The same report that indicates individuals will get what they do today as net income after income/payroll taxes would retain the the same purchasing power showing producer price falls 22% making the change in consumer price paid including the 23% NRST, the same as is paid today for given basket of goods and sevices.But you said "Sorry, doesn't fly at all"...
Why did you leave paragraph 5 of the report out of your post?
5.Since producers would no longer pay taxes on profits or other forms of capital income under the NRST and workers would no longer pay taxes on wages, prices received by producers, shown in the sixth chart,would fall by an average of twenty percent.AG:AG:
The business no longer paying tax on wages (i.e. employer excise on wages paid) does not imply lower wages anymore than an employee no longer having 7.65% FICA wages and Income tax withholding from his gross. Contracted gross wage remains constant with no withholding that is an increase in takehome pay for the worker, the business realizes the advantage of no longer paying or accounting for its 7.65% excise on wages paid that is a reduction in levy on the business.robfromga:And do you dispute that the only way the producer is going to recognize a cost savings is if he doesn't give his workers 100% of the same gross pay he is now giving?
Yes I do dispute that, as the real savings to the business arises our of reduction in overhead costs associated with repeal of the tax system with its imposed requirements on business and removal of need for business to implement evermore creative (and costly) ways of tax avoidence.robfromga:
So, this means that Jorgenson's model was based on the wage earners NOT getting their entire 100% current paycheck, but instead they would be getting 100% of a new gross paycheck, about the same as what they are now getting after payroll and income taxes.AG:
Sorry, doesn't fly at all in the face of high production growth, increasing GDP economy projected under the study.robfromga:You really should read the study in whole, rather than looking to warp statement of results to backfit into your predisposed personal opinions....HMMM!
Nothing in Jorgenson's report done for AFFT or the earlier one, to be found on the net done for others investigating the potential of the Armey Flat Tax indicates decrease in contracted wages for workers. Quite the contrary, as both reports indicate very high GDP growth and increased production which pressures wage upward, not downward.
FairTaxers are misrepresnting this study to sell their plan.AG:
Looks more to me like an income tax apologist warping the interpretation of a single conclusory statement our of a much broader study indicating conditions just the opposite of what the studies actually present.HMMM!
Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Why did you leave paragraph 5 of the report out of your post?
Because it was posted in 475.
The point addressed to Smokin' Joe, in the excerpt taken from 475, was in anwer his query as to what would happen to GDP and balance of trade, in veiw of the producer price reduction scenario presented by Jorgenson.
Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Seeing as I have not lied in either case, you are out of line.
NO one has been able to show me how these numbers add up.
If I get my current NET after withholding, and have to pay an additional 22% on everything I buy, how do I get more money?
I don't. Everything just got 22% more expensive.
I can't write off necessary improvements or equipment I NEED for my work, but I get to pay extra taxes on it, out of my former post-tax wages.
As I said, I'm not buying it.