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. Maybe he’s working for a lobby with an interest against the FT. In any event, he’s wrong.
It isn’t that he doesn’t know what the FT is. It is he is opposed to it because it would sweep away the current tax system.
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.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".He’s wrong and I can only assume he hasn’t actually read the FT book or, better, the bill.
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%...
Could it be the book is flawed in its assumptions and the bill makes no such assumptions?