Posted on 05/27/2006 5:12:45 AM PDT by RobFromGa
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.