A "FAIR TAX" thread so U_D can "tear me to shreds..."

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The burden is already on the middle-class.

We've been hearing for a decade about its disappearance...



It's shrinking because we're shedding jobs.

We're shedding jobs because we aren't competitive.

We aren't competitive because we tax wealth.

The FairTax taxes the economy.

Not the middle-class.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Consistency? Whut Consistency?

It's March 2010 and Dances With Falsehoods is bemoanin' the tax burden on the middle class in America:

The burden is already on the middle-class. We've been hearing for a decade about its disappearance...
It's shrinking because we're shedding jobs.We're shedding jobs because we aren't competitive.We aren't competitive because we tax wealth.The FairTax taxes the economy.Not the middle-class.

But it was way back in January 2010 that Dances With Falsehoods was bemoanin' the tax burden on the wealthiest one percent of America:

What percentage of the tax bill does the 1% pay?

Say it with me, people: (Situational) Red Man Speak With Forked Tongue!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Thank you Mr. $1.30% for the out-of-context cherry...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Everybody agrees you can calculate the tax two ways. Your way just isn't one of them.

You have to get to 23% of the gross, that's what the law says, as has been posted in this thread. You can do that either by taking 23% of total transaction, as income taxes do, or you can get the equivalent by adding 29.87% to the base price (23/77), as sales taxes do. So, you're right, it's not 30%, but close

The one thing you can't do is add 23% to the base price, because then you only get 18.7% of the gross transaction price.

I don't understand why you persist in making that claim with no proof and no citation, and ignoring the plainly worded contradictory information on your own fairtax web site. It's as if you enjoy being ignorant, evasive and derisive. Usually you don't like that behavior in your opponents...are you saying it's OK for you?

Gross payments – equals payments for the taxable good or service plus the FairTax. A retail
business computes its national sales tax liability by multiplying the rate of 23 percent times the
monthly gross payments received.

...

The tax rate for calendar year 2009 is set at 23 percent of the gross payments (price plus tax) for
the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property (goods) or services. For all years
after 2009, the rate of tax is the combined federal tax rate percentage of the gross payments for
the taxable property or services. The combined federal tax rate percentage is the sum of: The
general revenue rate, the old age, survivors and disability insurance (Social Security) rate, and
the hospital insurance (Medicare) rate. The general revenue rate is set at 14.91 percent. The
other two rates are defined in SEC. 904. TRUST FUND REVENUE.

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf

The bolded statement is meaningless, a semantic juggle. What you are saying is look A_J, if you take a dollar and tax it 23 percent, it adds 23 cents to the purchase price but that's only 18% of the gross transaction price even though it's still 23 cents on the dollar, so you're purposely misleading people by telling them it's a 23% tax...

And no matter how many times I repeat this, you say, but A_J, you big dummy, you have your percentages wrong! But, it's STILL 23 cents...

Which is pretty much as dishonest as Throb's assumption that the law is designed to get 30 cents to the dollar in order to remain revenue "neutral." And as we all no, that's 30%! So A_J LIES!!!

 

[firespin]

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf

The bolded statement is meaningless, a semantic juggle. What you are saying is look A_J, if you take a dollar and tax it 23 percent, it adds 23 cents to the purchase price but that's only 18% of the gross transaction price even though it's still 23 cents on the dollar, so you're purposely misleading people by telling them it's a 23% tax...

And no matter how many times I repeat this, you say, but A_J, you big dummy, you have your percentages wrong! But, it's STILL 23 cents...

Which is pretty much as dishonest as Throb's assumption that the law is designed to get 30 cents to the dollar in order to remain revenue "neutral." And as we all no, that's 30%! So A_J LIES!!!

Are you trying to convince somebody of something here? It looks like froth. Here's how it works...I'd love to see you try to send this to anybody associated with the Fair Tax to have them claim that it's wrong.

The Fair Tax exempts all sales that are not original purchases by end users. So at some point, we've got a new widget for end users that we assume needs to be sold such that $1.00 is kept by the merchant to make everybody whole. (I.e. we can't take less than a dollar...if we could, then we would, but for this example, we can't.) The question on the table is, or was, what price does the end user pay? The answer, as per the fair tax web site and the calculation in the fair tax bills, is $1.30. For some reason, you and Ishmael think it sounds better to say the end consumer pays $1.23, though in order to then be in compliance with the law, the feds would get 23% of the gross transaction price $1.23, or 28 cents, and our residual income would be 95 cents, which is not the agreement with the merchant and vendor. They need to realize a dollar from this particular transaction, since that was the initial set of conditions. (And no, you can't take credit for a five cent savings to the consumer by cheating the merchants and manufacturers.)

The thing I can't figure out is why you persist in trying to perpetuate such a transparent misunderstanding or lie? It's not like this is hard, or subject to opinion, or explainable by macroeconomics. It's the way the bill works. If you don't get that part, why should anybody listen to your other claims about growth or competitiveness? You've already shown yourself to be incompetent. Sorry, but that's just how it is. AJ, you big dummy, you have your percentages wrong.

Oh,and from your link, the insurance agent payoff...why they need this is beyond me:

'Up to $10,000 of gross payments from the sale of financial intermediation services is exempt from tax; however, this exemption is not available to large sellers (as defined in SEC. 501)."

 

[firespin]

The burden is already on the middle-class.

We've been hearing for a decade about its disappearance...



It's shrinking because we're shedding jobs.

We're shedding jobs because we aren't competitive.

We aren't competitive because we tax wealth.

The FairTax taxes the economy.

Not the middle-class.

We aren't competitive because other countries are willing to work for less.

We had a head start after WW2. It's over now.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Hey AJ, found some official FairTax propaganda for you to deny and distort!

A 30% exclusive FairTax sales tax rate at the register (which includes paying for Social Security)means if you want to purchase an item for $77 you will have to pay an additional 30% ($23) in sales tax or $100 total at the register for that item.

LINK

 

[RobDownSouth]

The FairTax is "Revenue-neutral"?
The FairTax sales tax rate is 30%?
But....but...AJ sez that's UNPOSSIBLE!
http://imgur.com/sepgw.jpg

 

[firespin]

At the end of day, he's a happy-go-lucky boob who just means well but doesn't quite fully understand economics.

 

[RobDownSouth]

At the end of day, he's a happy-go-lucky boob who just means well but doesn't quite fully understand economics.

...or basic mathematics.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You keep repeating the same trick over and over and over Mr. $1.30%...




One trick pony...



http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1541&page=NewsArticle&id=8248

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

We aren't competitive because other countries are willing to work for less.

We had a head start after WW2. It's over now.

You are wrong.

You are as wrong as Obama who thinks it's his job to shepherd our decline in an equitable and egalitarian manner.

You get the IRS out of the boardroom, you get the government out of the pockets of business and get business out of DC and you will get a flowering of productivity and a renaissance of creativity that is not limited to Hollywood's special effects. It's the progressive income tax and simple envy that has turned us into a bunch of fucking retards...
__________________
It's okay because I'm volunteering with the Special Olympics Bowling Team...
A_J, the Stupid

 

[RobDownSouth]

You keep repeating the same trick over and over and over Mr. $1.30%...One trick pony...http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1541&page=NewsArticle&id=8248

You betcha, AJ! And you know what? We're going to keep talking about it until you realize that if you buy a $1 widget under the UnFairTax, your pockets will be $1.30 lighter when you exit the store.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

What's one plus one times 23% Throb?

 

[RobDownSouth]

You get the IRS out of the boardroom, you get the government out of the pockets of business and get business out of DC and you will get a flowering of productivity and a renaissance of creativity that is not limited to Hollywood's special effects. It's the progressive income tax and simple envy that has turned us into a bunch of fucking retards...

The UnFairTax is NOT a progressive income tax, AJ. Don't be stoopid.

Your conjecture that creativity will increase in the absence of the IRS is wishful thinking.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

What's one plus one times 23% Throb?

Is it, $1.30%?

 

[RobDownSouth]

What's one plus one times 23% (TAX INCLUSIVE) Throb?

$1.30 out of pocket. No amount of your spin can change that.

Once again you've substituted the TAX INCLUSIVE rate inappropriately to promote your flawed mathematics.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The UnFairTax is NOT a progressive income tax, AJ. Don't be stoopid.

Your conjecture that creativity will increase in the absence of the IRS is wishful thinking.

That's what I've said for so many pages now. Can you not read with comprehension or do the little tinny voices in your head guide you...?

Assume there is a worker named Joe who earns $125 and spends all of his earnings. Let’s further assume that the government requires him to pay $25 in taxes.

If the government put a tax on Joe’s income, he would earn $125 before tax and would have $100 after tax to spend at the General Store. Thus, Joe has to earn $125 to have $100 to spend. Joe would also have to file an income tax return.

If the government put a tax on what Joe spends, he would earn $125 and would have $125 to spend at the store. Of the $125 paid by Joe to the storekeeper, $100 would be for the goods he bought at the store and $25 would be taxes that the storekeeper would send to the government. Joe would not have to file a tax return, as the storekeeper sends the tax in to the government.

Either way, Joe pays $25 in taxes and the government gets $25 in taxes. With a tax on income, Joe pays the $25 directly to the government, and with the tax on spending (sales tax), he pays the $25 in taxes indirectly when he buys something from the General Store. The General Store sends the tax that Joe paid to the government.

[chart at link]

We may report the tax rate as $25/$125 = 20 percent, which is the tax-inclusive rate (meaning that the tax is included in the base). Alternately, we may think of the tax rate as $25/$100 = 25 percent, which is the tax-exclusive rate (meaning the tax is excluded from the base). The 23 percent FairTax rate set out in HR 25/S 1025 is a tax-inclusive rate, as is the current personal income tax, whereas most state-level sales taxes are quoted on a tax-exclusive basis. For ease of comparison, FairTax.org gives the tax rate both ways. Both rates are relevant, since the FairTax is replacing an income tax system, and 23 percent correctly represents the tax burden compared to the current system.

To review some of the research that determined a 23% (inclusive) rate is correct, please read Taxing Sales Under the FairTax: What Rate Works? This paper is a collaborative effort of 5 respected and independent economists.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Is it, $1.30%?

What the heck is "$1.30%"?

a 23% "tax inclusive" rate translates to a 30% sales tax, so a $1 purchase would mean you hand the cashier one dollar and thirty cents.

 

[Pookie]

For those who want to referee and don't have the Linder-Boortz book...

Fairtax.org


Okay U_D ask those "deadly" questions and zippy, you can chime in too!

"A "FAIR TAX" thread so U_D can "tear me to shreds..."

You got what you asked for. You usually don't set yourself up for a thrashing like this.

I strongly suggest you take a deep breath and step back away from this thread. Then pretend like you never started it. You'll thank me later.

 

[Pookie]

What the heck is "$1.30%"?

a 23% "tax inclusive" rate translates to a 30% sales tax, so a $1 purchase would mean you hand the cashier one dollar and thirty cents.

It's truly amazing how he can't seem to grasp this. Maybe its because it leaves a scar on his sacred cow. *shrugs*

 

[RobDownSouth]

That's what I've said for so many pages now. Can you not read with comprehension or do the little tinny voices in your head guide you...?

My apologies, I re-read your babble and your poorly constructed argument seemed to imply you were now distorting the UnFairTax as some sort of progressive tax, like your previous errors when you told us that the FairTax was "not designed to be revenue neutral" and that a person would pay "23% tax at the register".

You are only guilty of two distortions, not three.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

What is it?

It's your stupid title, $1.00*$1.30...

It's highlighting the fact that you don't understand math and that you're just puling a number out of your ass based on the fallacious assumption that revenue neutral is a microeconomic term meaning that you HAVE to pay $1.30 thus the 23% is a lie because you have to charge 30% to get the same exact tax on every widget, when the term actually refers to macroeconomics and what happens when you actually decrease prices and raise wages. What happens when business is no longer held hostage to the Congressional cycle and what each new change of government intends to do to them, as we see now with the Obama Administration's war on business and profit.

In short, the FairTax creates a business friendly environment and decouples the business-government protection racket where business HAS to seek to control Congress and vice-versa.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

"A "FAIR TAX" thread so U_D can "tear me to shreds..."

You got what you asked for. You usually don't set yourself up for a thrashing like this.

I strongly suggest you take a deep breath and step back away from this thread. Then pretend like you never started it. You'll thank me later.

Yeah, the last time you talked to me about economics was the value of insurance as a means to testing that will save us money, MEANWHILE, several studies have come out that show testing actually increases costs due to false positives and the repercussions of erroneous diagnoses...

Throb's merely trying to play a semantics game.

And the purpose of the thread wasn't at all about the FairTax but U_D constantly trying to claim that I put him on ignore not for being a vile, mean-spirited, I have to win at any cost just like LT poster but because he "tore me to shreds" over the FairTax by using babble of the sort employed by Throb...

 

[Pookie]

What is it?

It's your stupid title, $1.00*$1.30...

You read his title about as well as you understand the fair tax. His title is:

"Hey AJ: $1.00 * 1.30 = ??"

Seriously, AJ. Step away from the thread. You WILL thank me later.