Posted on 06/29/2007 5:17:36 PM PDT by Man50D
Purchase of an item for 100 dollars.
Under current tax law you have to earn 133.33 dollars in a 25% bracket to have $100 left over.
Under the proposed HR. 25 you have to earn $130 to make the same purchase. (100 x 1.3).
So already you are ahead.
Then adjust for price decreases of between 10 and 20 per cent, low compliance expense, the prebate and suddenly one is very much ahead of where he was under the IT.
And please notice that the supply and demand of money hasn't changed much at all. So despite what some FairTax deniers say we won't have instant inflation.
They’re all taxed on each individual company’s profits,So how does that equate to cascading?
Whatever one company passes to the next company, taxes, labor, etc. is deducted from the gross income to determine the taxable income...Where's the cascading/compounding?
There's no logic in your thinking.
For those keeping score, Dr. Dale Jorgenson, of Harvard, found in his study that retail prices would fall 22% after the abolition of the income tax and adoption of a consumption tax, assuming that all employees would keep their net, after tax income. Arduin, Laffer and Moore Economietrics, Inc. concluded that prices would fall 11.25%, assuming that all employees kept their gross before tax income.Really? paying taxes from what used to be aftertax income isn't losing? Do you every buy anything imported?The truth is it would probably fall somewhere between the two. It's hard to see the average American losing at either extreme.
Why do all of you Fairtaxers think everything is produced domestic?...There wouldn't be any price reductions on imports as a result of passing the Fairtax and frankly, other than wishful thinking at AFT, there's nothing anywhere that says there would be price reductions.assuming that all employees would keep their net, after tax income
So the 100% paycheck is a Fairtax lie.
Is Rodney Frelinghausen R-NJ, on board?
Under current tax law you have to earn 133.33 dollars in a 25% bracket to have $100 left over.Really? Do you pay taxes on your gross income?
Think about it in marginal terms.
Then, I used the "value added" method [not my method either] to show using this method, 3% is too low.
Then, I got you to admit that 3% of value added is indeed too low. Call it what you want, but you've changed from 3% to higher based on my showing your error in three different ways.
There are many different models to choose from to demonstrate the additive property of tax costs in prices - indeed I used two above to show your 3% is wrong no matter how you slice it.
a) 2.5% of 100
b) 2.5% of 500
Both are 2.5%, so according to your logic, a and b are equal.
Taxes are added at each stage of production even when the percent doesn't change. An illustration is above in a) and b).
I can't believe you deny this.
Wrong louis. Faulty logic.
Ever wonder why similar goods are priced similarly whether you find them at Macy's, Pennies, Sears, or Walmarts?
Ever wonder why similar 2x4 lumber is about the same price at either Home Depot or Lowes?
Ever wonder why similar gasoline costs about the same whether you're at Chevron or Shell?
Ever wonder why Kroger, Piggly Wiggly, et al have about the same prices for a gallon of milk or a carton of eggs?
It's because of price competition between similar goods. That's what AFreeBird was talking about.
Income tax alone? WHy is that relevant except as a part of the TOTAL tax costs as a % of sales?
SNicker... yeah 100-22 is 88 according to lewis - he based an entire week-long argument that the fair tax people were liars because the fair tax people said 100-22=78.... and lewis said 100-22=88. Pitiful.
Lewis, you don't even know what you're posting. You have no idea what that says. You do not have a fundamental grasp of basic math. You probably don't know the definition of average - quick! Look it up!
Define "cascading" for this context. That's what you wouldn't do before. Then after refusing, you complain about the example that was put up.
THis is what makes more sense to me. I don't think employees will accept a cut in contractual pay.
Wow, what a novel idea. Why don't you do that?
He hasn't gotten that far along yet. He's still quantifying the taxes per se in prices. As of last night, he said they were 3%. Then I "ran away"....
Lewis, even if a company deduct expenses from taxes, those expenses still must be paid via sales revenues...that is, the expenses are passed along in prices.
I guess math isn't your only weakness.
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.