Fair Tax gets 86% of vote in Georgia! Results will be sent to President Bush.

Nealz Nuze ^ | July 19, 2006 | Neal Boortz

[Principled]

You have a bucket of 100 golf balls... 77 are green 23 are red...how (by your way of thinking) do the 23 red balls become 30% of the 77 green balls when they're from the same bucket?

I just can't get over this!

Because 23 IS 29.87% of 77!

ROTFLMAO!!

Stop it lewis! Stop it .... !

[higgmeister]

So then, you would agree that the intended consequences of prop 13 to end waste and limit the size of government was not accomplished.

No, it's a non sequitur. California Socialist Big Government would have grown in spite of one meager effort to slow it. Blaming the meager effort to stop it, as the cause for the growth is beyond logic.

[Principled]

Blaming the meager effort to stop it, as the cause for the growth is beyond logic.

LOL!

[Principled]

Hey - you joined a week before I did!

[Principled]

month!

[fabian]

I understand it's a little late but at least GW is getting troops to the border and is actively supporting the development of that cellulose ethanol which can set us free of the middle east oil pretty quickly.

[lucysmom]

In the current IRS system he would be also be offshore, therefore your point is moot.

I never agreed to your rules.

[xcamel]

As I suspected.. channeling dead guys....

[Your Nightmare]

The first thing that will happen is that pre-nrst prices fall. We've been using 9%. Dimples said 7-10% IIRC and Robfromga says 8-10%. I think it'll be more, but I'm ok using 9% for now.

Let's see what the AFT has to say about this:

Economists have opposing theories on what will happen with the cost savings resulting from the repeal of the current federal tax system. Jorgenson assumed that all cost savings will be used to reduce prices, whereas Kotlikoff, for example, assumes that all cost savings will go to increasing wages. Of course, both of these can’t happen. What does happen, however, is that relative wages and prices will have basically the same relationship to each other as they do today. source

So "relative wages and prices will have basically the same relationship to each other as they do today." The AFT has admitted there is no "Manna from Heaven" price savings. Now it's your turn.

[It's interesting that this is exactly what we've been saying for years and the FairTax crowd has steadfastly denied. Y'all were wrong. Are y'all ready to admit all the other stuff you're wrong about?]

[ancient_geezer]

When business side of income and payroll taxes are repealed, are you saying that business profits and thus ROI is going to double instead of prices falling or wages increasing?

[Your Nightmare]

When business side of income and payroll taxes are repealed, are you saying that business profits and thus ROI is going to double instead of prices falling or wages increasing?

I wasn't saying anything, I was quoting the AFT. Do you no agree with their statement? [Probably not considering you were the main person denying it all these years.]

[ancient_geezer]

I wasn't saying anything,

I see, just like business taxes being repealed will not have any impact in changing ROI, wages, or prices.

ROTFLM(_|_)O!!!

[Always Right]

Jorgenson assumed that all cost savings will be used to reduce prices, whereas Kotlikoff, for example, assumes that all cost savings will go to increasing wages. Of course, both of these can’t happen.

'Of course both can't happen.' Of course AFFT for 7 years AFFT insisted both would happen. And of course many fair taxers still insist both will happen. AFFT is finally starting to realize they can not sell their plan on complete fraud. Many of their old time supporters are still drinking that koolaid though.

[Your Nightmare]

Your fairtax calculation had an error or errors besides omitting any pre-nrst price reduction.

Really? What were they?

The FCA amount, and a couple addition errors maybe?

Maybe?

It's pretty messed up.

How, specifically?

Excepting the lack of any pre-nrst price reduction, you ended up too high.

Oh, there's the problem. You don't like the results!

Try running through it again.

There's nothing wrong with my calculation. If you think there is, show me specifically.

[Your Nightmare]

I see, just like business taxes being repealed will not have any impact in changing ROI, wages, or prices. ROTFLM(_|_)O!!!

Does you showing your (_|_) mean you don't agree with the AFT's statement?

[Principled]

So "relative wages and prices will have basically the same relationship to each other as they do today.

In the aggregate of course. But for those who are legally particpating in today's income tax system, purchpower goes up. Ithas to when the base gets bigger.

Wherever you choose for cost savings to go, either in reduced prices or in increased wages - both expand the consumer's buying power. Take your pick - it makes no difference where the savings ends up - it always ends up increasing buying power via lower prices or higher wages.

[Your Nightmare]

The nrst base is larger, so we'll all pay less (all of us legally participating in the income tax system anyway).

Uhh, if the FairTax is revenue neutral, the size of the base doesn't matter. That only changes the rate, not the amount of taxes we are paying.

Geez.

[ancient_geezer]

Do you not agree with their statement?

I'm saying the statement is incomplete.

If repealed business side taxes don't go into increasing wages or decreasing prices then they must go into business profit and hence ROI to the investor and retirement accounts.

Those are the only routes that dollars from repealed business taxes can be distributed back into to the hands of the individual to accomodate the purchase if goods and services and pay taxes with.

So which is it, wages, prices or ROI or a combination. How is it distributed?

[Your Nightmare]

Are you going to deny the existence of any costs that business experiences due to the income tax system?!

What is a cost to a business? Is it money they put into a pile and burn? No. It's money going into someone else hands. They can only save money by someone else not getting it. They can reduce their prices but there is less money available to buy their goods. On a aggregate microeconomic level, nothing's changed. Aggregate prices have gone down because aggregate wages have gone down (i.e., people have been laid off).

[Principled]

1)You don't have the right FCA
2)It isn't clear how you came up with tax. Can you elaborate? You have used the FCA as income, which I didn't. I used an allowance to determine an effective rate on all purchases. We can do it your way, but you must explain how you determined your effective rate. In your example, using the FCA as income increases taxes by 1000 or so but increases income 4508. I'm happy to do the calculation this way, but I always use the most conservative plan.

97000+4508=101508 (add FCA as income)
101508*(1+9/91)=111547.25 (cost reductions or wage increases pre-nrst)
111547*(1-.23)=85891 (tax)

That's higher than the income tax's 80291.

The difference in 85891 and my original 87033 being the tax paid on the rebate you chose to include as income (although I don't agree that's the best way to show it, I will do it this way for now).

As far as following your calculations, it isn't clear what you did. If you can elaborate on how you did things then it can be analyzed. As it is, everyone is left guessing at what you did.

My calculation above is purposefully made clear for you to analyze.