Well it's good that YOU never make any "disparaging remarks" (yeah, right!!). You're the one whose arrogance drove him to present the example you claimed to be the One True Way (and still do I note) and you made that very clear with your comments since you disliked the example I originally used.
I showed you using your own example how taxes cascaded in the example and had you even bothered to look at the most recent presentation, two examples were shown - one with a 25% rate and a 10% net profit ... and it STILL came up with over 14% in embedded taxes. And you have missed the even larger point that the examples are not claimed to represent the numeric values that might be involved, but instead show the manner in which the boosting of prices through business income taxes comes about.
As for any actual numbers I did not "admit" but rather stated that the embedded taxes would probably range from something like 10 to 25% (or perhaps even more). Your word choice attempts to carry with it the accusatory meaning that there was somehow something incorrect or dishonest in my statement. You have certainly not shown that. In addition, your claim that a 66% rate is needed, somehow, is poppycock.
As for attempting to mislead, the continual claims that you naysayers make that only corporate taxes (and then only when based as a percent of revenue - which is quite incorrect) are involved is in direct contrast to what I have clearly stated - that the business income taxes apply no matter the type of business entity involved (and not merely corporations) and that the tax is calculated as taxes paid divided by income subject to tax.
You guys remind me of the first person who viewed a running giraffe and then loudly proclaimed "there ain't no such animal". It is, though, nice to see that it is beginning to dawn on you that prices WILL go down with the advent of the FairTax - and not because of wages decreasing. Perhaps you'll even eventually understand how embedded taxes work ... but since you haven't so far it really doesn't seem too likely.
As for choosing selective companies or industries to illustrate some point you're hyping, why not choose an example that has the government refunding money to the business ... that would make it look even more exciting - even though that, too, would be of questionable value in the real world. Not all businesses pay little or no tax and not all are going out of business though you can bet that many of the large businesses spend a good bit on "tax minimization" efforts (which, it should be noted, become zetro under the FairTax).
Well, if you read carefully, you note that is NOT what I said. Let me make it a little clearer:
For after-tax prices to remain constant under the FairTax, the price of a product with embedded income taxes would have to decrease 23%.
YOU have claimed that all this (and more) can come from eliminating ONLY so-called "business taxes." You have stated countless times that these "business taxes" are only taxes on profits, and NOT employee wage or payroll taxes and NOT savings from compliance cost reductions.
Your overarching claim is that some fictitious cascading mechanism causes prices to rise far more than the actual tax collected.
Your claim is that prices will decline by some unknown amount, perhaps from 10% to 25% as you've reiterated here only by eliminating profit tax.
Now, if I've mis-stated any of these claims, I'm sure you'll point it out; but, if you do, please be clear about what you really mean.
As a sanity check, there is some simple math that can be done to check if your claims are reasonable:
What percentage of the retail sales price of a product must be accumulated profit in order for 23% of that retail price to be attributable to profit tax?For corporations, whose profits are taxed at 34.4%, the answer is 67% (sorry, I erred in typing 66%) :
if retail price(R) = cost(C) + profit(P),For non-corporate businesses, taxed at an average rate of 25%, the number is 92%:
then 34.4% of profit must = 23% of retail priceor
34.4% x P = 23% x R
Therefore, the ratio of profit to retail price (the % of price made up by accumulated profit)must be
P / R = 23 / 34.4 = .669 or 67%
if retail price(R) = cost(C) + profit(P),
then 25% of profit must = 23% of retail priceor
25% x P = 23% x R
Therefore, the ratio of profit to retail price (the % of price made up by accumulated profit)must be
P / R = 23 / 25 = .92 or 92%
Neither of those ratios comes close to the reality of embedded profit and therefore embedded tax.
While I do often point out your errors in understanding and errors in your math which lead to erroneous conclusions, I have never called you names, attributed any hidden agendas to your position, taken your posts out of context, or selectively ignored central points of debate ... all of which you do regularly.
When I discuss your work with others, I use your name. You do not reciprocate.
I have reached level of exasperation with you at times when you avoid direct questions, or insist that 2 x 2 = "a very large number because of cascading" in the face of proof to the contrary, or take my direct answers to your direct questions and pretend you never asked the question. These lead me to believe you really do not understand the math or the argument ... and I say so.