Posted on 09/14/2005 1:22:09 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
Today's Nuze
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
September 14, 2005
FAIR TAX UPDATE
My friends, you have no idea of the impact that The FairTax Book is having on our elected officials in Washington. Officials at the highest levels are expressing their surprise to Congressman Linder of the success of the book, and you can believe that they are ready to take some action. While on vacation I'm writing some items to clarify portions of the book --- and I hope to have them posted in the Nuze by Thursday. In the meantime, if you haven't yet bought or ordered The FairTax Book, please do so. The link above will take you to amazon.com or see if your local book store has any left. Hey ..I'm not trying to pad my own pockets here. I've already told you that my royalties age going 100% to charity, including a rather large check to the Red Cross for Katrina relief. My interest here is in promoting a tax reform plan that I sincerely believe will bring about a positive change in the life of virtually every American, except, perhaps, for the K Street lobbyists who have been making hundreds of thousands a year gaming the present tax system for their clients. The longer we keep The FairTax Book up near the top of The New York Times Bestsellers List, the more attention we get in Washington DC, and the greater the chance that HR 25 is going to get serious consideration in Washington.
Last weekend I was sitting in a restaurant near the west coast. At the next table was a man I knew to be well connected in Washington and Hollywood. (Not mentioning names here.) I actually overheard him telling his luncheon guests about the FairTax! The word is getting around, my friends, and politicians are finding this movement harder and harder to ignore.
As soon as I'm back off vacation I'll be heading out for more book signings. One week from Saturday I'll be at the Republican Leadership Conference at the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island. I'm told that almost every Republican with presidential aspirations will be there. When I get up before that group to make my presentation on The FairTax I want to be able to tell them that the book is still right up there at the top of the list. The books that are sold between now and Monday afternoon will make the difference ... so you know what to do.
A better book would be "Taxing Ourselves - Third Edition : A Citizen's Guide to the Debate over Taxes" by Joel Slemrod and Jon Bakija. It's a much more reasonable look at our tax system.
Unfortunately, the expert that fairtaxers used for that claim denies that will happen unless employees take a paycut. There is no basis for the claim that prices will fall 20-30%. None. Really. Dr. Jorgenson was their source and he says it ain't so.
Thank you once again for posting and pinging to this important information about the NRST.
I see the usual people on this thread carping and sniping, and I just want to say this: I DON'T CARE if my take home pay remains the same. I DON'T CARE if the bill isn't perfect.
I want a sales tax because of the reality of the present federal tax system. It is simply unbelievable that it even exists.
To those who say the bill is flawed, and the arithmetic wrong, SO WHAT????? It's not like it could possibly be worse than what we're living with.
The answer lies in a broader tax base and improved economic efficiency.
Pixie Dust! You obviously do not own a business.
You quoted from the MONEY article
What The FairTax Book fails to mention is that prices can only fall this sharply if companies cut wages. I asked Jorgenson about this, and he agreed. Say your salary is $100,000 a year today, but you take home $80,000 after taxesAnd in 24 you said:
Fact 3: Dr. Jorgenson confirms that prices can only stay about the same if Employees take a pay cut.You continue to confuse a wage cut with a pay cut. If your net take-home pay remains the same, there is no pay cut. According to Jorgenson, there would be a wage cut, but you end up with the same money in your pocket. Since you seem to agree with Jorgenson's wage cut, do you also agree with his assumption that prices would fall by that amount?
On a different subject...I've seen the following statement from you a number of times:
Business pay $350 Billion for their share of the payroll taxes. That is their biggest chuck of savings under this bill, along with about $200 Billion for corporate taxes. That's $550 Billion in undeniable savings to businesses. Unfortunately, there are $10 Trillion in goods and services in this country which are consumed by the consumer...business will see a savings of 5.5% that can be passed on to the cusomer. But then Business will have to charge a 29.87% tax (23 percent inclusive).
My numbers are close to yours but I would like to compare your sources to mine(most from the Bureau of Labor Statistics/ www.bls.gov) to make sure I am on the same page. Any help would be appreciated.
And I will once again point out to your that there is MUCH more involved here than the taxes themselves. There are a plethora (probably unquantifiable)of costs imposed by the system which do not end up in the tax collector's till most of which would be eliminated by the fairtax and would have the effect of - ta-da! - lowering prices!
Hear here!
Worth repeating at every opportunity!
Notice how quickly they jump on the work of those who's conclusions do not comport with what THEY are selling. Also note that they fail to tell you just WHO has done all this so called discrediting and what THEIR agendas are!
Read the book and judge for yourself!
In order for prices to stay about the same, Dr. Jorgenson assumed ALL taxes would have to come out of the price of goods, which includes the taxes paid by employees. Now there is no mechanism to make that actually happen, so employees will keep all their paycheck. The downside is that according to their expert, prices will go up substantially after the sales tax is added. Prices can not stay the same under that scenerio.So Jorgenson is saying if employees keep all of their gross paycheck, they would see a substantial increase in prices because employers wouldn't see any savings . Following his reasoning, the increase in take home pay would offset the increase in prices.
There is NOT an estimate that prices at every stage of production will drop by 20-30%, or that every retail price will drop by 20-30% - only the average total by the time it reaches the retail sale.Estimate based on what? Where is that estimate exactly?
I suspect that this would reduce corporate costs by 20+% at EVERY stage of production, creating an even larger embedded cost reduction at the retail level,Suspect all you want, how could it be larger than the 20% reduction? Would reducing the cost 20% at 5 stages of production be a 20% reduction or a 100% reduction at the retail level?
Following his reasoning, the increase in take home pay would offset the increase in prices.In a perfect world where everybody pays and there are no phoney rebates.
In a perfect worldNot a perfect world, just the world(Jorgenson's model) that has been debated here.
Not a perfect world, just the world(Jorgenson's model)Jorgenson's (perfect world) model(s): If this then that, if that then this...
Elephant number two is taxation of services e.g. rent. The NRST people are holding "imputed income" from living in your own house to avoid paying NRST on rent as an "ace up the sleeve". It's off the table while trying to push this disaster forward. When elephant number one fails to produce the needed revenue, elephant number two will take center stage as a real source of revenue. It amounts to federal property tax all dressed up as NRST on the fair rental value of the property where you reside.
If this then that, if that then this...That's the definition of any model.... A description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further study of its characteristics
That is what we are discussing. If you disagree with my conclusions from the model, please explain how beyond simply stating that it is only a model in "a perfect world where everybody pays and there are no phoney rebates"
So much for the surprise...
YEAH that's the ticket......LOL!
That is what we are discussing. If you disagree with my conclusions from the model,Help me out here, I haven't seen anything that can be identified as a conclusion from any known model.
Ya know, in all those words you typed, you never answered my question:
So, what exactly are the components of "tax cost" as you use the term in "tax cost as a % of revene" anyway?
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.