I agree. For Boortz to continue using the 23% embedded tax cost figure means he is counting the employee’s taxes, which would require a pay cut down to the employee’s current net paycheck.
That won’t fly. Can’t fly with all the collective bargaining, minimum wage laws, and contractual pay scales. I don’t know why Boortz continues to use it. It is just silly.
As you said, prices can drop 10% if business taxes and tax-related costs are removed. So tax-inclusive prices go up 18%, while my net income goes up 40% to match my gross. The numbers still work out great, so why doesn’t Boortz use the more realistic gross-pay-stays-the-same scenario ?
That won’t fly. Can’t fly with all the collective bargaining, minimum wage laws, and contractual pay scales. I don’t know why Boortz continues to use it. It is just silly.It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he's a lying sack of $h17, would it?
The reason an inclusive number is used for the fair tax is that it is replacing the income tax, which is an inclusive tax. So to compare apples to apples, both must be quoted at an inclusive rate.