in an attempt to show "embedded taxes" is genuinely dishonest...period
It makes you look even sillier than you otherwise normally would. You post would better be phrased:
"EITHER BOORTZ ROBBIE IS STUPID, OR THINKS ALL HIS SUPPORTERS ARE"!!
... or calling one of your posts "truthful"!
And I suppose you're going to pretend that the little top-knot of hair you wear is from nothing less that the 14th planet, xcamaelian cult phather ...
You seem merely jealous because your fellow cultist has gained so much more attention than you (of course, Robbie has about the same problem).
That's because you "outed" yourself as a know-nothing by making such an attack.
Dunno - I call posts with 100% "honest error" a bald-faced lie.
Gee, Looey ... you really, truly think spreadsheets lie???
By golly, Miss Molly - then what do you call Nightie's 400% "honest error"??
If he wants to continue to make ridiculous statements about the "best paperback debut in over forty years", more power to him. I called the show and told Belinda that he was making a mistake with his claim and for her to look at the current non-fiction paperback list and it would be obvious that Neal was miunderstanding something. She said I was wrong, and probably just jealous, and said they'd put my call on the air next. I was on three minutes later and Boortz would hardly let me get a word in as I tried to explain his error. After a minute he cut me off.
But since I was right, and he is wrong, he will again be having to do the crabwalk. Wonder who he'll blame this mistake on?
Sounds as though Belinda pegged you pretty quickly as an attacker.
You seem to have this insatiable desire to be "right" (whatever that means) - just like with your vanity posts' mis-explanations.
This latest vanity attempt to hype yourself (and attack Boortz) merely sounds like a tempest in a teapot. Get a life!
Guilty as charged. And your desire to "win" regardless of whether you are "right" is your defining characteristic.
When I am wrong I admit it. It just doesn't happen very often.
The name on her CallerID was probably a giveaway. I have sent them my earlier letters with my name on them. So, they probably have a dartboard with my name on it.
BTW, Robbie - o holier than thou one - you might correct your own error in #410 before hopping all over Boortz.
Keep in mind, too, that he's a marketeer and may merely be hyping he book for sales interest; such guys have been known as to overstate things (as have you for that matter in hyping your vanity posts). I believe it's referred to as "puffery" when trying to sell something and "lying" when not trying to sell but to attract people to your side in a debate.
what error is that?
I believe it's referred to as "puffery" when trying to sell something
Puffery is when you make claims that are unprovable like World's Best Cup of Coffee, Lying is when you say your book has the highest debut for a paperback in over forty years, and there are two that were higher debuting in the last SEVEN MONTHS.
And lying is also (as you have done in your various vanity posts) by making untrue claims and trying to push your own interpretations as things someone else has said and then claiming those are untrue and therefore the person (not making those claims in the first place)is lying.
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.