HOUSTON...We Have A Problem
Recently, the Washington Post did a break down of dry cleaning
one shirt for $ 1.10, analyzing each component of the total price. Their analysis looked like this:
| Cost |
|
|
Labor |
43 cents |
|
Payroll taxes |
4 cents |
|
Rent |
12 cents |
|
Supplies |
9 cents |
|
Depreciation |
9 cents |
|
Utilities |
7 cents |
|
Insurance |
4 cents |
|
Office & administration |
4 cents |
|
Repair & maintenance |
3 cents |
|
Advertising |
3 cents |
|
Interest/bank charges |
3 cents |
|
Claims & miscellaneous |
3 cents |
|
Profit |
6 cents |
|
TOTAL |
$1.10
|
In response, economists Gary and Aldonna Robbins of the Texas-based Institute
for Public Policy examined the same case, with a particular eye toward uncovering
the hidden costs of taxes in a given item's price. Here's what they found:
|
|
Total Cost |
Fed.
taxes |
|
Labor |
43 cents |
13 cents |
|
Payroll taxes |
4 cents |
4 cents |
|
Rent |
12 cents |
4 cents |
|
Supplies |
9 cents |
3 cents |
|
Depreciation |
9 cents |
3 cents |
|
Utilities |
7 cents |
2 cents |
|
Insurance |
4 cents |
1 cents |
|
Office & administration |
4 cents |
1 cents |
|
Repair & maintenance |
3 cents |
1 cents |
|
Advertising |
3 cents |
1 cents |
|
Interest/bank charges |
3 cents |
1 cents |
|
Claims & miscellaneous |
3 cents |
1 cents |
|
Profit |
6 cents |
2 cents |
|
TOTAL |
$1.10 |
37 cents |
|
Tax Rate |
|
33.6 % |
In short, federal taxes today increase an item's price by almost 34
percent of its cost. State and local government taxes further raise that
share to 48 percent. Keep in mind, these taxes are paid by all consumers
and are in addition to the almost 40 percent tax rate most families pay in
income and payroll taxes already. |
The paper shows that on average, an American taxpayer pays $2,413 per year in hidden taxes. These hidden
taxes, amounting to $639 BILLION annually are federal, state and local levies buried in with the prices of
goods and services. These are a few examples: 35 cents for a $1.14 loaf of bread, 18 cents on a 50 cent can of
soda, 72% on a 750-ml bottle of liquor, 43% on a six-pack of beer and $63.60 on a $159 plane ticket.
Economic research to support the FairTax concept
is funded through the National Tax Research
Committee, a 501 (c) (3) non-profit, educational,
and research organization which has separate
leadership and is independent of AFT.
We have a number of FReepers involved in our Cyber-War (E-Mail campaign) to forever rid 100% of American citizens from having to report their income to the gestapo IRS...will you join us?Phase II of the Cyber-War will start this week. To send me an E-Mail, just click on my name below, leave me your name, screen name and your regular E-Mail address, with a note saying, "I want to join the Cyber-War!"
I will forward the list to FReeper "pigdog" who will give you all the information on Phase II.
SCRAP THE CODE...SCRAP THE IRS!!!
:-? Peace(pipe)
1 Posted on 12/12/1999 05:48:39 PST by CHIEF negotiator (Visualize Whirled Peas!)
To: All
Below are the effective tax rates for the existing income tax system, the Forbes flat tax, and the FairTax Act of 1999. (assumes all income is spent):
- Current Income Tax System. Includes the 25% average - Corporate income tax and compliance costs embedded ("hidden" from view) in the price of every good and service.
- Forbes Flat Tax. Includes the 25% average - Corporate income tax and compliance costs embedded ("hidden" from view) in the price of every good and service. Also includes $36,000 exemption. Excludes privatization of Social Security and Medicare Forbes hopes to achieve.
- FairTax Act Of 1999. Includes the monthly Family Consumption Allowance (rebate) of $424 for a typical family of four. The FairTax eliminates Corporate income tax and compliance costs. Also the FairTax eliminates Social Security and Medicare payroll deductions which will be funded by the National Retail Sales Tax revenue. Assumes all income is spent, including rebate, only for new goods and services. The FairTax percentages will be reduced if a portion of the income is saved, invested and/or spent for used [previously taxed] items.
Income for
Family of Four |
Current Income
Tax System |
Forbes
Flat Tax | FairTax Act
Of 1999
|
| $15,600 |
38.6% |
35.6% | 0.0%
|
| $31,200 |
42.4% |
35.6% | 10.44%
|
| $46,800 |
44.2% |
38.4% | 14.63%
|
| $62,400 |
45.6% |
40.8% | 16.7%
|
We have used a very conservative 25% Corporate income tax and compliance cost rate in figuring this table. These taxes and fees do not show up on any sales receipt, yet they are there and passed down the line to the end use consumer. Some of these fees do not go into the government coffers but into the bank accounts of CPAs, accountants, tax preparers and tax lawyers.
Thanks Principled for these new CIT and CC figures.
:-? Peace(pipe)
6 Posted on 12/12/1999 07:18:12 PST by CHIEF negotiator (Visualize Whirled Peas!)
To: Aquinasfan
Dr. Keyes is on the right track, but there is something he needs to understand:
He talks of "exempting" certain items from the tax to help the poor...if we start "exempting" certain products, it will reopen the door for the thousands of Gucci Gulch Lobbyists in DC to garner favor, through the tax code, for tax relief on the products their clients manufacture.
Protecting the Poor from the TaxExcerpts from the authors of both NRST bills before congress:
"...A NRST plan can be made progressive through a rebate mechanism that would shelter
low-income people from paying the tax. One manner in which the NRST could be made less regressive
would be to exempt certain necessities--such as food and clothing--from the tax. That approach would
exempt, however, the most expensive food (lobster and caviar) and the most expensive clothing ($1,000
designer suits). It is a very inefficient means of providing tax relief to lower and middle income Americans
and would necessitate a much higher overall rate. [41] A more neutral and less distortive approach is to
simply provide each family a level of consumption free of tax by providing a rebate of the tax on
expenditures up to the poverty level.""The rebate could work as follows: A family consumption refund would be established for each household
at an amount equal to the sales tax rate times the poverty level. The poverty level is defined by the
Department of Health and Human Services guidelines and should be raised by the sales tax rate."..."Families with no annual wages and salaries would apply directly to the Social Security Administration for
a rebate check."
"The family consumption allowance approach has several effects. First, it makes the sales tax applicable
only to consumption beyond the necessities of life. Second, it makes the tax in effect progressive, not
only because it is based on consumption, a better index of true ability to pay, but because--if one wants to
continue to view progressivity through an income tax lens--it entirely exempts lower income workers.
Third, unlike most state taxes, it does not undertake the complex and politicized task of determining what
to tax and what to exempt, thereby minimizing administrative and compliance questions and economic
distortions."
[41]. In 1994, food ($715.7 billion), housing ($706.6 billion), clothing and shoes ($247.8 billion), and medical care ($739.1 billion) accounted
for 51.3 percent of National Income and Product Accounts personal consumption expenditures ($4,698.7 billion).
9 Posted on 12/12/1999 07:34:58 PST by CHIEF negotiator (Visualize Whirled Peas!)
To: CHIEF negotiator
Taxation through representation relies on individuals' feeling a "tax bite" and thereby being motivated to do something about it --- i.e. regulate their tax burden via their elected representatives.
"Income Tax Withholding" has removed from this equation, the "tax bite."
If the average UAW employee, had to sit down and write out a check, four times a year, to the I.R.S., in the amount which is otherwise being "withheld," that employee would probably go ballistic!
And that amount? AVG. $3,800 --- each check!
To wit: Want a raise? It's right there in front of you --- if only you could see it.
12 Posted on 12/12/1999 08:05:03 PST by First_Salute
To: CHIEF negotiator
"In short, federal taxes today increase an item's price by almost 34 percent [33.6%] of its cost. State and local government taxes further raise that share to 48 percent. Keep in mind, these taxes are paid by all consumers and are in addition to the almost 40 percent tax rate most families pay in income and payroll taxes already."
Is it "new table time"?
You may be right CHIEF negotiator! We used a conservative 25% in the chart and it looks bad enough! We better let this soak in for a while, we don't want a revolution on our hands do we?
14 Posted on 12/12/1999 08:19:17 PST by Principled
To: CHIEF negotiator
We have used a very conservative 25% Corporate income tax and compliance cost rate in figuring this table. These taxes and fees do not show up on any sales receipt, yet they are there and passed down the line to the end use consumer.
It is not possible to estimate the damage done to our liberty by these "hidden" taxes. The hidden taxes allow government to expand unchecked. Any tax plan must eliminate hidden tax in order to be considered tax "reform".
Any income tax has hidden taxes. In fact, the flat income tax plan hides a higher percentage of tax than ou current graduated income tax!
BTW, another fine post from the CHIEF!
16 Posted on 12/12/1999 08:23:32 PST by Principled
To: CHIEF negotiator
Give this a BIG BUMP!
Be joining yah in a bit, got some loose ends on the other end of the link you provided. :o) Having fun with friends overtheir but looks like they may have disappeared for some reason, is it lunch time in California or sump'n? Geez dey jess pooped out!
Ahhhh! Beer-n-Prezels the busy man's lunch. Taxman, if ur lurk'n: Scheduling the beer is what works. Yah can drink em unner da table, URRRP!, dat way ;o)
17 Posted on 12/12/1999 10:01:13 PST by ancient_geezer
To: CHIEF negotiator
How is that cervesa holding out "geezer"? If
you're running low, I have a few 6 packes I'll email you.
Hey man, I'd luv yah forever, The wife stuck me on a diet of
bud Lite, say'n I was git'n too fat to punch less than one key at
a time on the keyboard.
But keep it under the rose, will yah? Man, she finds out and
it could ruin my whole day for me and it'ud be back to orange juice
for me. Yechhhhh!!!!
21 Posted on 12/12/1999 16:23:54 PST by ancient_geezer
To: Principled & Clinton's a liar...headzup
Here's proof that we can't get there (smaller government) from here (income tax system):
Our existing income tax system encourages divide and conquer, hide and disguise taxation...
The "Price of Civilized Society"
Surges to $10,298 Per Person in
the U.S."Americans will spend more money per capita in 1999 on taxes ($10,298) than on food ($2,693), clothing
($1,404), and shelter ($5,833) combined," according to Patrick Fleenor, senior economist at the Tax
Foundation and author of the new report titled "The Price of Civilized Society."
From 1981 to 1999, the federal government increased
what it collects per person more than 45
percent!
TAXES
This chart doesn't look promising for
your children's financial future, does it?
Until you and I get FED UP with government confiscation of YOUR money,
within another 18 years expect your children and grandchildren to spend over
$20,000 per year with an effective tax rate of over 80% to
"feed-the-beast"!
The Internal Revenue Service employs
more investigative agents than the FBI and the
CIA combined, and with 115,000 employees,
employs more people than all but the 36 largest
corporations in the United States.
In addition to the $7.2 billion needed to operate
the IRS, at least $225 billion (that is $850 for
every man, woman, and child in this country)
must be added to account for the cost of
complying with the tax code. Massive amounts of
our national wealth are consumed merely by
measuring, tracking, sheltering, documenting,
and filing our annual income. 115,000 IRS agents know more about you than your family does!
Even with a GOP Congress we have had an increase in taxes and increased spending. The lobbyists in DC will continue to give big bux to congressmen (for their re-election campaign) if they vote in favor of tax breaks for their clients. It's like a drug to the politicians and almost every one of them are hooked. There have been over 6,500 changes to the internal tax code just since 1986. Is it less abusive, less intrusive or easier to understand?
It's time we take that awesome power away from them. Just watch them try to manipulate the 23% NRST. It will be written into law that every new good and service will be taxed at the same percent. Not only will we fire 115,000 IRS agents, but the thousands of lobbyists will have to look for a different line of work!
Even if they try to raise the rate just ONE percent, it would be political suicide...we'd be marching down the halls of Congress with pitchforks in hand, because it would affect every voter!
WAKE-UP AMERICA
SCRAP-THE-DAM-CODE!!!
25 Posted on 12/13/1999 05:43:20 PST by CHIEF negotiator (Visualize Whirled Peas!)
To: CHIEF negotiator
I'll repeat what I have often lamented over:
Where is the outrage?
Raising the awareness level of the American people to "Outrage Level 1" is our challenge.
And we are beginning to do that right here on Free Republic, and this debate will inexorably spill over to the rest of the American public.
So, having said all that, "Well done" to all of you who have been engaged in this skirmish on the Free Republic. We are winning, we are converting others to our way of viewing the tax world, and most important, we are raising the level of outrage.
Keep on keeping on! We can do this!
But we have a long, hard road ahead of us.
Scrap the VLWC!
Scrap the Code!
Scrap the IRS!
26 Posted on 12/13/1999 08:14:33 PST by Taxman (fdavis@salestax.org)
To: CHIEF negotiator
The assumptions on compliance cost and effects of corporate taxes are grossly exaggerated. The flat tax form takes less than 2 minutes to fill out the compliance cost is $.31, the cost of a stamp. Also income (wages and corporate profits) is taxed once.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, the NRST is designed to be "revenue neutral, that is consume the same amount of GDP as the current system. The Flat Tax is designed as a Tax Cut. This chart is misleading it makes it appear that the Fair Tax is taxing at a lower rate than the Flat Tax, this is untrue. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH.
You guys are trying to mislead people into believing they can have their cake and eat it too.
The NRST would do away with IRS hassles for many people. Don't oversell it.
BTW just for grins. I will bet any of the NRST folks $20 that if the Fair Tax is passed within 10 years there will be a tax on business profits. They won't call it an income tax but will insist that it's 'unfair' that the 'rich' corps don't pay their 'fair share'. This will be like shooting fish in a barrel for the dems.
So if you win be sure to keep that bet in mind!
37 Posted on 12/16/1999 15:22:38 PST by Leto
To: Leto
"The assumptions on compliance cost and effects of corporate taxes are grossly exaggerated. The flat tax form
takes less than 2 minutes to fill out the compliance cost is $.31, the cost of a stamp. Also income (wages and
corporate profits) is taxed once."
Then take it up with Dr. Dale Jorgenson, Chairman of
the Economics Department at Harvard University. He has projected a producer price reduction of 20 to 30
percent in just the first year after the adoption of the FairTax. In addition, the FairTax will lower compliance
costs by more than 90% and the removal of these costs will force prices down even lower.
Get back to me when you get a response back from Dr. Jorgenson after telling him how far off he is....deal?
40 Posted on 12/16/1999 15:50:50 PST by CHIEF negotiator (Visualize Whirled Peas!)
To: Leto
The assumptions on compliance cost and effects of
corporate taxes are grossly exaggerated.
The dominant compliance costs are those businesses must expend
to calculate an accurate return. The Forbes Flat tax does not
remove the deductions/exemption and depreciation schedules not
complex rules for calculating such and even determining whether
or not a business activity is qualified for such in the code.
Those cost are paid to expensive accounting departments and
attorneys to assure compliance, as such are loaded into the price
of the business' products as a cost.
If anything such costs have been underestimated as opposed to
overestimated in terms of their effect on the price of a product
delivered to the Citizen Customer, who pays of all costs of
compliance at the retail register.
If you have better numbers, show your analysis and
source.
The flat tax form takes less than 2 minutes to fill
out the compliance cost is $.31, the cost of a stamp.
Only to a Citizen with no business or complex investment
considerations.
I will bet any of the NRST folks $20 that if the Fair
Tax is passed within 10 years there will be a tax on business
profits.
A tax on laid on business profits is an income tax by
definition. "income from whatever source derived" and
would be explicitly abolished by amendment to the Constitution
through H.R.2525's sister bill H.J.RES.45 proposing the amendment to
accomplish that. Be damn'd difficult for em to undo that.
Gary and Aldonna Robbins of the TEXAS-BASED Institute for
Public Policy were the ones pointing out the high compliance
costs hidden within prices. So how do you take exception with
them.
where is an alternative study showing different?
41 Posted on 12/16/1999 16:04:01 PST by ancient_geezer
To: Leto
The assumptions on compliance cost and effects of corporate taxes are grossly exaggerated. The flat tax form takes less than 2 minutes to fill out the compliance cost is $.31, the cost of a stamp.
So filling out the form is all there is to compliance huh! That sir is a truly STUPID statement!
Also income (wages and corporate profits) is taxed once.
That is also that which eminates from the south end of a north bound horse! Corporation are nothing but a collection of individuals who collectively own a business. You would tax our profits at the corporate level AND THEN AGAIN AFTER THEY (THE AFTER TAX PROFITS) HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO INDIVIDUAL SHAREHOLDERS!
47 Posted on 12/16/1999 16:49:08 PST by Bigun (IRSsucks@getridofit.com)
To: Leto
the flat tax will tax income once at it's source.
And when that source is a business up the line of production,
it gets added in to the price that business charges its
customers. It remains hidden from the end customer an the retail
register perceived as Inflation not a tax.
Business and the Economy get blamed for what Gubermint and
ReproBates & DemonCraps are do'n to the cost of just buy'n
things.
Ultimately the issue is the amount of GDP goverment
consumes;
Which remains unlimited as long as people dot no perceive the
damage done to their lives in a direct immediate way. A good
argument for an NRST.
and the ability of the IRS to make capricious,
arbitary decisions that allow the to persecute people.
So get rid of an officious, overbearing, intrusive, obnoxious
bureaucracy, the IRS, and institute an NRST that reduces the need
of such to get into Citizen's lives to zilch.
48 Posted on 12/16/1999 17:08:52 PST by ancient_geezer
To: Leto
Business's pay a flat 17% on their profits there are
no complex deductions or exemptions.
To the best that I have been able to determine, and according
to Muttley(?), the Forbes FlatTax is the same as Dick Armey's
proposal. Forbes' just adds that he wants to privatize Social
Security as well (if Congress and AARP et.al. can be convinced).
Armey's proposal retains and defines the outline of an exemption/deduction structure of
necessity.
Businesses take their gross revenues less their cost's
and pay 17% on their profits. Simple Huh?
Costs are defined by deduction/exemption and depreciation
rules, not simple at all, especially when you have 1000's of
competing interests trying to define what cost is for a business.
That is the problem with any income tax.
Any income tax proposal, flat square or round, must retain an
exemption/deduction structure of necessity, businesses have to be
able to deduct costs from the revenue stream to be able to
determine profit on which they pay taxes.
As long as that structure exists, lobbiests and socialists
will continue play in it, creating the nightmare code that
currently exits to define things for political ends. The Forbes'
Flat income tax does not, can not, do away with that reality.
That is an inherent part of determining the profit on which tax
is owed. That is why the Forbes proposal does not call for the
abolishment of the IRS, they are need to administer and enforce
the provisions of the Code's exemption/deduction structure.
49 Posted on 12/16/1999 17:36:42 PST by ancient_geezer
To: CHIEF negotiator, leto
OK guys! Lemme have it...where are the numbers off? Be certain that all of the assumptions are taken into account. It's one thing to say the numbers are wrong - it's another to tell me which one is wrong and what it should be. Tell me which one is wrong, and why, so that I may review the calculations, OK? Otherwise it's no use.
I'm certainly capable of making an error - please point it out to me, OK Leto?
52 Posted on 12/17/1999 07:26:25 PST by Principled
To: Leto
You'd get the same numbers from everyone, LETO. The only thing that would make the numbers different is if folks use different ASSUMPTIONS. As Dr. Jorgenson's assumptions are highly rexpected by all (except you, apparently), his assumptions were used.
If you have a problem with Dr. Jorgenson's methodology, point out what it is! If your problem with Dr. Jorgenson is nothing more than he fails to support your posiiton, tough crap.
55 Posted on 12/17/1999 07:34:55 PST by Principled
To: Leto
Businesses take their gross revenues less their cost's and pay 17% on their profits.
This is simple in words, Leto. But in reality "costs" must be legally defined. It's defined using CPA's, Lawyers, tax accountants, and millions of dollars in time.
There IS significant compliance cost associated with the flat income tax.
56 Posted on 12/17/1999 07:37:33 PST by Principled
To: CHIEF negotiator, leto
And here it is:
The current U.S. income tax system suffers from a multitude of defects that are well recognized by those who have to comply with the tax code each year. A major objective of the NST plan is to fix those deficiencies. For example, an NST should promote higher rates of economic growth by dramatically reducing the tax bias against work, savings, and investment. The marginal tax rate on consumed income that workers and investors face would be much lower, and the return on savings and investment would not be taxed until spent. Moreover, an NST would reduce economically inefficient distortions in the pattern of investments that are now dictated largely by tax shelters, deductions, and special-interest loopholes.
Although the magnitude of the economic growth generated by a single flat-rate tax system generates lively debate
among economists, the large marginal tax rate reductions in any NST plan--or an Armey-Forbes style flat-rate income tax plan--combined with neutral tax treatment of savings vs. consumption, will have powerful positive effects on the economy. Work by Harvard economist shows a 13 percent initial increase in the gross domestic product and a 9 percent long-range increase. [5] Similarly, Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff predicts a 7 to 14 percent increase in national output within 20 years, about half of which
occurs within 2 years. [6]....
It's a good article! So what now Leto? Do you still have a problem with Dr. Jorgenson's numbers? This came from CATO institute....so whadayya think?
57 Posted on 12/17/1999 07:46:25 PST by Principled
To: Leto
No depreciation rules, capital eq cost are taken from
gross income when the equipment is being paid for.
Leto, show us where in Forbes flat tax that the rules,
deduction/exemptions are simplified. Show us where he locks the
definitions of deductible items in cement. Show us a bill that
defines any of that Leto, there is none. Show us the
Constitutional amendment that locks it in concrete Leto.
You say the assumptions are overstated, show us an independant
study of a recognized authority that disagrees with Cato
institute, and Dr. Jorgenson. I haven't see it yet, and neither
have you. You are blowing hot air.
We had a 2 bracket rate structure, simplified code, lowered
rate under Reagan, where is it now after 6000+ changes once the
DumboCrats took control of Congress back; Once the business,
environmental, multitude of special interest lobby's got their
meat hooks into the code.
The income tax, any income tax primary function is social and
economic control and a propaganda tool Leto. That was why the
income tax was so highly regarded by Karl Marx that he made it
the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto. It don't stay dead
unless it is outright recinded and put in a grave with a stake in
its heart. You can only do that by replacing it with an NRST
Leto.
61 Posted on 12/17/1999 08:48:37 PST by ancient_geezer
To: Leto
The assumptions are overstated.
Sorry, Leto. That's no better than just saying they're wrong. WHAT specifically is overstated? If your assertion were true, you must then tell us specifically what is overstated AND you must provide evidence that supports your assertion.
Should you choose to respond, I gladly consider your evidence. If you can SHOW me, with reasonable evidence, where the assumptions are overstated, then I will refigure the numbers, no problem.
Please remember, Leto, that your evidence must be strong enough to refute Dr. Dale Jorgenson, Chair of Economics at Harvard....oh yeah AND the CATO institute.
63 Posted on 12/17/1999 09:08:24 PST by Principled
To: hopespringseternal
This is the realization that turned me into a FairTaxer. Any income tax ends up being legislated inflation because it just gets passed around.
People pushing any type of income tax just don't get it. The consumer always bears the burden of any tax. By taxing the consumer directly, a true picture of the tax burden emerges, and the size of government. Anything besides a sales tax is a license for politicians to steal.
65 Posted on 12/17/1999 09:21:34 PST by Bigun (IRSsucks@getridofit.com)
To: hopespringseternal
As the above tables show is that NO ONE pays a 23% NRST as a percent of income because of the rebate.
Take a family of four. The Dept. of Heath and Human Services has determined that the "poverty level" for that family has an income of $22,120.
23% of that is $5,088. That figure is the rebate the family receives in advance broken down in equal monthly installments of $424. So their effective NRST tax rate would be Zero.
If that same family earns $31,200, their rate will be 6.26%
At $46,800 the rate is 11.83% and at $62,400 it's 14.63%.
66 Posted on 12/17/1999 09:58:11 PST by CHIEF negotiator (Visualize Whirled Peas!)
To: Leto
You'd get the same numbers from everyone, LETO. The only thing that would make the numbers different is if folks use different ASSUMPTIONS. As Dr. Jorgenson's assumptions are highly rexpected by all (except you, apparently), his assumptions were used.
If you have a problem with Dr. Jorgenson's methodology, point out what it is! If your problem with Dr. Jorgenson is nothing more than he fails to support your posiiton, tough crap.
WHAT specifically is overstated? If your assertion were true, you must then tell us specifically what is overstated AND you must provide evidence that supports your assertion.
Should you choose to respond, I gladly consider your evidence. If you can SHOW me, with reasonable evidence, where the assumptions are overstated, then I will refigure the numbers, no problem.
Please remember, Leto, that your evidence must be strong enough to refute Dr. Dale Jorgenson, Chair of Economics at Harvard....oh yeah AND the CATO institute.
I hope you're doing some research to answer the many questions you left by posting crap!
68 Posted on 12/17/1999 16:56:43 PST by Principled