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.
As Dirksen said "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money" ...
Boortz is a self serving a-hole.....if you listen to him long enough you figure out his only belief is making himself wealthy...that's it in a nutshell...oh and he also flushes callers or berates them if they have a southern accent...if anyone disagrees with this...then maybe you didn't listen a few years back like i did...maybe he has changed now...i wouldn't know.
I don't know enough about tax policy to comment on this intelligently, but I STILL say that telling people they can't disagree with the author because they aren't published authors is hogwash.
I never said it was wrong to disagree. Nor has anyone else that I've seen said that. Why do you create that argument and imply that someone else made that argument?
I stand behind what I said in my posts, I'm not going to go back through them and try to educate you as to where you started to misunderstand.
Your chart with the multiple stages was total crap, and since there was not labor or profits introduced at any of the stages after the first, there would have been zero tax consequences in any of those subsequent stages.
If you would use a real case with value added at each step and profits, then we would have something to discuss, and these new inputs would also reduce the percentage impact from the earlier stage inputs, and everything would work out as I said it would.
Only by going to fantasy land do you end up with gobbledygook like you posted. There is NO tax due on buying something and selling it for the same price without adding any labor, transportation etc. So your analysis falls apart.
Once again, only two things make up the bulk of taxes paid in this country-- taxes on labor and taxes on corporate profits. These taxes make up the vast majority of the tax revenue in the US.
In 2004, taxes on labor were $1.588 trillion, and Corporate taxes were $212 billion. (there was also $25 billion estate taxes which are negligible for the purposes of this post). The total federal revenue was $1.825 trillion. Of the labor taxes, $839 billion were personal income taxes, $374 billion was employee half SS/M, and $374 billion was employer half of SS/M.
So, the money that the FairTax is going to remove from the costs of goods and services is $212 billion corporate taxes, plus $374 billion employer half SS/M for a total of $586 billion. The $839 billion income taxes plus the $374 billion employee paid half of SS/M is now targetted to go back to the employees in the "keep 100% of your paycheck promise".
So, of the $1.825 trillion in taxes presently embedded in the prices of goods and services, $1.21 trillion is being given to the employees as a windfall pay increase, and is therefore not available to reduce producer costs, and therefore cannot be used to reduce the shelf prices of goods and services.
The $586 billion that is being removed from the cost of goods and services is only 32% of the original taxes that were intended to be wrung out of the producer cost structure in the FairTax plan as it was modeled by Jorgenson, et al.
The FairTax people tell us repeatedly that 22-23% of the cost of the average goods and services is embedded costs of the present tax system. This includes all of the income and payroll taxes now paid by wage earners and business owners, as well as the corporate profit taxes where applicable. So, since now we are only taking 32% of that embedded cost out, this calculates out to a removal of 7-8% of the original 22-23% estimate. Adding another $200 billion in compliance savings and we arrive again at the 8-10% savings number I have previosuly estimated for what can be removed from the cost of goods under the FairTax.
Assuming an 8-10% reduction in shelf prices, the addition of the 30% Fairtax means prices paid go will go up 17-20%, also as I have been saying.
You're changing what you're saying. I have said real prices will remain stable.
Why the hoopla about nominal prices?
It's a tactic used when a person's argument has been refuted, they obfuscate. Such people are their own worst enemy. So to speak.
You are right, Principled is good at obfuscation. No matter how clearly I try to make the case, he still wants to make up incorrect scenarios and claim they prove anything. Which they don't.
If you don't believe that Boortz is the face of your "movement" and that his big mouth is writing checks that the FairTax can't come close to covering, then you are really out of the loop. Boortz is the FairTax to the vast majority of the people you claim are "primed for change".
When you prime people by lying to them, they get pissed when they find out. That's why he's still lying about the "keep your ahole paycheck, prices stay the same" even now.
Exactly!
I did use a real case. Adding value at each step does not affect the percent of costs. It makes no difference in the percentage of costs if zero is added or a million is added. THe resulting percent will be the same. Have you not thought that through?
What's total crap is you asserting something without knowing what you're talking about.
Any cost omitted from stage one will also be omitted from stages 2,3,4,...n. ANy cost omitted from stage 2 will be omitted from stages 3,4,5,...n. ANd so on.
Try building a sheet on your own. I dare you.
It certainly does, and it also diminishes the impact of inputs because instead of being 100% of the cost, they are some percent lower.
Stop being pigheaded and read my post, is all very clearly spelled out. The only things taxed in our present format are labor and some corporate profits. Since your example had neither after the first stage there was no tax to be added, it is that simple.
There is only 8-10% price reduction possible while givign people their 100% paycheck. If you give them their current take-home pay, then we have something to discuss that might approach the 22-23% price reduction and prices could stay about the same. And the problem with the government costs going way up would be greatly reduced too. And the problem for people with after-tax savings would be greatly reduced as well because it wouldn't be as inflationary since prices WOULD be staying about the same.
But the FairTax sheeple have been promised 100% of their paychecks so that can't be made to work. Most of the problems that we are discussing with the FairTax are due to that one HUGE MISREPRESENTATION.
The other problems might be correctable, but the Free Lunch is tough to produce, and there would be no clamoring for the plan without the FREE LUNCH.
...was enjoying a week in bermuda--doesn't look like I missed much.
~~TANSTAASFT!~~
A free lunch offer is always a scam to bring in suckers. No exception here.
That may or not be true - but certainly these arent't the only costs of the income tax system we find in prices.
Beyond that, value added at any stage of production does NOT affect the total percent of tax costs as a percentage of final price. Think it through. It can't change. It wouldn't matter in the bushel example if the 2nd stage added 10%, the 3rd 75% - the percent of tax costs as a percentage of final price will remain constant.
Your post is clear in your attempt to limit potential savings to taxes per se - with the exception of compliance costs. That is absurd. You are asserting that there are no costs associated with making decisions based on tax consequences that lead to lower efficiency.
Beyond that, you still think that removing 5% of costs at each stage of a multi-step production would yield at most 5% savings in final price. You have yet to overcome that.
Last for now, you focus on an increase in prices without taking the requisite increase in wages/ROI into account that must yield stable purchasing power.
Your beef seems to be with Boortz, not the nrst. The nrst will result in stable purchasing power.
I don't like boortz either - i think he's an entertaining idiot. You are willing to argue against eliminating the income tax because an entertaing idiot hung up on you?
You simply either don't want to understand, or you are incapable of it. I did include compliance costs savings in my calculations, added on at the end.
I am not interested in trying to understand whatever point you think you are making, if you want to do your example over with something that makes sense, do it, and we can discuss.
Until then, it is pointless to continue this discussion. I have clearly explained what I am talking about and you are trying to confuse the issue.
No, I don't consider Thomas Jefferson a traitor, but he was a globalist. By the way, what was the average income tax rate during Jefferson's lifetime? Hamilton's lifetime?
The exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world [is] possessed by [a people] as of natural right, and [only through a] law of their own [can it be] taken away or abridged.
--Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774.
Yes, tariffs may or may not be imposed by "the people." Thanks for the quote supporting my assertion.
--Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774.
Yes, tariffs may or may not be imposed by "the people." Thanks for the quote supporting my assertion.
If your point was merely that the people may impose tariffs, fine--- I’m glad to support it with a quote. However, it would then be quite a minor point, since I never argued that national tariffs were somehow intrinsically illegal or unconstitutional. Jefferson’s point, as I’m sure you recognize, is that the right to trade one’s property freely is itself rooted in the right to one’s own property.
Most past and current supporters of the Confederacy would disagree, claiming national tariffs constituted an unconstitutional national tax, but I’m not a supporter of the Confederacy. Were its members the "traitors" you referred to?
Then again, I should probably assume that you’ve retracted your statement that a man is a traitor simply because he believes in free trade, since you here admit that Thomas Jefferson was not a traitor. I hope you extend the same courtesy to Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and President Bush.
The logic behind free trade is the same as the logic behind the Flat Tax or the Fair Tax--- getting government out of the business of subsidizing some businesses at the expense of others, as Milton Friedman notes:
If tariffs are imposed on, say, textiles, that will add to output and employment in the domestic textile industry. However, foreign producers who no longer can sell their textiles in the United States earn fewer dollars. They will have less to spend in the United States. Exports will go down to balance decreased imports. Employment will go up in the textile industry, down in the export industries. And the shift of employment to less productive uses will reduce total output.
You think that, for example, if 5% of the sale price was removed at every stage of production that the savings at the final stage - retail sale - would be 5% of the sale price. That's wrong. It is trivally easy to demonstrate to yourself. Similarly, it can be shown mathematically. The latter you have shown an inability, so just do a spreadsheet yourself.
if you want to do your example over with something that makes sense, do it, and we can discuss.
The example DID make sense. You just didn't like it. You think (erroneously) that changing the value added would affect the % of price. Again, that is trivial. The same simple spreadsheet (I'm assuming you know how to make a spreadsheet) can show this in 5 minutes.
I have clearly explained what I am talking about and you are trying to confuse the issue.
Confuse the issue? How about correct your errors (mentioned above). You are too emotionally involved with the chip on your shoulder (named boortz) that you either refuse to admit your error or refuse to spend 5 minutes on a spreadsheet seeing it.
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.