One of the "tricks" of the Fair Tax: backers will claim their models show the economy is "better",GDP up, but it depends on how one defines "better", as having a higher GDP does NOT mean that the increase is going to all citizens. HOW is the GDP increase achieved? By taxing the middleclasses more, in effect making them work MORE to have to have the same life as now, while the income of the wealthy skyrockets at lower tax rates than they pay now. Yes, the wealthy would have it "better"....
@1969was1969 Research by Kotlikoff and Rapson shows that current federal marginal tax rates on labor are higher than they would be under the FairTax for all of the stylized single and married households he considered at 42 income levels. (NBER Working Paper No. 15233, revised October 2006, "Comparing Average and Marginal Tax Rates under the Fair Tax and the Current System of Federal Taxation.")
The "savings would increase" argument does not work...
if it were to pass (it won't, thank goodness), many would spend all of their savings BEFORE it was enacted, thus avoiding the price increases(remember, if "everyone keeps their whole paycheck", then end prices rise about 20-27% upon addition of the tax). IF people save more after enacted, the tax rate has to increase (revenue neutral, remember).
This tax is just a bad idea, increasing the middleclasses avg. federal taxes.
Your claim that prices will rise 20-27% is not correct. The following business costs will go away: (a) 15.3% payroll tax, (b) 33rd highest corporate tax rate among 34 OECD countries, (c) "tax-efficiency" costs estimated by GAO as 2 to 5% of GDP, and (d) tax compliance costs (estimated at 15% for very small businesses that create jobs). More savings will create more investment, innovation, jobs, growth, and higher future living standards.
@DanDyer4 a)"15.3% payroll tax" No, if people keep their whole checks only 7.65 of that goes away, and that is not 7.65% of cost-of-goods, it is 7.65% of wages, so AT MOST likely about 2% of cost of goods overall.
b) "corporate tax rate among 34 OECD countries" -- Corporate tax rates do not have a direct effect on prices, they are an after-effect, taken from profits-- however, EVEN if we assume they do, they would amount to about 1.25% of the COG. (continued)
@DanDyer4 c) Tax efficiency would not drop to 0% (that is a no tax at all situation),and as the GAO themselves state "However, the actual efficiency costs of the current tax system may not fall within this range..."
d) "15%" is a very dubious number, e.g. would a dentist with overall costs of $1million a year pay $150,000 in "tax compliance costs" (i.e, accounting work)? Highly unlikely.Would need a source on that. As someone who has owned several small businesses, it seems to run at most 1-5%.
@DanDyer4 "More savings will create more investment" this is not really true, but assumming it is-- fair tax is set at 23% of current sales to be revenue neutral. If people start saving more (albeit unlikely for the middleclases, since they will pay more in taxes then just to stay at the same level as now), and sales sink, the taxrate has to go up to maintain the same revenues, and sales sink more, and the rate goes up, and-- well, it is clear the economy would collapse if people saved much.
@laudanum4u My name is not Mark, don't get paranoid. Those numbers, official data, include all federal income, social insurance, corporate, and excise taxes. The only folks who would pay less under FT/NASTI are those making less than $10,000-$20,000 a year (who will be a few hundred dollars better off), and those who make more than $150,000 a year (who will be tens of thousands to milliions of dollars better off). Those in the middle would pay more in federal taxes and be worse off.
@FairTaxisaLie sorry dude. you have something close to one of his 20 screen names. no offence intended. as far as your comment. I know the source now. you're not misquoting. I'll even agree. I just feel the middle class will benefit from the economic boost, the Fairtax allows for,.that will more then make up for it. anyone with even a touch of savvy for investing will make a ton. just my opinion
I think the real argument for the fair tax is that it would give the people financial leverage over the government instead of the government having financial leverage over the people in other words the people would have the power 365 days a year as opposed to every other November 2. Also it's a taxation of choice and not one of force which I think is absolutely appealing to a free people.
first, thank you for your presentation. I have two problems with this. 1. the pre-bate, for get it tax every one equally. too many people use the system because it does not cost them anything. 2, this does not talk about alcohol cigarette, gas taxes etc. they will always find new hidden taxes to impose.
@Thewizzardof9 Thanks for your comments. 1. I think the pre-bate supports the principle of taxing everyone equally. 2. You have a point that the Fair Tax does not necessarily eliminate the "sin" taxes, but even so, it would be a huge improvement and it would kick the economy into high gear.
It takes two to cheat the Fair Tax rather than one, as happens now, on a Form 1040. People would be able to make quite a bit of money getting awards from the government for reporting merchants who cheat.
Dan - will this eliminate state income taxes? We get ripped off three ways here in Michigan: federal, state, and local income taxes. Enough is enough! I'm tired of seeing the corporations and the rich weasel out of paying their fair share while people like me face poverty in paying our share. Where is our relief?
@earlymusicus Having a federal Fair Tax would expose a lot of wasteful complexity in complying with state income taxes and create pressure to simplify taxes at the state level.
I already support the FairTax. Read the book, and talk to FairTax folks at the FairTax vendor booths at tea parties. Once we make it happen, we'll wonder why it took us so long.
A person in the 15% income tax bracket with a $500/mo rent has to earn $647 in order to pay their income taxes and payroll taxes and have $500 left over to pay the rent. Under the FairTax, the same $500 rent plus the 23% Fair Tax amounts to $649- a $2 increase, oh no! But then the prebate shows up and not only covers the extra $2 in the rent but refunds the Fair Tax on groceries, gas, utilities and more. Beware the lies and half-truths, America needs the FairTax.
"Investment property is not taxed under the FairTax, but the rents are taxed. Both owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing is taxable under the FairTax. With owner-occupied housing, the tax is collected up front at time of sale. With renter-occupied housing, the monthly rent is taxed as it is collected by the landlord."
I'm still sceptical. Fair Taxers say that the price of goods and services will stay the same because the 23% embedded taxes will be removed. What assurance do we have? Just because the cost of producing something goes down 23% dousn't necessarily mean the producer/retailer always lower the cost 23%. It's dirt cheap to move production to 3rd World Countries, but Companies don't pass ALL of those savings on to the consumer.
MuckRaker85 I have run a business before and maybe you have also. Example: Best Buy & Circuit City are across the street from each other. I'm on the 3rd corner your on the 4th. so that I can compete with big box and you I lower my prices 15%. You lower your 17% to compete with me. Now were competing with big box retailers who chose not to lower prices but who are now loosing because we now have more door traffic. You see it everyday with gas stations. Whats stops one from charging $10 per gallon
"Just because the cost of producing something goes down 23% dousn't necessarily mean the producer/retailer always lower the cost 23%."
Free market competition will force producers/retailers to lower costs/prices. If I were a retailer, I'd lower my prices and force the bigger guys to lower theirs or die. Don't you think WalMart would jump on this? They'd lower their prices just to get the jump on competition.
Unions and high labor costs forced most of the companies you mention to move overseas.
Due to the competiveness of the free market, you can bet prices will come down. Say you've got 3 companies making T-Shirts. One will obviously sell theirs cheaper because the volume will produce more revenue. Result? The other 2 will also compete for your business. After all, these businesses will know that YOU know how much is tax and how much is profit. There'll be no way to hide it.
Walmart has said they will drop their prices literally overnight. Free market competition (remember that?) will assure the cost of items go down. If a company doesn't drop their prices..another one will and they'll get the market share.
Yes that was clear in one of the vids. Rather than paying the taxes of the manufacturer, and assorted middlemen. The consumer will be paying taxes on the profits of the previously mentioned. I'm unsure, how one is better or worse than, the other. No wonder reform is so difficult. Sigh...
Forget the lazy. How about the worker, who doesn't buy into the consumption gain beyond life's necessities. They will pay lower taxes, but there in no guarantee they will save or invest in a manner that will help the general economy. The sales pitch sound good, but ifs and buts remain. don't they?
I'm sure there will be ifs and buts as with any new system of taxation. Speaking from my own experience, I don't think our spending habits will change any. It would really benefit us since we don't make too many major purchases unless we really need them. We'll be able to save much more.
@westkan If they save, it's very likely those savings will get be invested by the organization that holds those savings in a way that improves the economy.
many if not most(the only exception I can think of is motorized vehicles) manufactured items go through at least an importer distributor before the reach the retailer. How do their costs and, expectation of profit figure into the tax or ultimate altimate the consumer pays for an item?
Unlike a Value Added Tax (VAT), which taxes the value added at each stage of production/distribution, the Fair Tax applies only at the final step, the purchase by the consumer, who has to pay the sum total of the costs at all stages.
The fair tax is champion as a way to increase savings, by taxing consumption. That would mean less consumption. Private consumption is part of the formula to determine GDP. Will another formula be created for economists to judge the performance of the economy by?
Some people argue that the prebate is an additional source of income, like a welfare check, but it's NOT. It's just a refund of a portion of the taxes we will pay when we buy new retail stuff. It's the same rate as the tax rate.
I've also heard people argue that, if the tax rate is reduced, the prebate will be reduced and it will hurt the poor. But, that would only be true of the prebate were an additional source of income, which it isn't.
I donate to fairtax (.) org- $10.40 every month! =)
You said interest rates would decline by 1/4. Is that 1/4 or 1/4 of a percent. Is it really 1/4? That is conveniently right around 23%. Don't get me wrong, I love the fair tax but I want to be prepared for this question.
That's an interesting estimate. The interest on the 2 credit cards, that I still have to pay off the remaining balance on have rates less than 20%. For the time being, anyway.
Notice how the lemmings NEVER post any data? Notice how they can't come to grips with the fact that they have been bamboozled by Boortz?
Notice how they don't want to here the truth, because they cling desperately to their fantasy fail tax? Notice how even after having their accoutns deleted they come back under a new name and say the same old nothing?
Notice FairTax fans don't need to post numbers. The numbers are all on the FairTax web site or the books. It's not a FairTax supporter's job to post numbers, that's for the wannabe's.
I choose to accept the word of people who have actually accomplished something in life instead of those who've failed several times at business, living in low rent districts, whining cry babies who rat to admin because someone found out the truth. A failure in life and business that wants to be something he's not.
What the "Fair" Tax aka National Sales Tax-inclusive aka "Nasti" really is is a huge tax cut for the very wealthy and a huge tax raise for the middle class-- got to THE SUPPORTING "FAIR TAX" SITE and look at THEIR OWN "RESEARCH"-- tinyurl dotcomslash 593htl
... or be a sucker and a lemming and fall for the scam Boortz and the gang are pulling.
"Purchasing power will stay the same" This is incorrect-- and gets to the heart of the scam being pulled by backers of this tax... Effective Federal Tax Rates 2007(as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office), FICA/FT/Excise: 1ST Quintile: 5.7% 2nd: 12.3% 3rd: 15.9% 4th: 20% Top: 26.5% Top 1%: 30.9% These %ages INCLUDE employers' share of FICA &CIT also. FT fans confusion arises from being misled re:"embedded taxes"-- it is an AVG of taxes paid by people at different rates.
Finally! Thank you for a simple explanation of the 23 vs. 30% argument. With a $100 item, $23 goes to the Federal Gov't. Sounds like 23% to me! Sad that you will just never reach so many closed, ill-informed minds.
@waiting4guffman 23% is simply the inclusive tax rate. The exclusive tax rate is 30%. Example: widget costs $1000. $230 goes to feds. So, a 30% tax rate on $770 equals $1001.
You republican morons are mathematically challenged.
So you propose comparing the tax exclusive rate for the FairTax to the tax inclusive rate of the current system (personal, corporate, FICA taxes)? Youre comparing apples and oranges and seemingly so to ensure the current system remains. It doesnt matter what numbers you use, just make sure you use either all exclusive or all inclusive rates to compare FairTax to current system. It becomes a no-brainer when you're honest about the numbers.
@oterj0 Every unbiased study that I've read states the opposite. If it seems to good to be true, it probably is. The current proposal is simply not revenue neutral.
Every unbiased study states the opposite of exactly what? All I'm saying is you can look at the FairTax as 30% if you choose, just make sure when you compare to the income tax you use tax exclusive rates as well. What "studies" disagree with that logic?
One of the "tricks" of the Fair Tax: backers will claim their models show the economy is "better",GDP up, but it depends on how one defines "better", as having a higher GDP does NOT mean that the increase is going to all citizens. HOW is the GDP increase achieved? By taxing the middleclasses more, in effect making them work MORE to have to have the same life as now, while the income of the wealthy skyrockets at lower tax rates than they pay now. Yes, the wealthy would have it "better"....
1969was1969 3 months ago
@1969was1969 Research by Kotlikoff and Rapson shows that current federal marginal tax rates on labor are higher than they would be under the FairTax for all of the stylized single and married households he considered at 42 income levels. (NBER Working Paper No. 15233, revised October 2006, "Comparing Average and Marginal Tax Rates under the Fair Tax and the Current System of Federal Taxation.")
DanDyer4 3 months ago
The "savings would increase" argument does not work...
if it were to pass (it won't, thank goodness), many would spend all of their savings BEFORE it was enacted, thus avoiding the price increases(remember, if "everyone keeps their whole paycheck", then end prices rise about 20-27% upon addition of the tax). IF people save more after enacted, the tax rate has to increase (revenue neutral, remember).
This tax is just a bad idea, increasing the middleclasses avg. federal taxes.
1969was1969 3 months ago
Your claim that prices will rise 20-27% is not correct. The following business costs will go away: (a) 15.3% payroll tax, (b) 33rd highest corporate tax rate among 34 OECD countries, (c) "tax-efficiency" costs estimated by GAO as 2 to 5% of GDP, and (d) tax compliance costs (estimated at 15% for very small businesses that create jobs). More savings will create more investment, innovation, jobs, growth, and higher future living standards.
DanDyer4 3 months ago in playlist My Top Videos
@DanDyer4 a)"15.3% payroll tax" No, if people keep their whole checks only 7.65 of that goes away, and that is not 7.65% of cost-of-goods, it is 7.65% of wages, so AT MOST likely about 2% of cost of goods overall.
b) "corporate tax rate among 34 OECD countries" -- Corporate tax rates do not have a direct effect on prices, they are an after-effect, taken from profits-- however, EVEN if we assume they do, they would amount to about 1.25% of the COG. (continued)
1969was1969 3 months ago
One of your comments is incorrect, the other is misleading.
(a) The payroll tax goes away, so BOTH components go away, the 7.65% paid by the employer AND the 7.65% deducted from the employee's paycheck.
(b) You agree that corporate tax rates have an effect on prices, even if they are indirect.
DanDyer4 3 months ago
@DanDyer4 c) Tax efficiency would not drop to 0% (that is a no tax at all situation),and as the GAO themselves state "However, the actual efficiency costs of the current tax system may not fall within this range..."
d) "15%" is a very dubious number, e.g. would a dentist with overall costs of $1million a year pay $150,000 in "tax compliance costs" (i.e, accounting work)? Highly unlikely.Would need a source on that. As someone who has owned several small businesses, it seems to run at most 1-5%.
1969was1969 3 months ago
@DanDyer4 "More savings will create more investment" this is not really true, but assumming it is-- fair tax is set at 23% of current sales to be revenue neutral. If people start saving more (albeit unlikely for the middleclases, since they will pay more in taxes then just to stay at the same level as now), and sales sink, the taxrate has to go up to maintain the same revenues, and sales sink more, and the rate goes up, and-- well, it is clear the economy would collapse if people saved much.
1969was1969 3 months ago
@laudanum4u My name is not Mark, don't get paranoid. Those numbers, official data, include all federal income, social insurance, corporate, and excise taxes. The only folks who would pay less under FT/NASTI are those making less than $10,000-$20,000 a year (who will be a few hundred dollars better off), and those who make more than $150,000 a year (who will be tens of thousands to milliions of dollars better off). Those in the middle would pay more in federal taxes and be worse off.
FairTaxisaLie 8 months ago
@FairTaxisaLie sorry dude. you have something close to one of his 20 screen names. no offence intended. as far as your comment. I know the source now. you're not misquoting. I'll even agree. I just feel the middle class will benefit from the economic boost, the Fairtax allows for,.that will more then make up for it. anyone with even a touch of savvy for investing will make a ton. just my opinion
laudanum4u 8 months ago
I think the real argument for the fair tax is that it would give the people financial leverage over the government instead of the government having financial leverage over the people in other words the people would have the power 365 days a year as opposed to every other November 2. Also it's a taxation of choice and not one of force which I think is absolutely appealing to a free people.
ericbernaldo 9 months ago
first, thank you for your presentation. I have two problems with this. 1. the pre-bate, for get it tax every one equally. too many people use the system because it does not cost them anything. 2, this does not talk about alcohol cigarette, gas taxes etc. they will always find new hidden taxes to impose.
Thewizzardof9 11 months ago
@Thewizzardof9 Thanks for your comments. 1. I think the pre-bate supports the principle of taxing everyone equally. 2. You have a point that the Fair Tax does not necessarily eliminate the "sin" taxes, but even so, it would be a huge improvement and it would kick the economy into high gear.
DanDyer4 11 months ago
@carzamerica1
It takes two to cheat the Fair Tax rather than one, as happens now, on a Form 1040. People would be able to make quite a bit of money getting awards from the government for reporting merchants who cheat.
DanDyer4 1 year ago
Dan - will this eliminate state income taxes? We get ripped off three ways here in Michigan: federal, state, and local income taxes. Enough is enough! I'm tired of seeing the corporations and the rich weasel out of paying their fair share while people like me face poverty in paying our share. Where is our relief?
earlymusicus 1 year ago
@earlymusicus Great question! The Fair Tax will only correct federal taxes, but perhaps it will set a good example for state and local tax reform.
DanDyer4 1 year ago
@earlymusicus Having a federal Fair Tax would expose a lot of wasteful complexity in complying with state income taxes and create pressure to simplify taxes at the state level.
DanDyer4 11 months ago
I already support the FairTax. Read the book, and talk to FairTax folks at the FairTax vendor booths at tea parties. Once we make it happen, we'll wonder why it took us so long.
urgener 2 years ago 2
A person in the 15% income tax bracket with a $500/mo rent has to earn $647 in order to pay their income taxes and payroll taxes and have $500 left over to pay the rent. Under the FairTax, the same $500 rent plus the 23% Fair Tax amounts to $649- a $2 increase, oh no! But then the prebate shows up and not only covers the extra $2 in the rent but refunds the Fair Tax on groceries, gas, utilities and more. Beware the lies and half-truths, America needs the FairTax.
Piscivorus 2 years ago 2
The Fair Tax does not apply to rent. Only to retail sales and services. Rent is not a service.
capttheo1 2 years ago
(bobbiesfairtaxblog*blogspot*com/2007/11/does-fairtax-tax-rentals*html)
"Investment property is not taxed under the FairTax, but the rents are taxed. Both owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing is taxable under the FairTax. With owner-occupied housing, the tax is collected up front at time of sale. With renter-occupied housing, the monthly rent is taxed as it is collected by the landlord."
Idk, maybe it's out of date.
Piscivorus 2 years ago
I'm still sceptical. Fair Taxers say that the price of goods and services will stay the same because the 23% embedded taxes will be removed. What assurance do we have? Just because the cost of producing something goes down 23% dousn't necessarily mean the producer/retailer always lower the cost 23%. It's dirt cheap to move production to 3rd World Countries, but Companies don't pass ALL of those savings on to the consumer.
MuckRaker85 3 years ago
MuckRaker85 I have run a business before and maybe you have also. Example: Best Buy & Circuit City are across the street from each other. I'm on the 3rd corner your on the 4th. so that I can compete with big box and you I lower my prices 15%. You lower your 17% to compete with me. Now were competing with big box retailers who chose not to lower prices but who are now loosing because we now have more door traffic. You see it everyday with gas stations. Whats stops one from charging $10 per gallon
The1stHNIC 3 years ago 3
"Just because the cost of producing something goes down 23% dousn't necessarily mean the producer/retailer always lower the cost 23%."
Free market competition will force producers/retailers to lower costs/prices. If I were a retailer, I'd lower my prices and force the bigger guys to lower theirs or die. Don't you think WalMart would jump on this? They'd lower their prices just to get the jump on competition.
Unions and high labor costs forced most of the companies you mention to move overseas.
NAGGERNUTZ 3 years ago
Due to the competiveness of the free market, you can bet prices will come down. Say you've got 3 companies making T-Shirts. One will obviously sell theirs cheaper because the volume will produce more revenue. Result? The other 2 will also compete for your business. After all, these businesses will know that YOU know how much is tax and how much is profit. There'll be no way to hide it.
ziglet2008 2 years ago 2
Walmart has said they will drop their prices literally overnight. Free market competition (remember that?) will assure the cost of items go down. If a company doesn't drop their prices..another one will and they'll get the market share.
BritBoyProductions 2 years ago 2
Yes that was clear in one of the vids. Rather than paying the taxes of the manufacturer, and assorted middlemen. The consumer will be paying taxes on the profits of the previously mentioned. I'm unsure, how one is better or worse than, the other. No wonder reform is so difficult. Sigh...
westkan 3 years ago
Forget the lazy. How about the worker, who doesn't buy into the consumption gain beyond life's necessities. They will pay lower taxes, but there in no guarantee they will save or invest in a manner that will help the general economy. The sales pitch sound good, but ifs and buts remain. don't they?
westkan 3 years ago
I'm sure there will be ifs and buts as with any new system of taxation. Speaking from my own experience, I don't think our spending habits will change any. It would really benefit us since we don't make too many major purchases unless we really need them. We'll be able to save much more.
privateeyeman 3 years ago
@westkan If they save, it's very likely those savings will get be invested by the organization that holds those savings in a way that improves the economy.
DanDyer4 11 months ago
many if not most(the only exception I can think of is motorized vehicles) manufactured items go through at least an importer distributor before the reach the retailer. How do their costs and, expectation of profit figure into the tax or ultimate altimate the consumer pays for an item?
westkan 3 years ago
Unlike a Value Added Tax (VAT), which taxes the value added at each stage of production/distribution, the Fair Tax applies only at the final step, the purchase by the consumer, who has to pay the sum total of the costs at all stages.
DanDyer4 3 years ago
The fair tax is champion as a way to increase savings, by taxing consumption. That would mean less consumption. Private consumption is part of the formula to determine GDP. Will another formula be created for economists to judge the performance of the economy by?
westkan 3 years ago
Some people argue that the prebate is an additional source of income, like a welfare check, but it's NOT. It's just a refund of a portion of the taxes we will pay when we buy new retail stuff. It's the same rate as the tax rate.
I've also heard people argue that, if the tax rate is reduced, the prebate will be reduced and it will hurt the poor. But, that would only be true of the prebate were an additional source of income, which it isn't.
I donate to fairtax (.) org- $10.40 every month! =)
Piscivorus 3 years ago
"Will the fair tax ever happen?"
Nope.
TarkinRocher 3 years ago
Like women's suffrage and civil rights.
DanDyer4 3 years ago 2
You said interest rates would decline by 1/4. Is that 1/4 or 1/4 of a percent. Is it really 1/4? That is conveniently right around 23%. Don't get me wrong, I love the fair tax but I want to be prepared for this question.
jgposner 3 years ago
The estimate is that interest rates would go down by roughly 25%.
DanDyer4 3 years ago
That's an interesting estimate. The interest on the 2 credit cards, that I still have to pay off the remaining balance on have rates less than 20%. For the time being, anyway.
westkan 3 years ago
@westkan A 25% reduction in your 20% rate would make your rate 15%.
DanDyer4 11 months ago
It's mostly coincidence. The Fair Tax would greatly increase the savings rate, which would in turn cause interest rates to plummet.
ajpmathwiz 2 years ago
@jgposner If you're paying 20% on credit card debt, and there is a 25% reduction, your rate will be 15%.
DanDyer4 11 months ago
thanks dandyer, great videos and explanations!
gt8595b 3 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Notice how the lemmings NEVER post any data? Notice how they can't come to grips with the fact that they have been bamboozled by Boortz?
Notice how they don't want to here the truth, because they cling desperately to their fantasy fail tax? Notice how even after having their accoutns deleted they come back under a new name and say the same old nothing?
Diskatopia 3 years ago
Notice FairTax fans don't need to post numbers. The numbers are all on the FairTax web site or the books. It's not a FairTax supporter's job to post numbers, that's for the wannabe's.
I choose to accept the word of people who have actually accomplished something in life instead of those who've failed several times at business, living in low rent districts, whining cry babies who rat to admin because someone found out the truth. A failure in life and business that wants to be something he's not.
privateeyeman 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What the "Fair" Tax aka National Sales Tax-inclusive aka "Nasti" really is is a huge tax cut for the very wealthy and a huge tax raise for the middle class-- got to THE SUPPORTING "FAIR TAX" SITE and look at THEIR OWN "RESEARCH"-- tinyurl dotcomslash 593htl
... or be a sucker and a lemming and fall for the scam Boortz and the gang are pulling.
Diskwin 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Diskwin 3 years ago
These two videos were just awesome.
Piscivorus 3 years ago 3
Finally! Thank you for a simple explanation of the 23 vs. 30% argument. With a $100 item, $23 goes to the Federal Gov't. Sounds like 23% to me! Sad that you will just never reach so many closed, ill-informed minds.
waiting4guffman 3 years ago 3
@waiting4guffman 23% is simply the inclusive tax rate. The exclusive tax rate is 30%. Example: widget costs $1000. $230 goes to feds. So, a 30% tax rate on $770 equals $1001.
You republican morons are mathematically challenged.
aegisforex 1 year ago
@aegisforex
So you propose comparing the tax exclusive rate for the FairTax to the tax inclusive rate of the current system (personal, corporate, FICA taxes)? Youre comparing apples and oranges and seemingly so to ensure the current system remains. It doesnt matter what numbers you use, just make sure you use either all exclusive or all inclusive rates to compare FairTax to current system. It becomes a no-brainer when you're honest about the numbers.
oterj0 1 year ago
@oterj0 Every unbiased study that I've read states the opposite. If it seems to good to be true, it probably is. The current proposal is simply not revenue neutral.
aegisforex 1 year ago
@aegisforex
Every unbiased study states the opposite of exactly what? All I'm saying is you can look at the FairTax as 30% if you choose, just make sure when you compare to the income tax you use tax exclusive rates as well. What "studies" disagree with that logic?
oterj0 1 year ago