Posted on 06/25/2009 4:20:47 AM PDT by Man50D
You said the tax base is broadened. You're unable to show how.
YOU can’t seem to get your mind wrapped around the fact!
It's true that I can't wrap my mind around the perpetual energy, bad math claims in this Fair Tax article.
They buyer pays his own tax from withholding and in April. In the case of an illegal income earner buying, he doesn't ever pay his own taxes.
Under the nrst, buyers will pay their own tax, not others' taxes, b/c others' taxes won't be in prices anymore.
The base is broadened by virtue of expanding the item which is taxed [consumption is broader than taxable income.]
While toddster would like to argue the amount of tax or tax costs paid by the illegal earner is relevant, it is not. What is relevant is the broadening of the base.
It's easy. Consider a universe of 20 people needing 90 cents to fund government. Take 18 cents from 5 people or take 5 cents from 18 people?
Our current income tax is the analog of 18 cents from 5 people [ i wish it was 18 cents!]. The illegal income earner is not one of the 5 payers. But the 5 payers up their prices to cover their tax costs. So no matter who buys, the seller's tax costs are covered. Of note here is the case of a legal income earner buying.... he's had to pay income tax AND will have to pay seller's taxes.
The nrst is the analog of the 5 cents from 18 people. The base is larger, the rate is lower, the same amount collected. In this case, the seller has no significant tax costs to recover and so has none in the price. 18 people pay a little. The illegal income earner pays too.
That is essentially what I have said! Perhaps less than effectively. Beyond that, you will not find an economist anywhere, even amongst those who argue against the FairTax, that doesn’t understand the sales tax base to be FAR broader then the current income tax base!
Yes indeed you have. Toddster though prefers have you argue over something that is not relevant - so he won’t ever leave it. It’s an emotional thing for some.
The base is obviously larger under the nrst. Why he would argue that?
OK, simple mistake. You're obviously not on the "slam the Fair-Tax" side.
Even for the anti-Fair-Tax group, that one would have been WAY out there. :-)
Perhaps he has a vested interest in preserving the current income tax system?
I really don't know but he is wrong in any case.
That's great! So what is the difference, to the drug dealer, between paying 29% of his purchase for others' taxes and paying 29% of his purchase for his own taxes?
The base is broadened by virtue of expanding the item which is taxed [consumption is broader than taxable income.]
The article claims prices remain unchanged.
While toddster would like to argue the amount of tax or tax costs paid by the illegal earner is relevant, it is not.
Bigun claimed receipts from the drug dealer will increase. Was he wrong?
The illegal income earner pays too.
The source Bigun posted showed the illegal earner already pays 29% of every purchase. Will he now pay more? How much?
Perhaps you are an SQL who enjoys making Fair Tax supporters look like they failed basic math?
I really don't know but he is wrong in any case.
You just can't show how.
Try again with your claim about drug dealers and taxes.
Todd, dude.
Where do the embedded tax costs come from?
They come from tax costs of sellers up the chain.
The embeds represent seller tax costs, not buyer taxes.
Under the nrst, there is more being taxed [consumption], so the rate can be lower and still get the same revenue.
For someone who claims not to be stupid with math, I find your line pretty stupid.
Right now, income taxes come from business liability and personal liability. A person with no personal tax liability pays less that a person who does have personal tax liability. Duh.
That business passes its tax costs to buyers in prices doesn’t mean the buyer has tax liability.
Who has a higher light bill, IBM’s main office building of 85 stories or my 2 story house? According to your “logic” my house does.
This is where he starts altering claims, talking about what someone else has said, avoids the current topic, refrains from even trying to restate the issue clearly or at all, and name calls. Just you wait.
Beyond that, you will not find an economist anywhere, even amongst those who argue against the FairTax, that doesn’t understand the sales tax base to be FAR broader then the current income tax base!A tax base is not who is taxed, a tax base is the value of WHAT is taxed.
A broad sales tax base only means there is more stuff subject to the tax, not more people paying it.
Following your illogic lunacy there would be more money from sales than there is income to spend...
Ignorance abound at Fairtax.com
That's fascinating! How does that change the tax paid by the drug dealer?
Right now, income taxes come from business liability and personal liability. A person with no personal tax liability pays less that a person who does have personal tax liability. Duh.
Yes, the drug dealer who pays no income tax has a lower income tax liability than a person who pays income tax. Who claimed otherwise? Where?
That business passes its tax costs to buyers in prices doesn’t mean the buyer has tax liability.
Bigun provided a source that claimed every $100 purchase includes $29 that goes to government. If you remove that $29 and add a different $29 tax, are you collecting more government revenue from the drug dealer who makes a purchase?
Of course it is!
Why would he alter his MO at this point?
LOL! This is where I continue pointing out his ignorance.
Let me know if you ever provide backup for your claims.
Given the absolutely astonishing mat skills you have ALWAYS displayed on this subject it is quite humorous to see talking about anyone's supposed ignorance!
YOU have simply ignored ALL of it!
You have however provided a great service to my cause in keeping this thread bumped so that others will see it and read it. Many of them will grasp the facts of the situation without any problem at all!
That's fascinating! How does that change the tax paid by the drug dealer?
The drug dealer pays none of his own taxes when he buys today. Get it? eyes rolling....
He gets off free.
Under the nrst, he does pay his own taxes. Get it?
I doubt it.
You want to argue something that is irrelevant. You want to argue that since the amount of tax costs currently paid by drug dealers will be similar to the tax they'll pay under an nrst, that personal income and payroll tax can't go away and bring in the same revenue.
It doesn't matter that it's about the similar - it's purely coincidental that they're so similar anyway.
What makes it possible is that the base of consumption is much greater than the base of taxable income - so we can all pay less and have the revenue be similar.
Don't stock what you can't sell.
Fair Tax supporter who can't back up his claims. Everybody check it out. LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.