Posted on 05/27/2006 5:12:45 AM PDT by RobFromGa
FAIRTAX BOOK PLUNGES 200% IN THIRD WEEK ON CHART
In an unprecedented plunge, the second edition of "The FairTax Book", co-authored by Atlanta radio motor-mouth Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder, plunged 200% (inclusive) in its third week on the NYT Non-fiction paperback bestseller list from #7 to #14, following a precipitous 233% drop last week from #3 to #7.
The Boortz book was beaten handily by a book about the fascinating and always popular topic of punctuation. EATS, SHOOTS & LEAVES, by Lynne Truss. (Gotham, $11.), which moved ahead of "The FairTax Book", recounts the gripping story of an Englishwoman as she expounds on the use and misuse of punctuation marks.
The FairTax Boook, which is controversially listed on the Non-Fiction list, in spite of the many fictional elements of the story, debuted at a respectable #3 after a huge marketing campaign. This campaign included incessant flogging of the book on Boortz's popular radio talk show, as well as exortations to buy multiple copies and use them as gifts or firestarters.
Boortz, in a fit of stupidity rarely seen in this present age where facts can be easily checked on the Internet, continues to claim that the book had "the highest paperback debut in over forty years", even though this is demonstrably false from even a cursory study at the NYT archives.
For example, "Night" debuted at #1 just this year, on Feb 5, 2006.
"Million Little Pieces" debuted at #1 on NYT Non-Fiction Paperback list on October 9, 2005, just last year.
Another obvious example is The 9/11 Commission Report, which came out less than two years ago in 2004, and debuted at #1. There are many other such examples and these are all #1 debuts. The Boortz book only opened at #3. Claims of the highest debut in over forty years are laughable, and point to a possible Algore-like pyschological condition on the part of the belligerent talk-show host.
Even though an alert listener named Rob tried to tell Boortz on-the-air that his claim of the "highest paperback debut in over forty years" was an obvious error, the juvenile talk-show host berated the caller, and wouldn't let him get a word in edge-wise, and then pulled the plug on the call declaring victory in an on-air display of pigheadedness.
Notably, Boortz never had anyone recheck his claims which are still on his website to this day.
It is expected that "The FairTax Book" will continue to plummet on the charts in the weeks ahead, and Boortz listeners will be able to go back to their regular routine of being told that they shouldn't be proud of their children if they are being educated in government schools, and that they graduation of their little Johnny or Suzie from such a school is really not an achievement at all, but should be viewed as an embarrassment.
If you are trying to prove that is false, knock yourself out. I'm heading out for a while, have fun...
Warthog! Where you been dude? I haven't seen you posting in a while. I was beginning to think all the old-timers had left.
This is demonstrably false. A simple excel spreadsheet can illustrate it.
This is demonstrably false. A simple excel spreadsheet can illustrate it.Who's stopping you?...Oh wait, it's pigdog's spreadsheet...LOL!
Do one with a tax cost component (Rob said 9%) and do one without it. The difference between the two is NOT 9%. That position is preposterous.
No, it's a sheet you can do in 3 minutes if you wanted to. I did it just a moment ago. I don't know how to post it.I can do a lot of things in 3 minutes, reading minds is not one of them, even if I want to.
A radio talk show host with a daily program and maybe millions of listeners wrote a book promoted on the air had no "name recognition"?
Boortz had some name recognition. I never listened to him on radio. Like most people that bought The FairTax book they bought it because of concept /content -- not name recognition. Unlike Bill Clinton's book that was almost entirely name recognition because virtually every person knows who Bill Clinton is. Plus, the publicity Clinton's book had was a ton more than The FairTax book received. And you know all that, yet that's of no concern to you for it refutes your fallacious argument.
lewsilynn, nice try -- NOT! You're such a loser.
Do one with a tax cost component (Rob said 9%)No he didn't.
RobfromGa
"my statement was that if the most any input component of price was reduced was 9%..."BTW, except for in failed Fairtax logic, only a sales tax or VAT could be an input component of price.
The difference between the two is NOT 9%.Garbage in garbage out.
Like most people that bought The FairTax book they bought it because of concept /content -- not name recognition.So no one that bought the book ever heard of Boortz or his talk radio show...got it.
Bookmark to show where/who starts the name calling.
ANd the input component we speak of is the tax costs that will be eliminated when the income tax is eliminated. So you now agree that the income tax behaves like a vat. Finally!
I stand by the statement: Reducing price by x% in each stage of production does NOT necessarily lead to a final price reduction of the same percent.
Oh yeah and of course there's no name recognition for "Congressman" as a co-author on the cover of a tax book either. < /sarcasm >
A farmer spends $10.50 getting a bushel of corn to market. Of that 10.50, 50 cents (5%) represents taxes and tax costs that will be eliminated under the nrst (so he could sell for 10.00 if not for those tax costs.)
The market guy buys a bushel for 10.50 and has similar tax costs (5%)and sells the bushel to the wholesaler for 11.03.
The wholesaler buys for 11.03 and has similar tax costs (5%) and ends up selling to the grocer 11.58. THe grocer has similar tax costs (5%) and ends up selling to the retail customer for 12.16.
If we'd been under an nrst, pretax prices could've fallen from 12.16 to 11.00 by eliminating the 5% at each stage.
That is a 1.16 savings or 9.5% savings. That is obviously more than 5%.
This is only 4 stages of production and only a 5% savings. Rob said earlier 8 or 9% is what a business will save due to tax cost savings.
We are not talking about stages of production. We are talking about a single business.
The price components I am talking about are the costs that a business has which when added together makes up the price.
As an example, the pizza shop again:
If 20% of his costs are due to buying ingredients, and
20% by rent, and
40% by labor, and
20% by utilities.
That's 100% of his costs accounted for.
If the most that any one of these inputs is reduced is by 9%, then the most that his total can drop is 9%. It is not very difficult math.
Never have a 5 year old in your lap when FReeping!
If the most that any one of these inputs is reduced is by 9%, then the most that his total can drop is 9%. It is not very difficult math.It's the simple logic that confuses them.
This is not germane Rob. It is immaterial. It's not what we're talking about. It's not related to the nrst.
We're talking about whether or not a savings of 9% at each stage of production leads to a total savings of a higher percentage. It does.
For a 9% drop to occur, each component in your example would have to drop 9%.
And in a service business (one stage), tax costs are higher.
This is another stupid example where no value is added at any stage and each successive stage has only the single input and tax.
There would not be a tax component of 5% on the second and later stages under your example because there is nothing being done that is taxable, these fictitous businesses are simply purchasing an item for a price, and reselling them at no profit, with no other costs, no employees, no buildings, no other costs.
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.