Neal Boortz has stated that this isn't a tax cut. It is a way to levy taxes in a more efficient and fair manner. Many who are paying nothing will now pay. The IRS, and the tremendous cost of funding that institution will disappear. Foreigners will now pay taxes in America, regardless of how long they stay, or what their status is. People disagree on the 23%. Fair enough. Boortz and Linder used the brains of many economists to write this book. I tend to believe his numbers. I guess that's where we disagree.
How can you believe the numbers when the economists who wrote them says they are wrong. Even fellow fairtaxer Mind-numbed Robot admited it was a mistake here.
Yep, it's one big jumble of scrambled brains. Have your read the letter at the top of this thread which I wrote about a week ago? In that letter there are a number of quotes from the book where Boortz/Linder state that this is basically a free lunch plan for the poor and middle class. There cannot be full take-home pay and all prices remain the same on average-- it is impossible. I asked Jorgenson himself and he agreed that he assumed take home pay would remain constant and the employer would retain what is now being paid in taxes. If course the reason I asked him the question is because that is the only way that the FairTax math can work out.
you and pigdog are in a contest to see who is the last to acknowledge this point.
Note that none of us are saying that there is any way in hell that the employers will actually BE ABLE TO DO THIS, we are jsut saying that the FairTax math assumes that they will somehow get the $20 an hour electrician to accept $15 an hour that he is currently taking home, and trust us the prices won't go up. (except foreign goods that'll go up 30% and partially foreign goods like gas that'll go up 10-20%)
You say the 23% can go to two places at the same time (wages AND prices)I say it can't (wages OR prices).
The economist responsible for that number, Dr. Dale Jorgenson, apparently agrees with me.