WRONG louey. I have stated in numerous threads and even TO YOU in a mannerly way that the only savings would be from 10 to 18%. Pigdog disagrees with that. Fine. We all agree that using a consumption tax is the BEST way for this country to go. You haven't shown any alternative so we have to assume your preference is the IRS as it is now. As a matter of fact, I haven't ever seen you state that you are against the current tax policy. Are you? If you ignore me I will assume you are an IRS agent who carries a loaded gun to point at my head to either get my money or send me to jail.
groanup,
Pigdog's cascading chart is malarkey. I do not see where it is possible to achieve more than ten percent savings on domestic items. The bulk of this ten percent is by saving the employer FICA match, which as late as yesterday a number of Fairtaxers were saying was the property of the wage earner too.
I see 6-10%, you see 10-18% cost reductions. So, we are in agreement if the actual number is ten percent. At ten percent, my original bakery example in the BOORTZ/LINDER open letter stands, and the $1.00 loaf drops to $0.90 and then the 30% tax makes the price of bread $1.17.
This will not ever pass because every dollar already accumulated would have its purchasing power destroyed by about 17%. So, the way Dr. Jorgenson understood it is the only viable alternative to discuss: people will receive on average their current take-home pay, and the business will "see" a reduction of perhaps 23% in costs allowing the bread price to drop to $0.77, which will still be $1.00 when the 30% tax is added.
In this manner, everyone is approximately the same as they are now. This is the way I always understood the FairTax and that is why I took offense when Boortz and Linder printed a book with a fairytale scenario.
I am not sure that a consuption tax is the best way to go when it is in the range of 30%, but at least we can debate it. For the record, I think evasion will be the biggest issue to overcome in collecting a 30% tax, especially on services which are often performed person-to-person.
If you ignore me I will assume you are an IRS agent who carries a loaded gun to point at my head to either get my money or send me to jail.As if would care what YOU assume...
I have stated in numerous threads and even TO YOU in a mannerly way that the only savings would be from 10 to 18%.I missed the part where you said employee's would NOT get 100% of their paychecks while employers saved 10 to 18%...would you like to show where you said that?