Posted on 01/09/2005 6:59:57 PM PST by ancient_geezer
YN appears to certainly holds to Bartlett's NCPA representation of the VAT.
But I'll let him answer for that himself.
"You keep missing the point. You are asking personal financial questions when you offer nothing about yourself and your motives."
"I have answered the same question I am asking you."
That illustrates EXACTLY what I am talking about. In your mind you and you alone get to decide what questions can be asked and what questions have to be answered. I categorically and unequivocally reject that notion. You don't have the right to dictate who posts to these threads, you don't have the right to determine what "the issue" is, and you don't have the right to determine what questions can be asked and what answers are mandatory.
Your ongoing attempts to dominate the discussion in this manner is the height of arrogance.
"I think that most of the paid people are clerical staff who answer the phone and maintain the web site.
If anyone knows different, please correct me."
Don't upset their delusion with the facts, Ray. They think AFFT has a huge marketing budget and has money to spread around everywhere. We must be doing something right if we project that sort of image.
"I missed it. 11% of what?"
11% of the price at that level in the supply chain.
"My statement is absolutely true. You didn't have that or any other example when we communicated by e-mail."
Yes, I did. I had a much more detailed spreadsheet than the very simplistic one that I posted here. You were provided a copy of that spreadsheet. You did the exact same thing then that you are attempting to do now: confuse the uncertainties over assumptions with the validity of the cascading mechanism. Your arguments were just as disengenuous then as they are now.
"Using your 'simple example' of how embedded taxes are cumulative at ever higher ratios you should therefore have no problem illustrating at what point the imedded tax is 100% (or more) of the product/service...care to illustrate that part of your equation?"
If I posted it here, it would take a huge page and because of formatting would be hard to follow. I will instead answer your question narratively. I'll even go one step further and answer an analagous question: If the FairTax is progressive (meaning that the effective rates increase as consumption increases), at what point does the effective rate of the FairTax exceed 23%?
The answer in both cases is the same: they are both asymptotic curves, meaning that they approach a constant but never reach it, even if you extend the curve into infinity. If you were to go thousands of levels deep into the supply chain, you would reach a point where accumulated taxes account for well over 99% of the price you would be paying. However, that would be a strictly academic exercise, since supply chains don't reach thousands of levels deep in the real world. I don't need to extend a spreadsheet thousands and thousands of supply chain levels to understand and explain what is going on.
"What does privatizing SS have to do with the fairtax bill?"
If you had read and comprehended my previous posts on that subject, you would understand. Privatization is a minor part of the social security debate. A much, much bigger part is what I refer to as the demographic time bomb issue. All of the arguments about private accounts saving Social Security miss an important point – the number of retirees will increase in the next 30 years by 100 percent and the number of workers supporting them will increase by 15 percent. Just this week, both Dr. Kotlikoff and Chairman Thomas were in the news (seperately) talking about this and how the only way to address this aspect is
to convert social security from a payroll based revenue model. As far as I know, the FairTax is the only FTR proposal which does this.
What the hell difference does it make who gets paid for what? This is the arena of ideas. I don't care if Your Nightmare gets paid for his ridiculous rants, he has that right. I would like to know it, but even if I don't, I can suspect it and make my decisions about his opinions thus.That's all I asking. That if someone has a financial relationship or official position with a group with a dog in this fight that they disclose it. That way we can "make decisions about his opinions thus."
It does not now, and never has, mattered one whit who is getting paid by whom when the merits of a proposal are being discussed!
It would be interesting to see how much time and resources the status quo is throwing at tax reform rejection. Coupled with the fact that the status quo folks make up reasons to reject tax reform.... tells us that they KNOW they're in the wrong - but are willing to sell the US out to protect their little corner of marxism. JMHO.
Why would that post be instructive to understanding your motivations for rejecting tax reform?
Why would that post be instructive to understanding your motivations for rejecting tax reform?First, because motivations are off the table.
"To which phil_will1 himself replied 'It's no use, rwr. YN and LL will never reveal their hidden agendas.'"
That was a true statement when I posted it and it remains a true statement.
I posted a very simple example on the last tax reform thread (the one that turned into a 1,000+ post marathon) and showed corporate income taxes alone accumulating to just over 11% on the third level of a supply chain.Do you have any study from an economist illustrating the corporate income tax "accumulating" through the supply chain? I've looked and can't find one.
If that's the case, what are your motivations?
Even though YN says motivations should not affect quality of discussion, he still refuses to disclose. Why?
If that's the case, what are your motivations?They certainly aren't financal. I've spent my own money purchasing research material. My motivation is that I think the FairTax would be a horrible disaster for this country. There are better methods for tax reform.
I didn't ask what your motivations weren't. I asked what they are. Are you still unwilling to disclose?
Even though YN says motivations should not affect quality of discussion, he still refuses to disclose. Why?You need to catch up on the thread. It's your guys throwing a fit about questions of motivations.
"First, because motivations are off the table."
To borrow a phrase from The Great Communicator: "There you go again."
Somehow, somewhere you got the notion that you and you alone have the authority to determine what is "on the table" and what is "off the table". I can't say it any plainer than I already have - I totally reject such a ridiculous position and no matter how many times you insist that you have that authority, I will refuse to recognize it.
If motives aren't at issue, then my personal finances are irrelevent. Even if they were relevent, it is an invasion of my personal financial privacy, almost as much as having an income tax which forces me to disclose every detail of my personal life to the federal government once a year. There is a law that requires me to disclose to the federal government. There is no law which requires me to post personal financial information on the internet - thank goodness!
Separately, I am caught up. I am asking about your motivations.
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.