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.
You've really gone off the deep end with the newspaper list haven't you, Robbie? Going to make it your life's work to spam all posts with this new vanity nonsense of yours?
Who gives a rat's rear end???
By magic. No bureaucracy, no paperwork, no compliance burdens.
The "fair" tax fairy will make it so.
Monumental liars exulting in minutia.
In my posts pointing out the error Robbie, I never said it offended me - just that it was, which all of you but good, dear sweet Dimp-Dimp kept claiming was a lie on the part of anyone saying it was an error.
Perhaps Dimp-Dimp will give you free reading lessons.
I guess we can take this wishy washy post of your as admitting that, yes, it was an error and, no, those calling attention to it were not "liars" as you were repeatedly spouting. Goes to show the quality of your "research" on the FairTax.
See #524 Looey.
Nope, mojoron, there are prodcedures now in states to audit that sort of thing. they'll still be useful with the FairTax - and there are civil and criminal penalties that apply for someone who steals Federal funds donchaknow.
No magic is involved at all. And the state gets paid to do so making it hardly a "compliance burden". You should read the bill.
Hardly, mojoron, we merely point out your errors and then enjoy hearing you chiming in as a chorous of nitwits saying "liar, liar, pants on fire" like the children you are.
No it wasn't an error of any consequence piggie, it was no different from a typo in that regard. It had no bearing on the meaning of my post. You are reduced to thinking that you have scored something big when you have done nothing of the sort. See you in the next thread.
No. Aren't you ashamed to have doubted him?
Frankly, Nightie, you're making another error. I made no whopper in #446.
At any rate it it hilarious to see you guys backpedal and claim that YOUR errors are not really errors at all and instead of apologizing for lying about the fact that it was an error you're trying to interpret what I meant (the old straw man diversionry tactic of imputing what someone meant according to your warped interests and then calling him a liar because of your straw man) in a diversionary manner to try to call me a liar for being correct about it.
You guys are truly sick.
'Twas no game - just pointing out the fact there was an error.
You guys have been lying about it ever since ... and still are it seems.
No. Aren't you ashamed to have doubted him?Absolutely not. It turns out my doubt was justified. To turn that into some big "error" and go on and on for post after post was intentionally meant to give the wrong impression - otherwise known as a lie.
Frankly, Nightie, you're making another error. I made no whopper in #446.What! You can't see it? It's as plain as day...
At any rate it it hilarious to see you guys backpedal and claim that YOUR errors are not really errors at all and instead of apologizing for lying about the fact that it was an error you're trying to interpret what I meant (the old straw man diversionry tactic of imputing what someone meant according to your warped interests and then calling him a liar because of your straw man) in a diversionary manner to try to call me a liar for being correct about it.You got caught trying to cast doubt on robfromga's post by saying there was some big "error." You made a huge deal out of nothing in an effort to "give the wrong impression."
You guys are truly sick.Yeah, right....
Otherwise known as letting the SQL's turn up the volume in one of their group thunks.
Will today be the day Boortz tells the truth, or will it be just another regular Monday?
Well, I have been listening to him for over 30 years. Many times I have heard him treat callers the way he treated you. Now I know what must have been going on.
That's really funny, Nightie! I suppose you're talking about dropping the "c" from "distract" and while yes, that's an error, it doesn't even qualify except under your defitions of "typos" which you tell us are not errors (as least when you do them).
The error in #410 I referred to was not a typo, but a factual error (which since done by a Squirrel can be claimed to be "not an error", apparently). Nothing like your double standard.
Apparently none of you are man enough to admit your errors and instead try to manufacture a way to call other "liars" even when they are correct. Love hateful name calling, don't you? ... it must boost your ego.
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.