Posted on 09/17/2006 7:55:38 PM PDT by pigdog
That's an untaxed price which is meaningless. Once you add the 30% tax you end up with about a 20% increase in costs. Of course you knew that, but are just being disingenuous.
"Once you add the 30% tax you end up with about a 20% increase in costs. "
NO, you don't. You end up with an increase in prices paid at the cash register, the cost you end up paying is the price of the thing as shown on the receipt plus in addition the amount for whatever your effective FairTax rate might be.
There is also no "30%" rate IAE. The correct marginal rate is 23% tax inclusive and correctly that's a 29.87% te rate when actually calculated from the ti rate. But no one ever pays the maximum marginal rate as his cost since he's already received the prebate.
It is the effective rate that is more meaningful since that's what the taxpayer's cost comes down to ... what he ends up paying out of pocket for the year.
Be happy to and not for the first time either.
Costly Returns The Burdens of the U.S. Tax System by Dr. James L. Payne
(Now it's time for you standard evasion.)
You are omitting the income tax from your "costs" but including the nrst tax. That's why your numbers are off.
While it is true that nrst tax inclusive prices will be higher, this does NOT mean the cost will be higher.
The cost of an item cannot be accurately measured in both tax systems without including the effect taxes have on prices!
You are trying to do a comparison omitting the effect of the income tax - ie your comparison completely omits any costs whatsoever to indivduals from the income tax.
Can't do that.
Here's a comparison of costs, illustrating that higher nrst inclusive price is still a lower cost:
A $100 baseball glove I want to buy today costs me $133 in earnings (I have a 25% overall effective federal income/payroll tax rate).
Under the nrst, the shelf price falls to $91 by eliminating ER fica, business compliance costs, and any business income tax costs. My nrst effective rate would be a MAX of 17% - So using my 17% max possible effective rate, the baseball glove will cost me $109.64 in earnings.
Under the income tax, the glove costs me $133.
Under the nrst, the glove costs me %109.64.
So even though the price is higher (100 vs 109), the cost is less. When you remember to include the income tax in your cost calculation it's easy to see.
"James L. Payne demononstrates in Costly Returns that for every tax dollar the IRS collects, we pay 65 cents more in compliance and other costs. These costs - which as law abiding taxpayers you and I cannot escape - are never included in any discussion of IRS efficiency."
BTW: For your edification as well as that of others on your side of the argument I will include below a very inconvenient for your side quote from the cover of the of the above mentioned book:Thanks but you have once again ignored and used a pathetic dodge of the opportunity to present the sources of said data...Could it be you were lying?
BTW, you can find your effective rate by dividing the sum (income tax plus payroll tax) by income. That gives a tax inclusive rate.
To find a reasonable estimate of your nrst effective rate, you can go to http://www.fairtaxcalculator.org/ . It also gives a tax inclusive rate.
Alternatively, find your rebate amount, subtract it from tax due. Divide tax due by spending (a maximum rate can be found by using income for spending).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1703313/posts?page=44#44
Costly Returns The Burdens of the U.S. Tax System by Dr. James L. Payne
You maybe didn't see this.
I have clearly cited one source just as I was asked to do (the book is heavily footnoted and well annotated Lewis).
Could it be that you now have no recourse other than obfuscation?
Once you add the 30% tax you end up with about a 20% increase in costs.
You are omitting the income tax from your "costs" but including the nrst tax. That's why your numbers are off.
While it is true that nrst tax inclusive prices will be higher, this does NOT mean the cost will be higher.
The cost of an item cannot be accurately measured in both tax systems without including the effect income and payroll taxes have on earnings!
You are trying to do a comparison omitting the effect of the income tax - ie your comparison completely omits any costs whatsoever to individuals from the income tax.
Can't do that.
Here's a comparison of costs, illustrating that higher nrst inclusive price is still a lower cost:
A $100 baseball glove I want to buy today costs me $133 in earnings (I have a 25% overall effective federal income/payroll tax rate).
Under the nrst, the shelf price falls to $91 by eliminating ER fica, business compliance costs, and any business income tax costs. My nrst effective rate would be a MAX of 17% - So using my 17% max possible effective rate, the baseball glove will cost me $109.64 in earnings.
Under the income tax, the glove costs me $133 in earnings.
Under the nrst, the glove costs me $109.64 in earnings.
Looking only at price omits the cost of the income tax to individuals. That gives an inaccurate comparison.
So even though the price is higher (100 vs 109), the cost is less under the nrst. When you remember to include the income tax in your cost calculation it's easy to see.
Broader base means lower rates for those who legally participate in today's income payroll tax system.
Good article.
Name one other source. Be happy to and not for the first time either. Costly Returns The Burdens of the U.S. Tax System by Dr. James L. Payne (Now it's time for you standard evasion.)My standard evasion. You evaded the question all together. I wasn't asking about compliance costs - I was asking about price drops.
I have clearly cited one source just as I was asked to do (the book is heavily footnoted and well annotated Lewis).And discredited.
When costs, any costs, are removed prices can drop.
I can understand why someone on your side would say just as I surely do understand that the government, and the IRS in particular, did not take kindly to the publication of a work which points out very large problems with the it's tax system and thus did whatever they could to discredit the man but no matter, facts remain facts.
As I said to someone else, the book is very heavily footnoted and annotated and I have not yet seen a scholarly refutation of it.
Not a book of "compliance costs"....Oh wait, don't tell me, it's an entire book about the costs embedded in a dry cleaned shirt.
Looking only at price omits the cost of the income tax to individuals.And looking only at rate omits the cost of a sales tax when you have the increased cost of government services.
I can't name one item or service that would be an increasd benefit as a result of an increased price due to a new tax...
Hence LOWER purchasing power due to the Fairtax.
I can understand why someone on your side would say just as I surely do understand that the government, and the IRS in particular, did not take kindly to the publication of a work which points out very large problems with the it's tax system and thus did whatever they could to discredit the man but no matter, facts remain facts.That's funny. His whole book is based on a study, the Arthur D. Little study, commissioned by the government. It's this ADL study that is laughably simplistic and grossly overstates the compliance time of taxes. Then Payne applies a ridiculously high hourly rate to these inflated hours. On top of that, he adds in an arbitrary dead-weight loss as a compliance cost when economist usually don't consider dead-weight loss a compliance cost.
When costs, any costs, are removed prices can drop.Where in Costly Returns does Payne say that? And where in Costly Returns does Payne compare the compliance costs of the current system with the FairTax? I have the book so you can list page numbers.
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.