[lewislynn]

Bartlett begins by saying that the FT would add a 30% tax on top of the price already paid for goods. His example states that an item that costs a dollar now would cost $1.30 under the FT. Most of the rest of his article follows from this.

He’s wrong and I can only assume he hasn’t actually read the FT book or, better, the bill.

The bill doesn't say anything about prices. The bill is written for the business that would be subject to the tax, not the consumer. The tax (for the first year) is "23%of the gross payments".

IOW, the business would add up their gross payments (gross payments would have to include other taxes) and remit 23%.

For a business to be able to remit 23% of their gross income and not come out broke as a result, they'd have to add 30% to their prices to cover their new tax.

$0.30 tax OF $1.30 after tax price is 23%...

[Neidermeyer]

For a business to be able to remit 23% of their gross income and not come out broke as a result, they’d have to add 30% to their prices to cover their new tax.
*************************************
NEGATIVE; the cost of goods would go down a like amount basically leaving prices unchanged , if you had read the book or bill you would have noticed the provisions for the cutover to the new system...

[navyguy]

You’re assuming that the taxes they were paying are still in place after the FT.

More to the point, Mr. Bartlett never bothered to explain why he said what he said when any fair analysis of the FT shows that what he said is flatly incorrect. You too are incorrect.

But you don’t really care about any of this. You love the IRS. How’s that job at HR Block?