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.
Interesting - I can't recall your "admitting" any error while I have owned up so several when pointed out.
I'll bet that means you have made none, doesn't it?
you are speaking gibberish again. but you are an expert at lying, I will give you that. if you want to call me a liar, show specifics-- your vague nebulous statements are tiresome.
Don't flatter yourself that they would paint your name all over the walls and just wait for you to call in in order to "dis" you as you claim.
They undoubtedly have plenty of other jerks that call in and don't know them either.
Your supercilliousness is overpowering however.
You can't bear to read your own posts???
Can't say I blame you ... or perhaps you can't recognize your own obvious errors. I'm sure you could easily find it if you'd try.
you never have anything specific to say, just mindless babbling.
Sounds to me like you're trying to distra t from and ignore your error in #410. Talk about "mindless babbling"!!!
Ok, I misspelled "single" as "singel"-- you caught me.
Sounds to me like you're trying to distra t from and ignore your error in #410. Talk about "mindless babbling"!!!Is this another one of your classic phantom "errors"?
Hammer —> Nail —> BAM!
Perfectly said, Dimples! :o)
That's the classic approach of squirrel-boy. He can't argue with facts or reason, so he makes up "errors" and obliquely refers to them while whining that anyone who disagrees is "attacking."
That makes 2 ... maybe you can find the other.
Sorry, PC, guess you're not able to spot the 2nd error (either). Not too surprising considering ...
Sorry...I live in the real world; not the B.S. "30% is really 23%" world you appear to inhabit.
Sorry, PC, guess you're not able to spot the 2nd error (either). Not too surprising considering ...Instead of playing your pathetic little game, why don't you tell us the "error"?
The federal sales tax would have been paid before it existed? "Fair" taxer logic.
Apparently your "real world" is just like that of the rest of the SQL Squadron - not too bothered with either accuracy (or honesty) and nopt interesting in seeking it out and correcting your own errors.
Figures.
You Squirrels who are so eager to attack any (perceived by you error) in anything FairTax aren't even willing or able to do so in your own "stuff".
If the Squirrels say so, it's absolutely pure, errors or not eh?
Better read that post again. Nowhere did it say "federal sales tax", but merely tax - income tax in the particular case.
One of the precepts of the FairTax as stated in the bill is that a thing would be taxed once and only once.
Typical Squirrel misstatement on your part Mojo.
False, naturally.
Actually it said:
"Used" for purposes of the FairTax legislation, means no tax previously collected on the item.
You Squirrels who are so eager to attack any (perceived by you error) in anything FairTax aren't even willing or able to do so in your own "stuff".What is this, the kindergarten playground? Quit playing "I Gotta Secret." If you think there is an error (which it is becoming more and more obvious there isn't) just tell us. Stop being a punk.
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.