[Always Right]

Nothing new here. Boortz spends 75% of the article refuting a non-point about CATS. It makes no difference to the debate. Boortz spends the next 25% of the article displaying his ignorance on what embedded taxes are. Bartlet does not get it right either. Boortz is wrong in that all of the embedded taxes will not be removed from the product and Bartlet is wrong to assume that none of them are removed. Out of the 18-23% embedded taxes, at most 8% can be removed without lowering wages and owners profits. Most likely it will be closer to a 5% reduction in costs, but then a 30% tax added on top.

[Turret Gunner A20]

Just as I thought, you really can’t read.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

I am sure that models have been run on this, I have not done the research.

[xcamel]

same double talk, same rhetoric, same BS.
Note how he didn’t talk about how Leo Linbek and Robert McNair made a “jihad” out of taking down the IRS after they both got caught “double dipping” the system...

[untrained skeptic]

Out of the 18-23% embedded taxes, at most 8% can be removed without lowering wages and owners profits.

Why? How does the inclusion of current embedded taxes raise wages and businesses profits?

[Kellis91789]

“Boortz spends 75% of the article refuting a non-point about CATS. It makes no difference to the debate. “

I think it does makea difference. An attempt to associate anything with Scientology is a smear tactic, since most of America thinks Scientologists are a bunch of loons.

Why else do you suppose Bartlett included it, if he himself didn’t think it would be important to people ?

[teenyelliott]

Out of the 18-23% embedded taxes, at most 8% can be removed without lowering wages and owners profits.

Wrong.

Taxes are taxes, not wages or profits.

Read the book if you don't understand it.