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

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I have neither time nor inclination to attempt to assemble a coherent response from your rambling commentary. If you have a point to make, man up and make it Nancy. Find it yourself and bump it, if in fact it exists (it doesn't, but we'll go through this charade again for your benefit).

If you truly believe you dealt with that point in a much more substantial manner, then by all means share it with us. You couldn't do it then, perhaps you can foment a rational response now.

The above exchange illustrates one of the key reasons you change userids from time to time: there's documentation of you agreeing with me that you now want to distance yourself from.

I didn't cherry-pick, that was the sum and substance of your response.

I just looked at the thread you conveniently bumped up and Ish and I both dealt with the issues you raised. I don't care to go over old ground with someone who's just here to spit venom and go after my family.

Here's the discussion for anyone who thinks Throb has a valid point:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=319529

 

[firespin]

Most people is a classic red herring used currently most often by Barack Obama, sometimes he moderates it with "some people..."






And when it comes to your "concerns" about the middle-class, as long as you don't have to have the newest house and the newest care for the status of the thing, you can purchase both, used, sans tax...



THAT ought to buy some widgets!

* pokes stick at AJ *

I thought you were a capitalist?

If the tax applies only to new items, it will decrease demand for them, and increase demand (and prices) for alternatives. So the price of used cars and used houses goes up since there's effectively a protectionist tariff on new items.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The new tax rate is 30%, not 23%, if the hidden cost is 23%. Sorry. It goes down by 23 cents, and up by 23 cents. (External vs. internal computations, if that makes sense.) Even the proponents admit to this.

I know the math is hard for many.

How is the new tax 30%?

I just showed you it goes down by 23¢ and up by 18¢.

At some point, you're going to need to show me where you're getting most people and proponents from.

 

[RobDownSouth]

No, the widgets are CHEAPER!

*sigh*

$1.00-$1.00*.23= $0.77
$0.77*.23= .1771
Fairtax Widget = $0.95

Good God almighty, AJ, for a person with a degree in mathematics, simple math seems to elude you.

When you BUY something under the "UnFairTax" system, you are charged the TAX EXCLUSIVE rate of 30%

Therefore
$1.00-$1.00*.23= $0.77
$0.77*.30= .23
Fairtax Widget = $1.00

uDUMBASS

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

* pokes stick at AJ *

I thought you were a capitalist?

If the tax applies only to new items, it will decrease demand for them, and increase demand (and prices) for alternatives. So the price of used cars and used houses goes up since there's effectively a protectionist tariff on new items.

That's where the "rich" come in, the vapid, the shallow, and market forces...

IT's AMERICA!!!

 

[RobDownSouth]

I just looked at the thread you conveniently bumped up and Ish and I both dealt with the issues you raised. I don't care to go over old ground with someone who's just here to spit venom and go after my family.

Here's the discussion for anyone who thinks Throb has a valid point:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=319529

You dealt with it by changing the subject, throwing in non-sequiturs and personal attacks. That's why you won't post your "responses" here.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Good God almighty, AJ, for a person with a degree in mathematics, simple math seems to elude you.

When you BUY something under the "UnFairTax" system, you are charged the TAX EXCLUSIVE rate of 30%

Therefore
$1.00-$1.00*.23= $0.77
$0.77*.30= .23
Fairtax Widget = $1.00

uDUMBASS

No, you're charged at the same rate as the overhead .23%...

If you have a link that says the rate will be higher than the reduction, then just show me...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Back in 2005, Frisco Slug_Esq (then posting as ********) agreed with me that the UnFairTax would give less money to home builders.

You compare the current system to a flat tax.

Originally Posted by RobDownSouth
Lets look at some examples

Example 1: Current system

$40,000 Land cost (25%)
$48,000 Labor cost (30%)
$32,000 Material cost (20%)
$40,000 Misc overhead/compliance cost (25%)
===================================
$160,000 total cost of building house

The builder typically has gross profit margin of 20% :$40,000

The house would then be priced at $200,000

So Joe Homebuyer pays $200K, gets the homeowner deduction and builder gets $40K


Example 2: Flat tax

$40,000 Land cost (25%) (unchanged)
$33,600 Labor cost ($48,000 reduced by 30% flat tax)
$22,400 Material cost ($32,000 reduced by 30% flat tax)
$36,000 Misc overhead/compliance cost (compliance costs won't go away totally, I'll be generous and knock 10% of $40,000 due to flat tax)
===================================
$132,000 total cost of building house

The builder still has gross profit margin of 20% :$26,400
This makes the pre-tax price of the house $158,400
Add the 30% flat tax and you have a house priced at $205,920

So Joe Homebuyer pays $205K, gets NO homeowner deduction and builder gets $26K

So the homebuyer pays MORE, the builder makes LESS and the flat tax proponents claim this is a GOOD thing?

Must be something in the "mathmatical" sic calculations I am missing.

I think that which you are missing is a screw...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Well wiki says 23%


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax


I'll keep looking...

Bunch of RED staters over there; LOVE Rush Limbaugh...

 

[firespin]

No, you're charged at the same rate as the overhead .23%...

If you have a link that says the rate will be higher than the reduction, then just show me...

"How to Make 30 Look Like 23

Americans for Fair Taxation offers the following plain-language interpretation of H.R. 25:

Americans for Fair Taxation: A 23-percent (of the tax-inclusive sales price) sales tax is imposed on all retail sales for personal consumption of new goods and services.

It is the parenthetical that is important, for it hides the real truth of the tax rate.

First consider the way in which sales tax is normally figured. A consumer good that carries a $100 price tag might be subject to a 5 percent sales tax. That means that the final bill for the item is $105. The 5 percent figure is the amount of tax that is charged on the original purchase price. But now suppose that instead of pricing the item at $100, the shop owner simply priced the item at $105, then sent $5 directly to the state. The $105 price would be a tax-inclusive sales price. But $5 is just 4.8 percent of $105. That 4.8 percent number, however, is relatively meaningless. You are still paying exactly the same 5 percent tax on the item.

The 23 percent number in H.R. 25 is the equivalent of the 4.8 percent in the previous example. To calculate the real rate of the sales tax, we have to determine the original purchase price of an item. We can begin with the same $100 item, keeping in mind that a price tag that reads $100 has sales tax already built in. If our tax rate is 23 percent of the tax-inclusive sales price, then of the $100 final price, $23 of those dollars will be for taxes, meaning that the original pre-tax price of the item is $77. To get $23 in taxes on a $77 item, one must impose a 30 percent tax. In other words, a 23 percent sales tax on the tax-inclusive sales price is equivalent to a 30 percent tax on the actual price of the item."

From the link I cited earlier, from factcheck.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

So far, the only "whistleblower" source I see placing the tax at 30% all assume no one will adjust prices to reflect their savings in overhead.

This denies a reality of business.

 

[firespin]

Well wiki says 23%


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax


I'll keep looking...

Bunch of RED staters over there; LOVE Rush Limbaugh...

Wiki even says: "This would be equivalent to a 30 percent traditional U.S. sales tax ($23 on top of every $77 spent—$100 total).[5]"

Are you trying to be dense?

 

[firespin]

That's where the "rich" come in, the vapid, the shallow, and market forces...

IT's AMERICA!!!

LOL...nice non-response there.

My used house should go for $200K. That's because an equivalent (location, size, everything except age) new one costs $250 and the new house premium makes it worth more.

But now the new one is taxed 30%, or 75,000. Well, that sux for them, so we'll assume the builder theoretically saved $50K on construction (which is LOT of taxes paid out) to get it back to "only" $275K, so my old house is worth $225K now. And costs more to prospective buyers.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

"How to Make 30 Look Like 23

Americans for Fair Taxation offers the following plain-language interpretation of H.R. 25:

Americans for Fair Taxation: A 23-percent (of the tax-inclusive sales price) sales tax is imposed on all retail sales for personal consumption of new goods and services.

It is the parenthetical that is important, for it hides the real truth of the tax rate.

First consider the way in which sales tax is normally figured. A consumer good that carries a $100 price tag might be subject to a 5 percent sales tax. That means that the final bill for the item is $105. The 5 percent figure is the amount of tax that is charged on the original purchase price. But now suppose that instead of pricing the item at $100, the shop owner simply priced the item at $105, then sent $5 directly to the state. The $105 price would be a tax-inclusive sales price. But $5 is just 4.8 percent of $105. That 4.8 percent number, however, is relatively meaningless. You are still paying exactly the same 5 percent tax on the item.

The 23 percent number in H.R. 25 is the equivalent of the 4.8 percent in the previous example. To calculate the real rate of the sales tax, we have to determine the original purchase price of an item. We can begin with the same $100 item, keeping in mind that a price tag that reads $100 has sales tax already built in. If our tax rate is 23 percent of the tax-inclusive sales price, then of the $100 final price, $23 of those dollars will be for taxes, meaning that the original pre-tax price of the item is $77. To get $23 in taxes on a $77 item, one must impose a 30 percent tax. In other words, a 23 percent sales tax on the tax-inclusive sales price is equivalent to a 30 percent tax on the actual price of the item."

From the link I cited earlier, from factcheck.

Flaw. Two reasons, the one I pointed out in anticipation, and the other being the reality we know at the register, it rings up the price sub-total and then it adds the sales tax for your total.

They might be using the example of say, the sticker price on a new car or a new house, but I seem to remember those not being included in the price, but then I haven't purchased a new vehicle since I purchased my S-10 back in '94...

The goal in NOT to get back 23% in taxes, which is what you and Throb keep assuming. The goal is to increase business activity and in THAT manner raise the tax revenues, again, the above logic is the result of zero-sum thinking, that that pie is what it is and never grows, but the fact is that it's a pie TREE and the freed up money is like water to it.

 

[firespin]

So far, the only "whistleblower" source I see placing the tax at 30% all assume no one will adjust prices to reflect their savings in overhead.

This denies a reality of business.

The overhead savings is 23%, the new tax rate is 30%. Show me a fair tax article that claims otherwise.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

LOL...nice non-response there.

My used house should go for $200K. That's because an equivalent (location, size, everything except age) new one costs $250 and the new house premium makes it worth more.

But now the new one is taxed 30%, or 75,000. Well, that sux for them, so we'll assume the builder theoretically saved $50K on construction (which is LOT of taxes paid out) to get it back to "only" $275K, so my old house is worth $225K now. And costs more to prospective buyers.

That's convoluted...

The new one would cost what? under the current system, I mean WITH all the overhead...

 

[firespin]

Flaw. Two reasons, the one I pointed out in anticipation, and the other being the reality we know at the register, it rings up the price sub-total and then it adds the sales tax for your total.

They might be using the example of say, the sticker price on a new car or a new house, but I seem to remember those not being included in the price, but then I haven't purchased a new vehicle since I purchased my S-10 back in '94...

The goal in NOT to get back 23% in taxes, which is what you and Throb keep assuming. The goal is to increase business activity and in THAT manner raise the tax revenues, again, the above logic is the result of zero-sum thinking, that that pie is what it is and never grows, but the fact is that it's a pie TREE and the freed up money is like water to it.

You're frothing.

Do you not see that this is non-responsive? It's just a smokescreen to avoid admitting that you didn't explain this correctly, because you didn't want to, or you couldn't. Not sure which.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The overhead savings is 23%, the new tax rate is 30%. Show me a flat tax article that claims otherwise.

The Wiki I posted says it as does the fairtax.org website.

I'll reiterate. You keep assuming the goal of the tax is a one-to-one replacement.

It's not. It actually collects less tax on each and every purchase.

The idea is the same as the current stimulus, get more money into the system, but with one HUGE difference, it's private dollars versus public dollars.

And instead of focusing on this one point, let's review some of the highlights...

NO MORE IRS!
No more proving you're innocent from a government that can declare you guilty!
Privacy. Your salary and bank account should be as private as your bedroom!
More money directly to the poorest among us.
No more Congress pitting us against each other in order to bleed us to death.
No more people voting for higher taxes smug in the comfort that, hey., IT WON'T EFFECT ME!

And we stimulate our economy and bring jobs here where an educated workforce can now compete!

 

[RobDownSouth]

You compare the current system to a flat tax.



I think that which you are missing is a screw...

AJ, are you now claiming the UnFairTax is NOT a flat tax?

The UnFairTax is basically a flat tax with a huge government bureaucracy that administers "prebates".

My example stands.

...and you could not refute it.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You're frothing.

Do you not see that this is non-responsive? It's just a smokescreen to avoid admitting that you didn't explain this correctly, because you didn't want to, or you couldn't. Not sure which.

I did explain it correctly. You keep making a false assumption, that the tax is designed to make sure that you get $0.23 on every widget thusly making the Fairtax a 30% tax and a push when it comes to tax revenues.

I'm not frothing, I'm trying to have a discussion.

 

[firespin]

I did explain it correctly. You keep making a false assumption, that the tax is designed to make sure that you get $0.23 on every widget thusly making the Fairtax a 30% tax and a push when it comes to tax revenues.

I'm not frothing, I'm trying to have a discussion.

That's not a false assumption, that's what the bill says and what the plan calls for. They want to get 23 percent of each transaction, and to do that, they have to require a 30% tax as normally computed today, on the base price.

The supposed macroeconomic impacts are all conjectures based on some modeling...which to me seems like global warming.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

AJ, are you now claiming the UnFairTax is NOT a flat tax?

The UnFairTax is basically a flat tax with a huge government bureaucracy that administers "prebates".

My example stands.

...and you could not refute it.

It's not THE Flat Tax on income.

It's a flat tax on goods and services that replaces the income tax and FICA taxes and medicare taxes...

Your example is correct, it's the worst thing in the world and never again will a house be built because everyone is going to go belly up in the business of building houses. I guess we'll just have to make like the Amish and build them ourselves...

Oh whoa to the nation that adopts the Fairtax! We'll have to import our homes from China, or Mexico, or build them out of cardboard out on the streets!

So Joe Homebuyer pays $205K, gets NO homeowner deduction and builder gets $26K

So the homebuyer pays MORE, the builder makes LESS and the flat tax proponents claim this is a GOOD thing?

Must be something in the "mathmatical" sic calculations I am missing.

Home owner deduction from WHAT Throb?

If the builder wants to make more, then guess what Throb, he does what he does now, he charges more for his services. Looks like he can pad it $20K and STILL come in cheaper...

You're not USING math, you're using Demagoguery...



You WIN! Congratulations! You can leave happy now!

Just one more thing...

The HUGE government administration that issues the prebate checks will be a helluva lot smaller that the IRS, probably about the same size as the current SS overhead that shows up on every single paycheck and is going bankrupt.

At least the prebate checks will be based on money and not IOUs...

 

[RobDownSouth]

You're frothing.

Do you not see that this is non-responsive? It's just a smokescreen to avoid admitting that you didn't explain this correctly, because you didn't want to, or you couldn't. Not sure which.

I am bookmarking this thread.

This is the clearest evidence yet of how AJ absolutely, positively refuses to admit error in the face of clear evidence to the contrary showing that he is mistaken.

This is NOT a difference of opinion, AJ.

This is you being unequivocally, unmistakably wrong on matters of fact.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

That's not a false assumption, that's what the bill says and what the plan calls for. They want to get 23 percent of each transaction, and to do that, they have to require a 30% tax as normally computed today, on the base price.

The supposed macroeconomic impacts are all conjectures based on some modeling...which to me seems like global warming.

Where do you read that?

I'm asking now, show me that, because it's not anywhere that I've read other than far left sources that make the same mistakes and assumptions I've already pointed out.

I'll be back tomorrow, don't think you reply made me run away; that's something only someone like Throb would claim...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I am bookmarking this thread.

This is the clearest evidence yet of how AJ absolutely, positively refuses to admit error in the face of clear evidence to the contrary showing that he is mistaken.

This is NOT a difference of opinion, AJ.

This is you being unequivocally, unmistakably wrong on matters of fact.

They lose the home owner's deduction on WHAT?