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

[zipman]

I never discussed any such thing with you. Oh, you tried your best to put that argument in my mouth ... but you failed with that just as you did with this thread.

Rob isn't playing semantics. You've had your hat handed to you. Leave the thread before it becomes any more embarrassing.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

I'm enjoying this thread way too much for it to end just yet.

 

[Pookie]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

I'm enjoying this thread way too much for it to end just yet.

It is rather entertaining.

What shocked me after going back and reading more of this thread is that Ish made such a fool of himself. He can be stubborn, and the math isn't all that easy, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist. Firespin has been spot on the entire thread. I admired his detailed posting that explained things in as simplistic a way as possible. Rob did very well himself. I think Ish finally figure out he was wrong, but I doubt AJ can ever figure it out.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

AJ Lies Again

I'm not talking about an exemption, I talking about the elimination of federal highway taxes on gasoline (not to mention domestic overhead, think Alaska, natural gas, shale), which would be replaced by revenues from the 23% tax on the gas. So the price of gas would actually go down.

Why?

And again, the cost of gas won't go up 30%. It's still a fallacy.

An expanding economy is the best way to bring in more tax revenues.

What happens when prices go down? This is 101 stuff. Demand goes up...

I missed this outright LIE earlier.

One of the only taxes that the UnFairTax does NOT repeal are Federal Excise Taxes on gasoline.

The price of gasoline....like all imported commodities....will NOT go down under the UnFairTax. It will go UP.

This is NOT a difference of opinion between us, AJ.

To claim that the price of gasoline will go down under the FairTax is to make a material falsehood.

In other words, AJ, you're lying.

 

[Pookie]

I missed this outright LIE earlier.

One of the only taxes that the UnFairTax does NOT repeal are Federal Excise Taxes on gasoline.

The price of gasoline....like all imported commodities....will NOT go down under the UnFairTax. It will go UP.

This is NOT a difference of opinion between us, AJ.

To claim that the price of gasoline will go down under the FairTax is to make a material falsehood.

In other words, AJ, you're lying.

You're taxing his brain too much. You need to be fair. (I kill myself! )


You expect him to keep up with facts AND do math? C'mon, man!

 

[firespin]

I missed this outright LIE earlier.

One of the only taxes that the UnFairTax does NOT repeal are Federal Excise Taxes on gasoline.

The price of gasoline....like all imported commodities....will NOT go down under the UnFairTax. It will go UP.

This is NOT a difference of opinion between us, AJ.

To claim that the price of gasoline will go down under the FairTax is to make a material falsehood.

In other words, AJ, you're lying.

He's a macroeconomic kind of guy. He may not actually understand how the tax works, but he knows it will bring the rapture. Or, well, close enough. Lots of growth. The modelers say so.

But it's not like the AGW models, of course. Those are all wrong. The fairtax models are perfect.

 

[Saint Peter]

The L. Ron Hubbard of taxation.

 

[Ishmael]

You're taxing his brain too much. You need to be fair. (I kill myself! )


You expect him to keep up with facts AND do math? C'mon, man!

No federal excise taxes are subject to automatic repeal under HR-25 and would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Most excise tax revenues are targeted towards specific programs related to the sector from which they are collected. (For example, the lions share of the gasoline excise tax goes to the Federal Highway Trust Fund with smaller portions allocated for mass transit, undergound storage tank leak remediation, etc.) Most of these taxes are not rolled into the general fund.

The effect of the Fair Tax on 'at the pump' prices is indeterminate right now. (Meaning I haven't taken the time to research the potential effect.) Whether the 'at the pump' price would increase or decrease would be primarily determined by how much tax code compliance is costing the producers. Given the horrendous complexity of the tax code as it applies to petroleum production (depletion computations, adjustments for loses, etc.) my guess would be that the price would decrease slighty, but that is only a guess.

Ishmael

 

[RobDownSouth]

No federal excise taxes are subject to automatic repeal under HR-25 and would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Most excise tax revenues are targeted towards specific programs related to the sector from which they are collected. (For example, the lions share of the gasoline excise tax goes to the Federal Highway Trust Fund with smaller portions allocated for mass transit, undergound storage tank leak remediation, etc.) Most of these taxes are not rolled into the general fund.

The effect of the Fair Tax on 'at the pump' prices is indeterminate right now. (Meaning I haven't taken the time to research the potential effect.) Whether the 'at the pump' price would increase or decrease would be primarily determined by how much tax code compliance is costing the producers. Given the horrendous complexity of the tax code as it applies to petroleum production (depletion computations, adjustments for loses, etc.) my guess would be that the price would decrease slighty, but that is only a guess.

Ishmael

Wow, Ishmael agreeing with me (1st paragraph) against his "bro" about excise taxes....will wonders never cease?

Now, I need someone to do me a favor. Quote my post number 156 and change my name so that the Iggy filter won't kick in for Ish (the coward has me on ignore). I want to show Ish that his oil price scenario isn't really feasible.

 

[RobDownSouth]

If I put the answers in my own words, then I'm an idiot who doesn't understand that which I post about. If I then turn to the source and quite it, I'm an idiot who can't think for myself. If I can't convince you your fallacy is, indeed a fallacy, then I don't understand math...

Hell, Throb quotes FairTax researchers to discredit me, but when I use the same researchers to return the discredit in its proper context, then the researchers are a "biased" source, and how dare I quote a biased source!

Curiouser and curiouser...

Not curious at all, when examined closely.

If I put the answers in my own words, then I'm an idiot who doesn't understand that which I post about.

FairTax documentation makes it crystal clear that a 23% tax inclusive rate is the same as a 30% sales tax (tax exclusive) rate. YOU, however, misquoted the documentation and claimed the tax EXCLUSIVE rate was 23% and the inclusive rate was 18.7% or so. At this point you were mistaken. Your math error was explained to you in great detail. You refused to admit your error. This made you an idiot.

If I then turn to the source and quite it, I'm an idiot who can't think for myself.

You have a tendency to quote long passages of irrelevant and/or superfluous material that is not germane to the situation at hand. You rarely if ever highlight salient points, and declare that these non-sequiturs somehow "prove" your point. You routinely fail to realize that the onus is on YOU to make a point, and it is not up to people who read your posts to ascertain your point.

If I can't convince you your fallacy is, indeed a fallacy, then I don't understand math...

In order to prove someone "wrong", you should present facts to bolster your case, particularly when someone presents facts to backup their own argument. Simply disagreeing with someone because you don't like their position does NOT make your opponent's position fallacious.

And speaking of understanding math, one has only to look at the myriad of rhetorical gyrations you went through to avoid answering my "how much money are you out-of-pocket" question.

Hell, Throb quotes FairTax researchers to discredit me, but when I use the same researchers to return the discredit in its proper context, then the researchers are a "biased" source, and how dare I quote a biased source!

You have yet to show any context, proper or not, in your attempts to discredit me. You've attempted to drown the discussion in minutiae, change the subject, and attempted to use your personal animosity towards me to gin up support for your position ("oh, I guess you agree with THROB")

AJ, this thread has been nothing short of a Godsend for me. I've been telling people about your intellectual dishonesty for several years now, but this thread allows me to actually show folks just what extremes you'll go to to champion your own pet political causes and more importantly the extremes you'll go to to avoid owning up to your own errors.

You're a very, very small man, AJ. You've shown us that by your own words in this thread.

I thank you for that.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Babble of course meaning anything that paints your precious "FairTax" in an unflattering light.

You've been torn to shreds, again, on this issue and I hardly had to post in it at all. Now do a little search back to when you put me on ignore and you will find it was right after I created my account, within a month or so, and spent the better part of that month painting and repainting your pet issue just as it has been in this thread. You then spent the better part of two years nurturing your scraped ego by sniping at me from the relative safety of ignore like a coward.

But I'm the "vile, mean-spirited" one..

Ok, U_D, you've had your say and your version of the truth, so let's examine some of the history. At a certain point, it became obvious to all of us in the "right wing-nut circle jerk" that there was a class of poster who could not enter into a discussion without name-calling and personal attack,* so about that time I instituted my three-strike rule. If you argued strongly with me on fact, of just plain rhetoric, I would take it as it was, but if you crossed the line into ad Hominem, then you got one warning, and then you got three strikes. That's how ThrobDownSouth ended up on ignore, that's how LT ended up on ignore, SeanH, and that's most certainly how you ended up on ignore, so you KNOW that what you are saying about your arguments about the FairTax being the reason you got put on ignore is a lie! In fact, with each strike earned and with each personal attack, you seemed to take delight in "shutting up your opposition." So the real truth is, you actually know EXACTLY why you were put on ignore, because I told you four times what was about to happen, despite your reinvention of the events of the day.

Then you go on to say, I hid behind the ignore to take cheap shots at you, which belies the fact that you ALSO used the safety of ignore to continue to take shots at me knowing that your "charges" and "truths" would go unchallenged unless I was in a really bored mood and ready to take on a little abuse or give a little "what comes around goes around."

And here, given full opportunity to repeat your "victory" of the past, you've barely offered a peep other than to say, "Yeah A_J, take that, they really got you good [insert personal attack here]." You're not half the man you think you are. None of you Democrat "defenders of the holy truth" are.





* Which, I kinda thought was a product of the frustration of having little, or no power politically, what with the Republican take-over and all, but now that the power is in your hands, we can clearly see that it is not your frustration, but your nature.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Plus I still want to know why $10,000 of financial intermediation sales is not taxed, but only for small organizations. I thought the Fair Tax was fair? But here there are different rules for different types of transactions, different transaction values, and different people involved.

Even if we did have a national sales tax, in less than ten years the table of rates due on different types and dollar values of transactions, indexed by type of buyer and seller, would rival the size of the current tax code.

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. Exports and the purchase of inputs by businesses (i.e.,
intermediate sales) are not taxed, nor are used goods or any savings, investment, or education tuition
expenses. The sales tax must be separately stated and charged on the sales receipt. This makes it clear to
the consumer exactly how much they are paying in federal taxes.

There are no exemptions under the FairTax, meaning that no lobbyist, corporation, or individual can
obtain tax advantages that are not available to the general public. Also, everyone pays the same rate, but
those who spend more pay more total taxes than those who spend less.

Any property on which the business use conversion credit, the intermediate and export sales
credit, or the bad debt credit has been claimed is not considered “used property” because the
FairTax that was paid on it has been refunded. Thus it no longer meets the definition of used
property. These credits are explained in Chapter 2 – Credits; Refunds.

Produce, provide, render or sell taxable property or services – If a person or business buys
taxable property or services for the purpose of using such property or service in the production,
provision, rendering, or sale of other taxable property or services in the ordinary course of that
business, then that purchase is not subject to the FairTax. This exempts intermediate sales to
businesses and prevents the FairTax from cascading and being hidden in the retail price of the
final consumption good or service produced by that person or business. Example: If a business
were to pay sales tax on the purchase of “inputs,” then, in order to recover its costs, it would
have to build the taxes paid on inputs into the retail price of what it sells. This would result in
taxing a tax.

The purchases of property or services used for research, experimentation, testing, and
development are included as non-taxable business purchases.

Taxable property or services purchased on behalf of an insured person (policyholder) are treated
as purchases for business purposes and are not taxed if sales tax was paid on the premium for the
insurance contract under which the claim was paid. If the premium for the insurance policy is
taxed, it would be double taxation to also charge tax on the benefits paid for by the insurance
policy.

SEC. 102. INTERMEDIATE AND EXPORT SALES.
This section ensures that taxable property or services are taxed only once upon the final sale to a
consumer. Taxable property or services purchased from a seller for a business purpose in an
active trade or business, or for export from the United States for use or consumption outside the
United States are not taxed provided the appropriate certificate is presented by the buyer to the
seller. Purchases by consumers are taxed. Businesses that paid sales tax on business inputs
purchased from a retailer can claim a credit for the tax paid on their own monthly sales tax return
(explained in SEC. 203). Investments (property purchased exclusively for purposes of
appreciation of income or the production of income) are not taxed.

Government enterprises are governmental entities that receive payments from private persons for
goods and services. They must maintain books of accounts separate from the non-enterprise
governmental accounts. For example, the expenses and receipts of a county landfill enterprise
must be kept separate from the expenses and receipts of the general county government.
Examples are the U.S. Post Office, Amtrak, local government waste management operations, etc.
These enterprises, at all levels of government, are treated the same as private businesses with
respect to their purchases and sales to consumers. This means that any intermediate purchases
by government enterprises are not taxed; only the final sale of goods or services to the consumer
is taxed.

SEC. 701. HOBBY ACTIVITIES.
This section prevents people from using a hobby as if it were a business to take unfair and
unintended advantage of the exemption for intermediate sales. The intermediate sales exemption
(SEC. 102) and the credits (SEC. 202 and 203) do not apply to activities not engaged in for profit.
An activity is deemed to be “for profit” if it meets the following criteria: The activity has
received gross payments for the sale of property/services that are greater than the combined total
of taxable goods and services purchased for use in that activity plus wages paid to persons
engaging in ththree years.

SEC. 902. TRANSITION MATTERS.
Businesses that have inventory on the close of business December 31, 2008 qualify for a
transitional FairTax credit if the inventory is sold subject to the FairTax and prior to December
31, 2010.

Qualified inventory shall have the cost that it had for federal income tax purposes for the active
trade or business as of December 31, 2008 (including any amounts capitalized by virtue of
Internal Revenue Code Sec. 263A. Capitalization and inclusion in inventory costs of certain
expenses as in effect on December 31, 2008). The transitional inventory credit is equal to the
cost of the qualified inventory times the FairTax rate. The credit may be claimed on the monthly
sales tax return for the month when the inventory is sold subject to the FairTax. This credit shall
be reported as an intermediate and export sales credit. The person claiming the credit must
attach supporting schedules in a form prescribed by the Treasury Department.

I don't see much mention of that...

Nice prediction there, but it's just a prediction. It's harder to overcome reason without an enemy's wealth to be confiscated.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

I'm enjoying this thread way too much for it to end just yet.

Of course you are...

__________________

How about the strict separation of english and stupidity?

Ordinality isn't a word.

 

[firespin]

I don't see much mention of that...

Nice prediction there, but it's just a prediction. It's harder to overcome reason without an enemy's wealth to be confiscated.

How much mention do you need? Section 901d:

"`(d) De Minimis Sale of Financial Intermediation Services- Up to $10,000 per calendar year of gross payments received by a person from the sale of financial intermediation services (as determined in accordance with section 801) shall be exempt from the tax imposed by section 101. The exemption provided by this subsection is in addition to other exemptions afforded by this chapter. The exemption provided by this subsection shall not be available to large sellers (as defined in section 501(e)(3))."

To get a tax break as buyer or seller, all you need in a friend on the committee. Same as it ever was, the website lies about everything being equal notwithstanding. (For example, all tuition is tax-free. Every service provider is going to register as a school now.)

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

SEC. 901. ADDITIONAL MATTERS.
Various anti-avoidance rules and de minimis payments exceptions are provided in this section.
The sale of a copyright or trademark is treated as the sale of taxable services and subject to
taxation if the substance of the sales of copyright or trademark constituted the sale of the services
that produced the copyrighted material or the trademark.

De minimis payments. Up to $1,200 per year of gross payments received by a person not in
connection with a trade or business are exempt. Example: The neighborhood teenager doing
odd jobs or occasional babysitting is able to receive payments up to $1200 and not be required to
collect the FairTax on the services they provide.

Likewise, individuals may spend up to $400 of gross payments per year to purchase any taxable
property or service imported into the United States for their own use. If the person purchases
more than $400 on goods and services for their own use in the United States, the individual is
required to pay FairTax on the total amount of such purchases. The individual is responsible for
remitting the tax.

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).

[from 501: Small sellers are persons that have collected less than $20,000 of FairTax in any of the previous
12 months. They are required to remit the FairTax on or before the 15th day of the following
month. Example: Taxes collected on sales during the month of January must be sent to the state
sales tax authority on or before February 15th. ]

What do you got against your neighbors making a little spare change in their spare time?

Isn't this some relief on the middle class whom you been portraying as the victims of the FairTax?

That could be the struggling minority trying to pull himself up by the bootstraps who doesn't have a chance in hell to start a business under the current system that requires the resources of the white majority and that cultural understanding of how business REALLY works (Think Rodney Dangerfield in "Back to School")...


__________________
"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things."
Adam Smith

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You were acting like we were talking some big deal here...





This doesn't even rise to the mom&pop level.

 

[firespin]

You were acting like we were talking some big deal here...





This doesn't even rise to the mom&pop level.

LOL...nice deflection. So insurance agents needs a "babysitting" exemption? Why is that? Why should $10,000 of their income be exempt from tax? That's a lot of babysitting. Why not any other service? Why not for big companies?

While it may not get your attention, it makes a lie of the claims that there are no exemptions...and where there's one (or a few), others will follow.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

LOL...nice deflection. So insurance agents needs a "babysitting" exemption? Why is that? Why should $10,000 of their income be exempt from tax? That's a lot of babysitting. Why not any other service? Why not for big companies?

While it may not get your attention, it makes a lie of the claims that there are no exemptions...and where there's one (or a few), others will follow.

What kind of insurance agent makes that little money? Part-timer? Business start-up?

You might as well begin complaining that swap meets aren't included...

We're talking spending money here; chump change, money that will most likely be taxed in the future and probably not worth the overhead of compliance.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You spend post after post after post decrying the "unfairness" of the tax on the little people and the middle class and then you use their relief to bash the tax as being unfair...



That's not much different that quoting the "experts" and then telling me I can't use them for rebuttal.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Ok, U_D, you've had your say and your version of the truth, so let's examine some of the history. At a certain point, it became obvious to all of us in the "right wing-nut circle jerk" that there was a class of poster who could not enter into a discussion without name-calling and personal attack,* so about that time I instituted my three-strike rule. If you argued strongly with me on fact, of just plain rhetoric, I would take it as it was, but if you crossed the line into ad Hominem, then you got one warning, and then you got three strikes. That's how ThrobDownSouth ended up on ignore, that's how LT ended up on ignore, SeanH, and that's most certainly how you ended up on ignore, so you KNOW that what you are saying about your arguments about the FairTax being the reason you got put on ignore is a lie! In fact, with each strike earned and with each personal attack, you seemed to take delight in "shutting up your opposition." So the real truth is, you actually know EXACTLY why you were put on ignore, because I told you four times what was about to happen, despite your reinvention of the events of the day.

Then you go on to say, I hid behind the ignore to take cheap shots at you, which belies the fact that you ALSO used the safety of ignore to continue to take shots at me knowing that your "charges" and "truths" would go unchallenged unless I was in a really bored mood and ready to take on a little abuse or give a little "what comes around goes around."

And here, given full opportunity to repeat your "victory" of the past, you've barely offered a peep other than to say, "Yeah A_J, take that, they really got you good [insert personal attack here]." You're not half the man you think you are. None of you Democrat "defenders of the holy truth" are.

You're entitled to your opinion Cap'n, but not your own facts.

The simple fact is, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, that you have absolutely nothing against a little ad Hominem and name calling... So long as it's coming FROM you or one of your circle-jerk buddies and not directed AT them or you. Why do you think I've saddled you with the moniker of Cap'n Hypocrite and pointed out that little fact for years now? Don't pretend to be all indignant about someone taking pot-shots at you now, you have a long history of doing just that yourself. Your three strikes rule is a joke, and an excuse to ignore people who get the better of you. You're more like Le jackass than you are willing to admit to yourself. Kudos on learning at least a little, that's more than he's ever done. Who was it that pointed out that you were being a hypocritical douche that you actually listened to anyway?

The other fact made very plain in this thread, the same as it was several years ago, is that you simply will not accept any of the harsh realities pointed out about your sacred cow, the FairTax. You will dissemble, gyrate, and spin. Even going so far as to ignore statement made by those at FairTax.org themselves when it goes against how you believe it must work.

I didn't have to post much or at all in this thread. Most of the very same points I raised several years ago were covered and you displayed the very same inability to actually address them now as you did then. I actually expected to see you put Firespin on ignore because he gave you even less quarter than I did. Again, you may have actually learned something.

Baby steps I suppose.

 

[firespin]

You spend post after post after post decrying the "unfairness" of the tax on the little people and the middle class and then you use their relief to bash the tax as being unfair...



That's not much different that quoting the "experts" and then telling me I can't use them for rebuttal.

LOL...again, nice defection. The issue is why this exemption is needed? It serves no fundamental purpose. Who benefits? Why should they benefit? Who else should get a similar benefit? Those are rational questions about something called a "fair tax".

Oh, by the way, I was looking at the studies about what rate is needed. I found this comment to be interesting...this from the fair tax fans, who think 23% inclusive would sorta work:

"The first is the major capital gain that the federal
government stands to accrue if, as seems likely, the
Federal Reserve fully accommodates the introduction of
the FairTax and permits consumer prices to rise by
roughly 30 percent."

http://www.beaconhill.org/FairTax2006/TaxingSalesundertheFairTaxWhatRateWorks061005.pdf

Even the guys who like this plan think consumer prices will rise.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Of course it serves a useful purpose. Otherwise it won't be in there.





That's an interesting article.

I suggest you go back and read the conclusion, especially the last three paragraphs.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

That's the fact U_D.




I gave you the rope. I warned you to discuss and not to ad hominem, and you just could not help yourself. I gave you a warning, like everyone else, I gave you three strikes, and then I put you on ignore, and your "tearing me to shreds" over the FairTax had nothing to do with it other than the fact that you're a keyboard coward who false sense of superiority seems to be a good enough excuse for you to name-call and ridicule anyone whom you think is wrong.
__________________
Contemporary leftists, on the other hand, view their opponents as people you send off to the Gulag, unworthy of any respect, deserving of any kind of low blow, no matter how foul. So you accuse Goldwater of insanity, slander Justice Thomas as a sexual monster, casually publish plays, books, and films calling for the assassination of President Bush, and assault the first serious Republican female candidate at her weakest point -- her family. And of course, you scream to high heaven if any form of turnabout occurs in your direction, as in the case of the Obama family, which was declared "off limits" early in the presidential campaign, at the same time that Palin's family was being stretched on the media rack.

This style of political loathing has become effectively innate. It has been systemized to such a degree as to become integral. Modern liberalism cannot do without it. An entire structure has been erected on the basis of political hatred, and from that structure a whole new strategy has arisen.
J.R. Dunn

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Or, firespin, will their opinion not matter now?





You've already tried to treat me like Charlie Brown a couple of times there Lucy...
__________________
"In this world, there is no heavier burden than a great potential!"
Linus Van Pelt

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

That's the fact U_D.

I gave you the rope. I warned you to discuss and not to ad hominem, and you just could not help yourself. I gave you a warning, like everyone else, I gave you three strikes, and then I put you on ignore, and your "tearing me to shreds" over the FairTax had nothing to do with it other than the fact that you're a keyboard coward who false sense of superiority seems to be a good enough excuse for you to name-call and ridicule anyone whom you think is wrong.

*laugh*
You've always been good at revisionist history..

Your warnings are just as big of a joke now as they were then. You are possibly the least self-aware person , discounting Le Jackass, that I've ever seen. Yes, you "warned" me against using ad hominem, while ignoring it's use by those of the same ideological bent as you and your own little personal jabs. It's hilarious to see you rail against name-calling and ridicule.. I don't think you bother to read anything that you post.

It seems your definition of "ad hominem" only extends to those you disagree with, but not yourself or your "bro"s... Cap'n Hypocrite to the bitter fucking end.

You've been shredded here by most of the very same arguments that I hit you with several years ago. Your responses are no different, the same machinations, gyrations, and deflections. Even going so far this time as to discount the assertions of FairTax.org itself when the points are inconvenient to your argument.