Posted on 06/25/2009 4:20:47 AM PDT by Man50D
The article can't be posted due to copyright complaints. The link to the article is below.
'Fair Tax Book' makes a surprisingly strong case
Apparently you aren't aware that all businesses, in fact most businesses, aren't publicly held corporations having to cater to investors.
But then again, when all you Fairtaxers have "taxes on corporations" drummed into your heads ad nauseam how could you possibly not think that?
Using that same rationale, you really can’t price your product to cover any cost which is variable based on volume because you don’t know in advance what your sales volume is going to be.You mean as opposed to the phil_will1 exact science method of pricing?
As Boortz and Linder pointed out in their book, the AMT raises so much revenue (and that will be increasing over the next few years) that simply eliminating it is a budget-buster.So for them to say the 23% rate is revenue neutral is a lie then (no rate change since what? 1998?)...
“Companies often miss their quarterly projections by over or under estimating.”
Oh, so since forecasts are imperfect, they shouldn’t be done? Last time I checked, even companies whose forecasting history is less than perfect continue to do forecasts. If they are reasonably competently managed, their performance in this area improves over time. No one bats 1000 in forecasting. However, successful companies are typically within a narrow range on their forecasts, unless something really wacky happens to the economy (such as right now).
“Speaking of gasoline; how much hidden tax in the price of a gallon of gas at $2.00 a gallon, how much at $3.00 a gallon?”
VERY clever, lucysmom!!! Like you and your SQL buddies have never tried to change the subject when you are getting your clocks cleaned in the current debate.
“Apparently you aren’t aware that all businesses, in fact most businesses, aren’t publicly held corporations having to cater to investors.”
And you apparently aren’t aware that all for profit entities have investors and they all want a return on their investment. The major difference between a publicly held and privately held business venture is:
1. publicly held entities have more rigorous reporting requirements, and
2. capital flows into and out of a publicly held entity more easily.
Nevertheless, investors always expect a return and capital flows into more profitable ventures and out of less profitable ones.
Geez, it’s fun debating economics and business with louie. He’s like the guy who brings a knife to a gunfight.
“People freely buying, selling and investing is a bubble?”
No, that’s called “a free market”. An economic bubble is “trade in high volumes at prices at variance with intrinsic values”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble
“Imagine harder.”
“LOL!”
You don’t really think your juvenile comments which are unresponsive to the point at issue camouflage your lack of insight, do you? Well, I suppose you do.
“I want to privatize a larger portion than you.”
Oh, so toddsterpatriot wants to privatize a major portion of SS!! Then it certainly will get done. Just because the sitting President of the US couldn’t even get a measley 2% privatization done doesn’t mean that toddsterpatriot won’t be able to get a much larger privatization done, does it? I’m sure the 435 members of the house and 100 senators will jump right on it when they find out that this is what toddsterpatriot wants!!
“Require a supermajority vote to raise taxes.”
What is your bill number?
“I want to bust the budget. Huge cuts in spending. Remember?”
Don’t we all? How are you going to do that when much of the cost of government is hidden from those who pay for it?
“LOL! Keep smoking dude. You whined that people who oppose your bad math tax plan don’t have any alternatives, your plan is the only one that will fix those issues. And then when I tell you my alternatives, you whine that they’re not practical. LOL!”
Not only are they not practical, but the proof is that you spend your time on FR attacking the FairTax and its supporters, rather than starting threads and promoting your own ideas. When is the last time you did something positive to affect the trajectory of government? If you’re like most SQLs, the answer is not recently.
If you actually thought any of these ideas had a snowball’s chance, that is where you would invest your time and energy. Just tell me when was the last time you held a presentation in your neighborhood, wrote an article for publication, etc?
No, that’s called “a free market”. An economic bubble is “trade in high volumes at prices at variance with intrinsic values”.
The trade deficit is not a bubble. The trade deficit is people freely buying, selling and investing.
Social Security is a long term problem, privatizing it is a long term, not short term, solution.
I’m sure the 435 members of the house and 100 senators will jump right on it when they find out that this is what toddsterpatriot wants!!
As opposed to the constitutional amendment phil wants. LOL!
It is the subject. If you can't tell me how much tax is hidden in a gallon of gas at $2.00 and $3.00 a gallon, then you can't tell me if I will better or worse off when the corporation is relieved of its tax burden.
Then, you can demonstrate how the Fairtax guarantees a return on investments...isn't that what you're trying to imply with that no investor can lose under the Fairtax nonsense?
You get all your knowledge from Linder, Boortz, AFFT and Wikipedia where anyone can post anything they want?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That says it all about phil_will1 right there!
C'mon Phil, don't be a typical Fairtax flake. You're the bigshot spokesman, call Boortz, Linder, AFFT, or check Wikipedia for lucysmom's answer...
You can't hide behind your juvenile acronyms forever.
“The trade deficit is not a bubble. The trade deficit is people freely buying, selling and investing.”
So apparently was the housing bubble. That was American consumers “freely buying, selling and investing” in residential real estate.
The trade deficit is a measure of the extent to which we, as a country, are consuming more than we are producing. That can happen in the short term, just as a (for profit) business can operate at a loss in the short term, but neither can last indefinitely. Inevitably, there will be a correction and corrections are typically more sudden and dramatic than the longer term trend which produced them.
“Social Security is a long term problem, privatizing it is a long term, not short term, solution.”
So you make the problem worse in the short to medium term in order to get to the long term solution. I get that.
“I’m sure the 435 members of the house and 100 senators will jump right on it when they find out that this is what toddsterpatriot wants!!”
“As opposed to the constitutional amendment phil wants. LOL”
There’s one important distinction between the two which I’m sure you won’t appreciate. In one case, you have an anonymous blogger on FR who has an overblown ego who thinks that congress will just jump to his every wish. In the other case, you have a proposal which has been gathering support and increasing the pressure on congress members for several years now.
“If you can’t tell me how much tax is hidden in a gallon of gas at $2.00 and $3.00 a gallon, then you can’t tell me if I will better or worse off when the corporation is relieved of its tax burden.”
If I did tell you, it wouldn’t matter anyway, since you are so wedded to the current system.
What we were debating (before you so adeptly changed the subject) is whether or not tax costs are different from any other costs in the sense that they cannot be anticipated. I’m glad that we have settled that silly argument, because it pops up every now and then among the SQLs.
“You get all your knowledge from Linder, Boortz, AFFT and Wikipedia where anyone can post anything they want?”
Tell you what , louie, if you don’t consider wikipedia authoritative enough, just consider it an opening that you can exploit. Why don’t you trump me by finding a more credible source that supports toddsterpatriot’s assertion that a bubble is just people “buying, selling and investing”?
“BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!”
Congratulations, louie, that’s one of your more insightful and persuasive posts ever on FR.
“You can’t hide behind your juvenile acronymns forever.”
No one is hiding here, louie. I’m the one who has challenged you and your SQL buddies to a public debate and laughed out loud as the excuses started flying from the keyboards. Remember now?
I didn't change the subject, you were debating broad generalities and I asked you to get specific.
If a corporation's tax liability is passed on to the consumer in prices, and that liability is anticipated, then you should be able to tell me what that liability is for a gallon of gas and how much the price would fall if taxes were removed.
So apparently was the housing bubble. That was American consumers “freely buying, selling and investing” in residential real estate.
You're not in favor of the government restricting the ability of people to freely buy, sell and invest, are you? I'm in favor of eliminating Fannie, Freddie and the CRA. Reducing government caused distortions that led to the housing bubble. Just as I'm in favor of greatly reducing the corporate income tax, which would increase US production and increase exports while reducing imports.
The trade deficit is a measure of the extent to which we, as a country, are consuming more than we are producing.
Or a measure of the preference of foreigners to invest in our securities rather than to buy our goods.
There’s one important distinction between the two which I’m sure you won’t appreciate. In one case, you have an anonymous blogger on FR who has an overblown ego who thinks that congress will just jump to his every wish.
You'll have to point out the passage where you imagined I said any such thing.
In the other case, you have a proposal which has been gathering support
Why wouldn't it be gathering support? You have Freepers on this very thread who think it will lead to lower prices, 100% pay checks and a monthly prebate with no loss of government reveue. Free lunches always gather support.
I'm sorry that pointing out the actual math would reduce that support.
But what do I know, I'm just a guy who wants lower taxes and less government. In your eyes, just an SQL.
That was never my assertion. I was talking about the trade deficit.
No one is hiding here, louie. I’m the one who has challenged you and your SQL buddies to a public debate and laughed out loud as the excuses started flying from the keyboards. Remember now?Of course I remember and the first debate question is how much hidden tax would the Fairtax remove from $2.00 a gallon gas, and $3.00 a gallon gas? What were you saying about hiding?
I told you THIS IS A PUBLIC DEBATE but you don't get to make the rules and THAT is why you don't like it...I also told you that the rules have to allow lies and disinformation and make up things as we go along just to make it equal to your lies, disinformation and fantasy.
I also told you that you can't compare/debate reality to fantasy because the Fairtax does not, never has, never will exist... except in your mind.
Maybe you'd understand better by putting it in childish terms.It's like debating if the Russian army could defeat Superman. Everyone knows there's a Russian army and everyone knows Superman doesn't exist. Everyone knows what the capabilities of the Russian army is and everyone knows we have to make up Superman's capabilities to defeat the Russians...Get it?
Geez, it’s fun debating economics and business with louie. He’s like the guy who brings a knife to a gunfight.
In a nutshell here's phil_will1 expert knowledge of business, taxes, pricing and economics.
Post#1224:
ME:
"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?"
phil_will1:
"If I posted it here, it would take a huge page and because of formatting would be hard to follow.Well over 99%? Like 99.99%? Is that from Wikipedia too hotshot business and economics guru? C'mon phil just illustrate how you get to the embedded taxes that can be used to reduce prices 20+% without robbing employee's paychecks...After all these years you can still be the first one to do it.----
....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"....
While you're at it Mr. Professor of business, taxes and economics. How much tax is embedded in $2.00 and $3.00 a gallon gas?
Oh and none of that phony transparent phil_will1/Bigun/Fairtaxer "you've been shown/it's been posted hundreds times, I'm not going to waste my time with you" lies this time either.
And by the way, the communist plank that you refer to is actually more specifically a graduated, progressive tax on income, not simply an income tax. The Fair Tax movement makes no bones about their tax being progressive, too.
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.