[Phantom Lord]

The whole discussion about "embedded taxes" is speculative BS.

Meaning you don't believe embedded taxes exist?

I have never seen compelling documentation to justify anything approaching a 30% drop in the cost of goods at the retail level.

Or are you agruing about the amount of embedded taxes?

And the number is 23%, not 30%.

[Filo]

Meaning you don't believe embedded taxes exist? Or are you agruing about the amount of embedded taxes?

No, they exist. I just don't believe they are equal to the proposed fair tax rate. In fact, I know they are not and because they are not I will be double-taxed when spending any of my savings.

I understand that the Fair Tax is ostensibly revenue neutral meaning that I can expect my purchasing power to remain unchanged, but that assumes that my take-home salary goes up (taxes are no longer withheld) and that I get an ill conceived "pre-bate" to cover 5% or so of the taxes I'm about to be charged.

None of that applies to savings accumulated before the implementation of the Fair Tax.

I don't think anyone rational is arguing that a product that costs $100 just before implementation will cost $100 including Fair Tax the day it is implemented. More likely it’ll be somewhere around $120 or so.

And the number is 23%, not 30%.

Don't play silly math games with me. I understand the difference between the inclusive and exclusive rate.

The way we currently figure taxes is by adding the exclusive rate onto the retail cost of the item. So, if I buy a $100 something in California the 8.25% exclusive tax rate yields an at-the-register price of $108.25.

Doing an apples-to-apples comparison with the Fair Tax rate yields a 30% tax, not the 23% inclusive rate its proponents prefer to spout, for obvious reasons.