Lunch&Taxes HOWMUCH

[MerlinYoda]

If you're going to follow the link that "FairTaxisaLie" is practically spamming all throughout this comment section, do yourself a favor and read the *whole report*. FairTaxisaLie is only presenting very specific data for ideological reasons. Data which is based upon *intentionally unreasonable assumptions* (a worst-case scenario of sorts) in order to to an exhaustive study on the matter at hand. Read the whole report and you will see how you would personally benefit under the FairTax

[CCDesigner71]

@FairTaxisaLie READ IT: tinyurl re593htl

[FairTaxisaLie]

@CCDesigner71 Close, but the Americans For Fair Taxation's own data is at tinyurl 593htl. The facts are there for those who understand them, and who understand Table 13 and Table 5.

[FairTaxisaLie]

For those who have read page 30 on of the research: you understand that on avg. this tax would raise the taxes of those who make from $15k-$150k a year, and that that is a tax raise on the middleclasses. If you understand Table 13 you see that the claimed "lifetime utility" increase for most middleclass in their models comes from it dropping them into poverty. So: are they truly better off, paying 100s or 1000s more most years and paying maybe a couple of hundred less in 1 out of 7 or so?

[FairTaxisaLie]

(cont) ... of 7 or so? The trick is built-in with how they set up and define "gainers" and "utility"("well-being")-- they set it up so the middleclass example person is "gainer" by falling into poverty every few years, because what they call the the "static" model shows that in any year, if one's income is from $15k-$150k, one would likely lose under FT/NASTI. So to be a "gainer" under their model, most middleclass would have to fall into poverty every few years-- hardly a gainer in reality.

[FairTaxisaLie]

I think that merlinyoda is starting to see the trick the "Fair" Tax researchers did to make it seem that the middleclasses "utility" ("well-being") would go up even though on average the folks who make from $15k-$150k would have a negative utility (well-being gone down, basically because they would pay more in taxes than they do now). The researchers state that income mobility is a better way of evaluation utility, and they set up a model starting (continued)

[FairTaxisaLie]

(cont)a model starting "utility" at 1, and they then claim the middleclasses have an increase in utility("well-being") because of changes in income from year to year. But since any year in which an example person's income is between $15k-$150k the utility of that person stays relatively stagnant or goes down, how could they have his utility GO up over time? The only way to increase utility significantly in their model is for the person to either sink below $10k or (cont2)

[FairTaxisaLie]

cont2)below $10k or rise above $150k. Guess which is more likely-- you guessed it, income dropping. Whenever the example person's income drops below $10k, his utility relative to the year before INCREASES-- that is, they are claiming his "well-being" goes up whenever his income drops out of the $15k-$150k range and into poverty. IN the real world, of course, we know this is ridiculous, so how do they justify this claim? Because in the income mobility model  they are not (cont3)

[FairTaxisaLie]

cont 3)they are not comparing the income levels to previous years, they are comparing to whther that a person of that income level would be better off, have lower taxes, than under the current system we have. Since people who make less than $10k would be better off than NOW, they call this an increase in utility overall THEN in their model. So even though every year a person makes from $15k-$150k under the "Fair" Tax he would likely e worse off than under the current system (cont4)

[FairTaxisaLie]

cont4)the current system (their data states this, argue with them if you disagree) they have his overall lifetime utility ("well being") under the "Fair" Tax increase by having him fall into poverty every few years, to boost up the utility-- a completely unrealistic setup. To view an example of them doing this, just take a look at Table 13 at tiny url 593htl, and pay particular attention to years 7-8 and 15-16-- those years are the "sink into poverty, well-being goes up" years. (cont5)

[FairTaxisaLie]

cont5)So, according to the researchers' model as set up: the middleclass people on average will be better off because of this great income mobility which is,in most cases: they will fall into poverty every few years.

Many supporters who tout the "middleclass utility is UP under the Fair Tax (even though they pay more in taxes)!" line have not bothered to see how the researchers created this claim. If they had, they would see the bogus aspects of it.

It is a middleclasses tax raise.

[MerlinYoda]

@FairTaxisaLie "It is not debateable, it is on their page." So because you point to *one* chart that measures household utility (and not how much less taxes people will pay) that you've determined all response null and void.

Maybe you should read some of that report yourself:

"This means that we get a very inaccurate picture of how a tax change affects a household over the future if we do not allow for the fact that most households experience changes in their income over the years."

[TXFairTaxer]

@MerlinYoda I feel that @FairTaxisaLie is simply incapable of losing an argument. No matter what we say, he will always fall back on this blanket statement that "[EVERYONE] making from $15,000 to $150,000 would pay more" even though he isn't looking at the big picture. My wife and I fall within that range and we will pay less. So that leads me to believe there are others like me who will also pay less. He just doesn't get it. Probably never will.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@TXFairTaxer Now you fall back on strawman, making stuff up. Clearly you are not understanding that "on average" means MOST will pay more in taxes, not "everyone", as you falsely claim I stated. You can cling to your dream all you want, the facts are straight from the supporters' site. Again, you go the selfish route-- because you would be better off, you are for it no matter if most others are worse off. And that "leads me to believe" cracks me up-- keep ignoring their own research, lol.

[TXFairTaxer]

@FairTaxisaLie LOL, you're the one who fell back on the strawman, not me. And now you're backstepping to make it look like me who is wrong. From the beginning you have been claiming "those making from $15,000 to $150,000 would pay moer/"lose"". You made that blanket statement, not me. You did not say "on average" or "some of those...". You made it pretty clear that [EVERYONE] will lose. So, please, just step back and eat crow now before it turns into a tom turkey.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@TXFairTaxer the RESEARCHERS make that statement, it is a quote, and applies to income ranges, not all INDIVIDUALS separately, lol. Again, you a re confused because you do not understand that I stated "on average" most would pay more, which is , again, from supporters' own research if you would go read it lol. "Mid-income category households would lose because the FairTax would impose a relatively higher tax rate on them."-- direct quote from the research. Stop being lazy, go read it.

[CCDesigner71]

@FairTaxisaLie I have read it many times, and every time I come up with the same conclusion: That you are taking things out of context. Yes, that line is a direct quote, but if you put it back into context, you will understand that what they are saying is based on assumptions that "are correct only if every household remains in the same income bracket throughout its life". Look at the 1st sentence of the paragraph following that "Now let us consider a more realistic scenario". (cont1)

[FairTaxisaLie]

@CCDesigner71 YOu almost have it-- the assumptions are correct except for income between $15-$150k, they admit. So.. . TO WHAT INCOME LEVEL does the person's income have to go for the utility to come out postive? Either above $150k (not very likely according to their model and reality) or below $10k. So what happens is their model makes the average middleclass utility go up by DROPPING the person into poverty every few years and saying he/she has an increase in "well-being"-- that is the trick.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@CCDesigner71 Correcting my last, should read "the assumptions are correct for incomes that fall between $15k to $150k"

[CCDesigner71]

@FairTaxisaLie (cont1) The conclusions reported in Tables 9 and 11 are correct only if every household remains in the same income bracket throughout its life, which is of course not the case. In practice, there is

considerable income mobility. For example, Gottschalk and Danziger show that just 57.9% of those in the middle 5th of the income distribution were still there in 1992, while 21.0% of these people had moved up at least one quintile and 21.0% had moved down at least a quintile. (cont2)

[FairTaxisaLie]

@CCDesigner71 You are halfway there...now, go to and understand TABLE 13. Once you do you wil realize the fudging they are doing-- they are having the avg. "lifetime utility" go up by having the model drop the middleclass earners,who have a negative "utility"("well being") under Fair"Tax compared to current system, into POVERTY (who would have a positive utility compared to the current system- a few hundred dollars up) every few years. Again, pay attention to years 7-8 and 15-16 in TABLE 13.

[CCDesigner71]

@FairTaxisaLie (cont2) READ THE ENTIRE SECTION. By taking things out of context you are ruining your chances of benefiting under the FairTax.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@CCDesigner71 You need to reread my complete explanation of what they are doing with the "income mobility" trick, you seem to still not understand because you come back with the same argument when you quote thir "income mobility" paragraph. Tables 9 and 11 are the case of the "Fair" Tax lowering the well-being on average for $15k to150k earners. Table 13 is the table to understand to see their "income mobility" argument-- and the income mobility they use as a positive is INTO poverty, < $10k.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@TXFairTaxer "So that leads me to believe there are others like me who will also pay less" lol... some would pay less (especially those making > $150,000 a year, but most of the middleclasses would pay more), I never said "everyone"- you made that up. Again, to question the fact that the middleclasses on avg would pay more, you are questioning the "$22million of research" that supporters' paid for. In doing so you are questioning the very foundations of the tax you are so in love with, lol.

[TXFairTaxer]

@FairTaxisaLie Did you not listen to a word I said? Do you think I'm some rich punk sitting here debating you because I have nothing better to do with my time or money? Both my wife and I work our glasses of 50-60 hours a week to bring home <$50,000 between the two of us. When I say that I WILL benefit from the FairTax, I don't mean that I will IF I make $150,000. Again, STOP trying to tell people how they will fair under the FairTax. WORRY ABOUT YOURSELF.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@MerlinYoda "changes in their income over the years "

Again, you are not seeing the whole picture. Take the above quote in your mind and then look at Table 13 and notice between what years there is a large utility("well-being") increase. They compare the example man making less than $10k (drop from $40k) in year 8 to NOW, not to what he was making in the previous year, and proclaim him better off than under the CURRENT tax system because he would pay a few hundred dollars less. Understand now?

[MerlinYoda]

Also, @FairTaxisaLie , charts are meaningless without context. The *context* you offer is not accurate. That chart describes utility differences given an unrealistic assumption (i.e. using 2007 data and assuming people will not move from those income ranges for the rest of their lives) to do a static analysis to see how the FairTax preforms under these circumstances and it *still* largely comes out ahead. Also these are "lifetime" utility differences: so -1.2%/24 years = -.05% per annum

[FairTaxisaLie]

@MerlinYoda The context I offer is absolutely what they have in the research, read it. Again,you miss the "mobility" trick the researchers are doing (since by income, those making from $15,000 to $150,000 would pay moer/"lose")-- when the incomes are mobile, guess which direction the middleclasse move move ? They move DOWN to less than $10,000 and the researchers call this an INCREASE in "well-being" because (here is the trick) people making less than $10k would be slightly better of THAN NOW.

[MerlinYoda]

@FairTaxisaLie "$15,000 to $150,000 would pay moer/"lose"" from the very chart you cite (Table 9) only the $50,000 - $74,999 and $100,000 - $149,999 ranges have negative values. where do you get that every bracket from $15,000 up to under $150,000 lose out? Are you even looking at the same chart you cite?

[FairTaxisaLie]

@MerlinYoda look at table 11, and also understand that all years past 2011 (4yars from start) are extrememly hypothetical, full of assumptions that the FT/NASTi would make a golden age booming economy . Note that those above $150,000 benefit from year 1 at 14.4%, while those in the middle all lose. If you total the yearly loses across, most of the middleclass would not catch up for 40-50 years even under the golden assumptions. They state clearly their result, the middleclasses "would lose".

[MerlinYoda]

Even if you're not "Mark" as you claim (even though your post style it the same and how he would link his aliases together through subscriptions), @FairTaxisaLie , you're as intellectually dishonest as he is. Do you even *read* the responses you receive and factor them into your analysis or do you just skim though them and copy/paste canned response in reply with minor tweaks? Trying to get you to admit where you are wrong when it's handed to you on a silver platter is like tilting at windmills.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@MerlinYoda Lol, my post style is nothing like his, and I do read the responses, and most FT fans, like you, refuse to accepts facts or even bother to go to Fair Tax org and check them out. It is a fact, their own researchers clearly state that most making from $15,000 to $150,000 a year on average would pay more in taxes under the FT/NASTI. It is not debateable, it is on their page. BUt go ahead, show me something you claim that I got wrong and I will gladly correct you with facts and data.

[FairTaxisaLie]

(continued) Since it is much much more likely that most folks' "mobility" will be falling below $15k rather than going above $150k, that is how their calculations get a "positive" utility for most of the middleclasses, even though on average they (again, $15k to $150k income) will be paying more in effective federal taxes-- they have them fall into poverty every few years. Does ANYONE think they would be better off dropping from $40k a year to less than $10k?

[FairTaxisaLie]

For those who have gone to the link I posted and who then get to the point where the supporters' researchers claim that "income mobility" is a more accurate representation, and they use this to claim nearly everyone gains "utility" under "Fair" Tax-- notice the trick they are pulling in Table 13 years 7-8 and 15-16 (tiny url 593htl). Less than $15k and more than 150k are positive utility range, in between is negative. (continued)

[FairTaxisaLie]

Again, the emotionally-wrapped-up fans of this foolish tax will spout ad hominem, will imagine that anyone not for this bad idea is some "Mark" dude, and will continually refuse to go to the link provided, which goes straight to the "22million$ of research" on supporters' own site, fair tax org, and read what it states... "Mid-income* category

households would lose because the FairTax would impose a relatively higher tax rate on them." (tiny url 593 htl, page 30 on)*$15k to $150k/year

Sad.

[MerlinYoda]

Also, @FairTaxisaLie , the point of this video isn't about the minutiae what the Income Tax guy is saying, it's about the fact that our *current* system is so convoluted that no one can easily calculate know what they'll pay in taxes even *without* factoring in deductions. If we factor in deductions, you have to figure out whether just to take the standard deduction or whether you qualify for enough deductions and credits to come out ahead ... and forget about planning ahead on your tax burden.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@MerlinYoda And my point is that on average folks making from $15,000 to $150,000 a year will pay more, according to SUPPORTERS' own research (tiny url 593htl, page 30 on)... "Mid-income category

households would lose because the FairTax would impose a relatively higher tax rate on them." Mid-income there is $15k-$150k a year.

[TXFairTaxer]

@FairTaxisaLie #1, You're taking Table 9 completely out of context. If you read the entire section and follow through to Table 10, you will understand that "Together these represent 27.2 percent of households, --- leaving one with the impression that --- more than a quarter of all households would lose from a switch to the FairTax."

They are intentionally showing you that if you falsely represent the FairTax, this is what will happen...and you're doing exactly that.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@TXFairTaxer You are not understanding it-- Table 9 is just the start of their argument, it is THEIR numbers, and it is a table based on income, and from which they state unequivocably that by income levels, those making from $15k to $150k a year will pay more on avg. . To try and get around this fact they come up with "income mobility is more accurate". Problem with their argument: the income mobility is DOWN, into poverty-- they claim this as a GOOD thing, a positive thing for a person.

[TXFairTaxer]

@FairTaxisaLie I'm going to leave you with this: Ever heard the phrase, "I don't want to hear about the birth, just show me the baby"? You are over-thinking this entirely. Stop analyzing how it "could" affect everyone else and focus on how it will affect -you-.

I know from running the numbers and doing the research that the FairTax will help me, my wife, my son, my mother, my father, my brother, my aunts & uncles, and my grand-parents. And yes, I have run the numbers for each of them. Good-bye!

[FairTaxisaLie]

@TXFairTaxer "Stop analyzing how it "could" affect everyone else and focus on how it will affect -you-."-- that is the exact problem with most fans who wil not look at the facts-- it would help them, so they don't care if most other people in the middleclasses would be hurt by it. See, I am not the one "analyzing" it--the research on their site is THEM analyzing it. So you would be better off,good for you, however, by their own research, most in the middleclasses ($15k-$150k a year)"would lose"

[TXFairTaxer]

@FairTaxisaLie "so they don't care if most other people in the middleclasses would be hurt by it." -- And why should they? If it helps more people than it hurts, then it would benefit the US more to have it. But if it hurts more people than it helps, then it would benefit the US NOT to have it.

The problem is that people like you -tell- people it won't benefit them w/o knowing the truth. You just worry about yourself and let others worry about themselves. Stop meddling in other people's lives.

[MerlinYoda]

@TXFairTaxer Agreed. I believe that the phase that best describes that is "not being able to see the forest for the trees". Heck, you can make firefighters seem like arsonists when they're constructing a firewall to halt the progress of a raging forest fire if all you focus on is them burning a small section of the forest that saves the whole rest of the forest.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@TXFairTaxer Again, you make up stuff-- do YOU know the truth? What is more accurate, what you imagine because YOU would pay less or the RESEARCH by supporters' that states that more would lose, and that it would on average hurt most of those those making from $15k to $150k a year. The problem is people like you won't even look at the SUPPORTERS" own research and see that I don't need to "tell", they do it for us all. Again-- tiny url 593htl, page 30 on, particularly the trick in Table 13.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@MerlinYoda And my point is that supporters' own research clearly states that most people who make from $15,000 to $150,000 a year will pay more (and in fact almost all will if they ever spend all of their income on taxable items-- rent, food, gasoline, utility bills). So your argument at this point boils down to "I want to pay more in taxes so I don't have to calculate my taxes every year."

[MerlinYoda]

@FairTaxisaLie We know its you Mark (a.k.a. ItchMyFoot, BullshipDetector, etc.) so you can drop it with the multiple YouTube profiles, it doesn't make your points and more sound. Your "truths" are the worst type of lies as you'll point to something that's true and point to something else that's true and then tie them together with either a complete falsehood to "prove" your point or blatantly overlook other facts which would disprove your conclusion *EVEN AFTER IT'S BEEN POINTED OUT TO YOU*!

[FairTaxisaLie]

@MerlinYoda As is usual for those so wrapped up emotionally in the "Fair" tax, you imagine that I am some Mark fellow, your ad hominem buddy, and you refuse to even go look at the facts, the link to which I have posted for you to make it easy (tiny url 593htl). You will continue deluding yourself that somehow the middleclasses (agfain, %15k-$150k a year) would pay less under FT/NASTI even though "Mid-income category

households would lose" (go to that link and read page 30 on).

[FairTaxisaLie]

Notice the trick being pulled by the "Fair" Tax dude in the video, right at the start, lol--"Keep it simple, throw out all the deductions".. uhh, no, that is not "keeping it simple" that is bad math--she HAS deductions, and they REDUCE the taxes she pays. The current federal effective tax rate for her would be somewhere between 6-8% and 17-18% (source: CBO), depedning on her deductions. Amer. for Fair Taxation org admits that this tax would on avg. raise the taxes of those making .$15k to $150k.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@FairTaxisaLie Self correction: they are making the guy with classes the "IRS" guy, not the "Fair" tax guy. That is misdirection, and my point is still valid-- the math in the video is bad, she HAS deductions, as do all taxpayers, and she would likely pay MORE under the "Fair" Tax aka National Sales Tax - Inclusive aka NASTI than she would now.

[TXFairTaxer]

@FairTaxisaLie That isn't "misdirection", it's misinterpretation on your part. The directors did an excellent job. Your point is not valid, because the FairTax eliminates the need for deductions. "She would likely pay more" ?? That just tells me that you're guessing. How about you? Have -you- used the FairTax calculator to see what -you- would save? Be honest, not with us, but with yourself. Go try it and see what -you- would save. Don't worry about her, or anyone else for that matter.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@TXFairTaxer You are missing the trick--"throw out the deductions" makes the CURRENT income tax actual effective rates seem higher than they actually are (4-17% or so for 80%of payers). She WOULD likely pay more because those making from $15k-$150k on avaerage would pay more under it. It is not the same as sales taxes now, it taxes nearly EVERYTHING at 30%exc/23%inc: rent, medical bills utility bills, gasoline, legal bills, plumbing bills, plus the usual--food, clothing, basic necessities.

[TXFairTaxer]

@FairTaxisaLie Remember the girl's question "how much will I bring home?"

"Deductions" are things that are taken from your paycheck; like wage garnishments, child support, insurance, etc., which will have no bearing before or after the FairTax because they would still be taken out of the person's check regardless. They are taken out before taxes and would remain untaxed after the FairTax. I fail to see your point in how they would make any difference in the ETR under the current tax system.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@TXFairTaxer Then the video is unclear-- most people think of "deductions" as those items subtracted from income (personal deduction, mortgage deduction, etc.) that reduce taxable income to AGI, which is then taxed. BY leaving out THOSE deductions, the math in the video is absolutely wrong (she would pay nowhere near 23.65%). And yes, insurance deductions on wages DO have a bearing under FT, because they would be taxed 23i/30e%.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@FairTaxisaLie Self correction, not "that reduce taxable income to AGI" it shoudl read "that reduce AGI to taxable income". AGI is before personal/HOH deduction, so taxable income is the lesser amount.

[TXFairTaxer]

@FairTaxisaLie No, watch it again. It's all about "What will I take home?" Regardless, you're still ignoring the fact that we are ALL paying embedded taxes on the goods/services we buy now because of the income tax system. Once our income taxes are eliminated, and once businesses no longer have the overhead of having to pay their share of our FICA taxes (AND no longer have B2B taxes), embedded taxes will all but be eliminated completely. (NOT immediately, but eventually).

[FairTaxisaLie]

@TXFairTaxer No, the "embedded taxes" falsehood ties in with the "take home your whole paycheck"-- if people take home their own paycheck, the only savings to business is their FICA 7.65% of wages. On top of that, Estate and Corporate taxes do not affect prices in most cases. So in the end, if people keep "their whole paycheck" the only savings to business is the amount they pay in now as their share of FICA, which is at most, and not really ever, 7.65%. Since the bottom 4 quintiles pay (contd)

[FairTaxisaLie]

@FairTaxisaLie Correction "own paycheck"= "whole paycheck"

[FairTaxisaLie]

@TXFairTaxer "embedded taxes" falsehood has been explained-- taxes are not "embedded" in the price of goods, wages are. From those WAGES people pay taxes at DIFFERENT RATES. Think it through. Example:

Joe Lawyer pays 25% in taxes currently, so under FT/NASTi he could drop his fees by 25%.. and then add the 30% sales tax (new fee= .975 of old).

Bob Lawyer pays 10% in taxes currently, so under FT/NASTi he could drop his fees by 10%.. and then add the 30% sales tax (new fee= 1.17 of old).

[TXFairTaxer]

//it taxes nearly EVERYTHING at 30%exc/23%inc: rent, medical bills utility bills, gasoline, legal bills, plumbing bills, plus the usual--food, clothing, basic necessities. //

AND THEN THERE IS THE PREBATE - WHICH UNTAXES ALL NECESSITIES. Amazing how you people continually forget that all necessities are untaxed on EVERYTHING up to the National Poverty Level.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@TXFairTaxer And then it taxes everything 30% of the retail-- amazing how you FT Fans do not understand that even with the prebate it would on average raise the effective (again, look it up, you seem not to understand what it means) federal taxes paid of folks who make from $15,000 to $150,000 (again, not a debateable point). Don't be afraid of the truth, go to tinyurl593htl and read page 30 on.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@TXFairTaxer Google "cbo historical effective federal tax rates" & "income tax quintiles" and you will see that it IS a falsehood in this video-- 1st quintile (about $18,000 a year) pays about 4% TOTAL (includes FICA and apportioned Excise and Corporate taxes) in effective fedtaxes, middle quintile (about $65,000) pays 12-15%. FairTax org's researchers Beacon HIll even state that the "lower quintiles would lose under the Fair Tax", paying higher effective rates under it than they do currently.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@TXFairTaxer "She would likely pay more" ?? That just tells me that you're guessing."-- this statement shows you don't understand that we are talking about income groups, not one person--we do not have enough data to declare how much she would pay, but ON AVERAGE those making from $15k-$150k will pay more. If they EVER spend their money they likely pay 23%-prebate, which is more for most middleclass people(and less for the wealthy, automatically, since 23%< their current effective rate.).

[TXFairTaxer]

@FairTaxisaLie "we do not have enough data to declare how much she would pay" -- So..you're agreeing with me? Good. Again, why don't you worry about yourself. If it doesn't work for -you- then fine. But don't tell anyone that "She would likely pay more", when you know you don't really have a clue that she would.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@TXFairTaxer Uhh, no, you are still not understanding-- she would likely pay more, that is because the stated income ($40k) falls within the range of households ($15-$150k a year) that would on average pay higher effective federal taxes under "Fair" Tax aka National Sales Tax Inclusive aka NASTI than now. The slim chance of her paying less is if she spent almost nothing. It is obvious you will not go to the link and check out supporters' own "research", instead clinging to your fantasy. Sad.

[TXFairTaxer]

@FairTaxisaLie I went to your link (and I've read it before), and have found that you will cling to -your fantasy- until you see that what you've posted is completely out of context. Go re-read the section and remember to take in phrases like "were we to make that unrealistic assumption" and "leaving one with the impression". You might then understand what BHI was trying to accomplish.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@TXFairTaxer ... bottom 4 quintiles pay 4-17% or so in current taxes, that is what they would have "extra" than now. When the prebate is added in, those making from $15,000 to $150,000 on average would still pay more than now. You should reread the BHI info again and pay particular attention to HOW they get the middleclass "utility" positive-- see Table 13, years 7-8 & 15-16. When you understand that table and what they are doing in it, you will understand the "mobility" trick they are pulling.

[TXFairTaxer]

@FairTaxisaLie The trick is that you're lost. Pay closer attention to who is talking. First, "Keep it simple, throw out all the deductions" is a line from the -Income Tax- guy. The FairTax has no need for deductions. Second, If you add up all the taxes being taken from someone making over $8,500, you have 22.65% (15% income tax + 7.65% payroll tax), after deductions you will have an effective tax rate between 11-18%. The effective FairTax rate (for someone spending that much) is less than 0%.

[FairTaxisaLie]

@TXFairTaxer What you state is false-- it does not matter whom they have stating the BS, it is BS, because throwing out the deductions makes the final rate he states she would pay as higher than it should be. In fact, the lower 4 quintiles of taxpayers pay TOTAL effective (if you do not know what that means look it up) federal taxes of around 4-17%. That total INCLUDES Fica and apportioned corporate and excise taxes. PS-- the "take home your whole paycheck" is falsehood, even Boortz admits.

[dtvgmedia]

Tourist would just buy American made "prices wont change" and effect tourist.

Global economy will just trade more and buy more American because their products with out embedded taxes compete better in international markets.

[krishnam1]

Should do wonders for the tourism industry! Never mind the global economy!

[BatteriesAreIncluded]

Just where does the Fair Tax ever claim that the government "will pay half its own revenue"? That is the first time I have heard that argument.

[chellybell1]

Yeah no kidding, Iowa Sea you are waaaaay off base here!

[Valetudo21]

Our current tax system is INSANE. When you can make a profession deciphering a system then that system may be over complicated. Banish the IRS!

Create a new government entity called 'CRS' or 'Citizens' Revenue Service'. We need NEW blood with FAIR thinking.

FAIR TAX

[FairTaxHub]

Posts including profanity and personal attacks have been and will continue to be removed.

FairTaxHUB is meant to push the FairTax conversation forward. The FairTax idea is powerful and would revolutionize this country economically and by extension socially. The current system is punishing work ethic and ambition...the very things a slowing economy needs more of. We at the HUB are not focused on what the tax percentage is or if government taxes its own services. Its the overall idea we need.

[RZEZZ]

Yeah, just keep on following the IRS like a good little sheep. If you really believe this rubbish that the people in power want you to believe, you are as gullible as any, or just about the worst accountant ever.

Baaaa good sheep.

[RZEZZ]

Yeah! Run away from this simple plan! God save the 68,000 regressive tax code!!!! LOL!

[NAGGERNUTZ]

I agree. I wish everyone would take the time to read the FairTax Bill (Plain English Version). You can even download it to your computer. I did. My wife is a CPA and has a Masters in Business from Duke University. She loves the FairTax. Her bother also has a masters in business from Duke and a law degree from WVU. He's currently a deputy attorney general, although I can't mention the state here. He specializes in tax. He loves it also!

[gopwing]

You are riot! LMAO How Silly

[proxythorobred]

1500 every two weeks and get taxed on what i buy verses getting taxed out of my check coming homing with only 1100 then getting taxed on ALL MY BILLS. not to mention if i randomly get pulled over.

[urgener]

Also, please be aware that our GROSS income might be slightly redused, to prevent prices from going up too far. Yes, our TAKE HOME pay will be the same, and YES there will be no deductions, but let's not promise that our CURRENT GROSS pay will become our future TAKE HOME PAY. That's just too good to be true, and STILL hold prices constant.

[ajpmathwiz]

Gross pay won't go down- people protest too loudly. Instead, after-tax prices will increase 6-11%, which is actually a good thing, because it is offset by increases in income and asset values, but constitutes a transfer of the tax burden to people who are either breaking the law, avoiding taxes, in the country illegally, or don't live here.

[GrannyStewart]

Another AWESOME video! Even a grandmother can understand it!!! YAY!! Somebody KNOWS how to communicate, finally.

[realblonde7]

Beautifully simple. Thanks above poster for pointing out that the FairTax repeals Amendment 16, the Income Tax. Of course that is Federal.

[cpltony]

A know they say 'you bring home every penny' but you still have to pay state income taxes 'IF' your state has an income tax. But the states would benefit from going to a state consumption tax after the FairTax passes.

Still 110% better!!