Posted on 05/27/2006 5:12:45 AM PDT by RobFromGa
Flat Tax over Fair Tax? why?
Oh, please. BILL CLINTON's snoozer of a book complete with lies made it to the top of the non-fiction charts. Are you saying that because Bill Clinton made the NYT list we shouldn't dare to criticize that book, because WE haven't written best-selling biographies?
FAIRTAX BOOK PLUNGES TO #14 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 down the charts in its third week on the NYT Non-fiction paperback bestseller list from #7 to #14, following a precipitous 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.
How is this self-promotion? And what makes you think I'm an escapee from DU?
There is no correct way to use percentages with book ranks in a list, all ways are equally wrong.
Are you saying that because Bill Clinton made the NYT list we shouldn't dare to criticize that book,
No. You created that argument all on your own.
BTW, Who is Bill Clinton? Are you saying that Bill Clinton's book didn't make the best seller list because of his name recognition? DUH!!! A book on taxes -- The Fair Tax -- made it to the best seller list on concept/content not name recognition.
Nice try Miss Murple.
That's a good one. I suppose if sales were down 30%, Boortz would claim it was only 23% -- and have the math to back it up.
Look, if this guy can't be honest about the book's debut, how can he be trusted with the contents? Buy the book and STFU is the message.
How do you figure that?....the fair tax will be one separate, visible line on the receipt...NOT rolled into the costs. A flat tax does not get rid of the IRS and income tax code....this country started with a flat tax and look where we are today. That 60K page tax code sure isn't flat.
People can see the sales tax on their receipts already... But the government is still able to get away with raising it--- that's how Robert Taft (the new one) managed to stay in office. The problem with keeping the tax flat is far smaller from where I stand than permanently eliminating the other taxes, the fair tax calls to be eliminated. Besides, any sales tax rise increases the underground economy. The economic incentives inherent in the Flat Tax, on the other hand, are for all intents and purposes completely positive.
I can't accept the argument that the Flat tax will mutate back into the complex mess it is today. First, this doesn't seem to have happened in Hong Kong or in the East European countries like Poland. Second, it would be easy for voters to notice and understand. Third, that argument if accepted would obviate all flattening measures--- Ronald Reagan would have been told by his base "Simplification! Hah! Your cuts don't even constitute a real flat tax, much less the fair tax we really want! Forget it!"
But that response would have been an absolute disaster for America and the world.
It should be. Fripping moron.
Would it be correct to say that ,in part, your preference of Flat Tax over Fair Tax is a pragmatic one- it would be much easier to flatten the income tax than to do away with the IRS, and do away with the other payroll taxes?
The numbers are egregious but that pales next to the venom that is pouring from the author.
Pretty disgusting, but yet so typical of the SQLs.
Just in case anyone missed your math, when a FairTaxer is talking about a 50% FairTax (inclusive), that is actually a 100% sales tax as most people think of sales taxes (eg. double the shelf price to get the final price)
Since the tax is only 50% of the final price, it is a 50% FairTax-- got it?
what venom? why aren't you mad at the author's for hijacking your precious Tax Plan? They are driving your baby right into the ground with their continuous mis-representations. Don't get mad at me for pointing it out.
No Federal taxes. Just print money and spend it where congress sees fit, and every dollar gets devalued equally.
This was not the error I pointed out. Your error was in your usage of inclusive and exclusive rates. They were incorrectly figured.
Yes, I also think that if we had a flat tax it would be easier to get rid of than than the income tax is currently--- something smaller and simpler requiring a smaller bureaucracy would be easier to get rid of than something huge and complex that requires a huge bureaucracy so that, as far as I can see, if I were advocating the Fair Tax, I would see the flat tax as a step toward it.
What is really disgusting is the FairTax crowd's unwillingness to use any self-restraint when it comes to selling their plan-- it is ok to say anything in order to convert a new believer.
Hence my tagline...
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.