Posted on 08/24/2005 9:40:44 PM PDT by RobFromGa
Ultimately, politics and emotion drive these discussions more than economics or math. The math just gets in the way of good talking points!
The fallacy in this argument lies in this statement. Businesses pay an additional tax over and above what you as a worker pay on your money. There is no reason to believe that employers would decrease anyones pay. Their savings would be on the amount they pay in on you over what you pay in (approximately the same amount held out of your wages). Check all the facts before you decide someone is right.
You Troll.. Love all your anti fair tax post..hmmmm...hmmm...LMAO!LMAO! yourself, who's the fool now?----
Knock off the troll comments
Thanks
I've spent at least 40 hours on this and I'm about through I figure, I'm not sure that it is time well-spent because someone else would've shot it down along the way before passage, but I was tired of watching the DC Chapter and the people in Crawford get to do all of the actual activism and wanted to do something besides post on FR about this.
I will followup with Linder and I am trying to get a meeting with him.
You Troll.. Love all your anti fair tax post..hmmmm...hmmm...LMAO!I'm right, you're wrong...live with it...LMAO!
If you are talking about the employer half of payroll taxes, we've included that in all our previous discussions-- employers match is 7.65% of labor. They do NOT match income taxes. We've agreed that business could save maybe 10% max, with corporate taxes included where they apply.
I believe labor contracts are for gross pay, not after tax income. By what mechanism does the Fair Tax eliminate every labor contract in the country?
Just go away quietly if you have nothing new to add to the conversation. We get it that you think we are evil.
So, explain to me how a 10% savings for the employer is bad. Explain to me why the employer would need to cut my pay down to my post tax levels in order to save money. Explain how getting my full paycheck is a bad thing. I think we can debate the black market as a reasonable possibility. I'm just not real clear on your other points. Enlighten me please.
While the Fair Tax Book remains number 1 on the Best SellersWOOO, like I care.
Except now it's confirmed fiction...it was only fact in your's and other pea brain's world...Including the authors.
How many other #1 best sellers have changed your pathetic life?
But the point is that Jorgenson is agreeing that you can't have both 1) workers keep same gross pay and 2) business realize cost savings to allow them to reduce prices.
A business can give it's employees a 25% take-home pay raise if they want, but they can't also save money on the elimination of the embedded worker payroll taxes. Put another way, You can't have your cake, and eat it too.
And yep, I'd agree that solely debating this on FR is of limited value ... it generally takes a only few replies before the name calling begins. Shortly after that come the "cut and pasters" and virtually nobody has the time, skills or inclination to check the algorithms, or verify the research.
Good luck with the next step; and I am interested in what Linder, Boortz and others might have to say ... once public figures "go public" re-direction is not easy.
I'm not going to repeat it all, search FR for Linder and look at the Open Letter from two days ago, the whole debate is already covered there. If you have questions after reading that, we can discuss.
No I think you love the current tax code. What is your solution Rob??
I just scaned over this Thread it because its late, and I am really tired. Like I said I am going to check it out later this week.
The main value is that it forces you to refine your arguments and come to some solid conclusions, these can then be used to engage the real world.
I also emailed Bruce Bartlett after I faxed Linder, Boortz and Jorgenson. Any other ideas are welcome.
I don't write tax bills and I don't study government statistics. I am in business and I know what the cost and tax structures of businesses are.
I don't have to have another solution in order to discuss the flaws in the FairTax. That would be a different discussion. I will likely leave that to the experts and when they get one in a form to debate, then we can do this all again.
The fallacy is that you get BOTH your full income AND a 20%+ reduction in prices if you adopt the FairTax. The SOURCE from whose research that fallacy was created has apparently confirmed that his research was MISREPRESENTED: you can't have BOTH, you can ONLY have ONE - either your full paycheck OR reduced prices.
To directly answer your question: IF you want prices to drop by 20%+, you MUST reduce your gross pay. If you want your full gross pay (plus the employer paid FICA taxes) you DO NOT get reduced prices as claimed by the FairTax proponents.
There is nothing "bad" about a 10% savings. It just isn't enough to pay for all the claims the FairTax proponents make.
What's to keep this 23% tax from increasing the minute we switch to the national sales tax?
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.