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

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

 

[firespin]

Any plan that you have to sell with lies and mis-statements is no better than, say, Anthropogenic Global Warming.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Any plan that you have to sell with lies and mis-statements is no better than, say, Anthropogenic Global Warming.

They sold AIDs pretty damned well...


The only people making "mis-statements" are the detractors of the plan and fuzzy math is about all the have aided, in a large part, by the state of our educational system.

 

[RobDownSouth]

.77(.23)=.1771
.77+.18 = .95

A savings of 5¢ and and exclusive rate of...,

77/1 as 18/x = 18/77 = .2337

Now, the assumption you keep making is that we HAVE to get a dollar to get the "FairTax" to make a dollar for dollar match and thus we will need a $30% tax. This, again is trying to mash-up micro-and macroeconomics.

Lower taxes mean increased business activity which results in greater tax revenue.

WRONG

You're being obtuse.

Sales tax is calculated on a tax-exclusive basis. You've unilaterally (and deliberately) used the tax-inclusive rate, which is not a difference of opinion, it is ignorance. You are willfully mis-stating facts to support your preconceived political position.

.77 * 1.30 (the correct calculation) = $1.00

One dollar out of pocket.

That's non-negotiable, AJ.

May I suggest you refrain from further speculation on the FairTax until you actually understand the basis behind it? I'm not trying to insult you, but you truly don't know what you are talking about, and it's making you look very foolish.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

lmao







You wanna explain to firespin where you got $1.30?

 

[Ishmael]

Fire is either exceedingly math challenged, or he's just fucking with you bro. Either way he's a waste of time on this particular subject.

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Fire is either exceedingly math challenged, or he's just fucking with you bro. Either way he's a waste of time on this particular subject.

Ishmael

I think it's the latter...



You rolling on the floor, or do you have Throb on iggy?

 

[RobDownSouth]

lmao







You wanna explain to firespin where you got $1.30?

What's the sales tax rate where you live, AJ? Hmmm?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

It just keeps getting funnier...




Trying to change the subject?

Avoid the question?

I'll bet you've piqued firespin's curiosity with that last one...

 

[firespin]

Fire is either exceedingly math challenged, or he's just fucking with you bro. Either way he's a waste of time on this particular subject.

Ishmael

I hate to break it to you, big guy, but your criticism of me doesn't change the underlying math, or AJ's attempt to propagate (charitably) wishful thinking or (more likely) misunderstanding or (can't be ruled out) outright lies.

In fact, you could say that your disapproval is more likely a sign that I'm on to something.

Sorry if I'm not meekly acquiescing to your giant intelect [sic], and even disagreeing with a book you like. That stuff happens when you're a wack job. Get used to it.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

To fuck back with firespin...

As an example of EPA misconduct and bad science, none of the important studies on air pollution can claim to comply with the rule on size of effect. That's true of so many other toxicology claims from population studies used by the EPA and other government agencies. Most public health journals are full of studies that break this rule.

Why scare the public with bad studies and exaggerated warnings? That's easy -- follow the money, the power, and the noise. The agencies are the source of funding, and the scientists must find something an agency can work with, or they won't have any funding or job.

If the journals don't let the authors bend the rules, then the authors don't get published, and their status as experts is compromised -- but the journals won't have much to publish, so it will compromise the survival of the journals that are part of the academic infrastructure.

Would climate scientists have work tomorrow if today the U.N. said the global warming panic was revealed as a hoax? Same for public health panics and toxicity scares: The academic researchers, agency apparatchiks, and research programs would shrivel if tomorrow the EPA said, "Sorry...we were exaggerating. The planet is actually pretty safe, and only a few things are really toxic. We're shuttin' down the panic division -- get on with your lives."

John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D. is an emergency physician, inactive attorney, and policy advisEr to the Heartland Institute of Chicago and the American Council on Science and Health of New York City.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/science_and_the_toxic_scare_ma_1.html

 

[firespin]

The only people making "mis-statements" are the detractors of the plan and fuzzy math is about all the have aided, in a large part, by the state of our educational system.

Since you're so smart, here's another way to prove it. Show us any typical cash register transaction, breaking out the part that the consumer pays, the part that goes to the feds in the form of sales tax, and the part the retailer then keeps to pay the supplier(s). (For extra credit, you can even show the state's cut.)

Then show us the ratio of the federal sales tax to the part the retailer keeps.

For example, today in my state, I pay $1.05 for a candy bar...the state gets five cents, the retailer keeps a dollar, it's a 5% tax rate.

 

[Ishmael]

I think it's the latter...



You rolling on the floor, or do you have Throb on iggy?

I've had him on ignore for years now.

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I hate to break it to you, big guy, but your criticism of me doesn't change the underlying math, or AJ's attempt to propagate (charitably) wishful thinking or (more likely) misunderstanding or (can't be ruled out) outright lies.

In fact, you could say that your disapproval is more likely a sign that I'm on to something.

Sorry if I'm not meekly acquiescing to your giant intelect [sic], and even disagreeing with a book you like. That stuff happens when you're a wack job. Get used to it.

You see, those were the exact kind of posts that were directed towards us as we patiently tried to explain the flaws in the glow-ball warning thinking and models...

The consensus is always self-assured, self-righteous, and abusive to thoughts outside their sphere of understanding and belief which always manifests itself in making the discussion "personal."

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Since you're so smart, here's another way to prove it. Show us any typical cash register transaction, breaking out the part that the consumer pays, the part that goes to the feds in the form of sales tax, and the part the retailer then keeps to pay the supplier(s). (For extra credit, you can even show the state's cut.)

Then show us the ratio of the federal sales tax to the part the retailer keeps.

For example, today in my state, I pay $1.05 for a candy bar...the state gets five cents, the retailer keeps a dollar, it's a 5% tax rate.

So, you want to go right back to the mathematical semantics games...

I've had him on ignore for years now.

Ishmael

I cleared my lists for the comedy value.

 

[firespin]

You see, those were the exact kind of posts that were directed towards us as we patiently tried to explain the flaws in the glow-ball warning thinking and models...

The consensus is always self-assured, self-righteous, and abusive to thoughts outside their sphere of understanding and belief which always manifests itself into making the discussion "personal."

Very nice irrelevant deflection. Gold star for you.

Now, explain why your 95 cent transaction price and 77 cent base price isn't illegal under the fair tax?

For extra credit, do it without talking about global warming, the American Thinker, or references to me. I'm pretty sure it can be done.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Similarly, I used to be the most fervent and devout of AIDS believers...




The "experts" owned me and my opinion. Who was I to question? Hell, I didn't even have a college degree when that ONE guy, they tracked down the zero case, flew into America created the whole epidemic by introducing the HIV virus...

The only problem with that fairy tale, is that in the last couple of years, we've found out HIV was around well before the panic of the unassailable victim.

If you denied, in any small part, the AIDS orthodoxy, it was because you hated gay people and you wanted them to die, and dying, they were doing in great numbers because in the rush to do something politically, we began to poison them to death...

Think of it as medical capping and trading.

 

[Ishmael]

I hate to break it to you, big guy, but your criticism of me doesn't change the underlying math, or AJ's attempt to propagate (charitably) wishful thinking or (more likely) misunderstanding or (can't be ruled out) outright lies.

In fact, you could say that your disapproval is more likely a sign that I'm on to something.

Sorry if I'm not meekly acquiescing to your giant intelect [sic], and even disagreeing with a book you like. That stuff happens when you're a wack job. Get used to it.

The legislation clearly states the the 23% will be applied to the suggested retail price and added to that price. That is the ONLY formula that applies, all else is bullshit. Ignorant bullshit engaged in by what might otherwise be considered reasonably intelligent people.

If the suggested retail price is $.77, then 23% of that price is indeed $.18 and when you add $.18 to $.77 you do indeed come up with a tax inclusive shelf price of $.95. That's it, end of story, no further discussion required. It operates exactly the same as the current crop of tax inclusive excise taxes.

The only people that seem to be befuddled by that simple calculation are those that are determined to apply methodolgies NOT specified by the legislation.

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Very nice irrelevant deflection. Gold star for you.

Now, explain why your 95 cent transaction price and 77 cent base price isn't illegal under the fair tax?

For extra credit, do it without talking about global warming, the American Thinker, or references to me. I'm pretty sure it can be done.

At this point, there's no way I can prove to you that it's "illegal."

You're ignoring Occam's basic principle.

You take the Fairax widget, which has been stripped of the hidden FairTaxes and tax it 23%. Whatever means you then use to calculate the rate is meaningless and a not-so-nice deflection from the reality of the applied rate. You're looking at it as a rate of outcome, and we've been pointing this out since page two.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It just keeps getting funnier...




Trying to change the subject?

Avoid the question?

I'll bet you've piqued firespin's curiosity with that last one...

What the hell are you talking about?

You're the one who is jumping through major hoops here throwing caveat after caveat and non-sequitur after non-sequitur in the vain hope that people won't realize that you failed to acknowledge the 30% FairTax sales tax rate.

Have you noticed that all of your "bros" (except Ish, of course) have deserted you in this thread? That they've left you to twist in the wind?

Even THEY realize that the FairTax rate paid at the cashier is thirty percent...they don't want to embarass themselves by sticking up for your fallacy, no matter how much they like you personally.

 

[RobDownSouth]

At this point, there's no way I can prove to you that it's "illegal."

You're ignoring Occam's basic principle.

You take the Fairax widget, which has been stripped of the hidden FairTaxes and tax it 30%. Whatever means you then use to calculate the rate is meaningless and a not-so-nice deflection from the reality of the applied rate. You're looking at it as a rate of outcome, and we've been pointing this out since page two.

Fixed your error. No charge.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Where did you get that $1.30?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

PS - This isn't about me and my bros...


It's not even about you, firespin, or the fairtax.




Read the headline.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

But since my sides are already hurting for laughing...




Where did you "dream up" that $1.30?

 

[kbate]

If you want to get any sort of fair-tax proposal through the congress, it must include a "soak the rich" provision of some kind or another. The "prebate" simply is not enough to cover that necessity. Given the political climate in the U.S., and the fact that our president rarely speaks of economics without using the term "fat cat", you can be assured that the only possible way a national sales tax will be implemented is as an additional tax on top of the payroll and income taxes.

Much of the objection appears to hinge on the belief that retail prices will not drop should Fair Tax replace payroll and income taxes as the primary federal taxation mechanism. Apparently there is a belief that retail prices for goods other than gasoline do not include the cost of payroll taxes, income taxes and regulatory fees that a manufacturer pays in the creation of their product.

To an extent, they are correct, as a lag between passage and price changes (as suppliers cash flow situation adapts to the new tax plan) - would for some time make it appear as if they are simply taking an additional 30% profit (as many would).

I also have difficulty believing that many service industries (law, accounting, cleaners, etc...) will drop their fees when the payroll taxes disappear. I do believe they will simply add 23% on top of their current rates and enjoy the bonus.

But as para 1 states - The Citizens of The U.S.A., have declared that they want something for nothing and elected those who believe the rich can pay for it all. There is no possibility of a tax which the rich can treat as, "voluntary" coming into existence. Until they have an "alternative minimum purchases" provision, it's not possible.