There really is no debate, as Americans For Fair Taxation's OWN RESEARCH states this fact: the "Fair" Tax aka National Sales Tax-Inclusive aka NASTI would on average raise the effective taxes (i.e. raise the amount of taxes they pay) of those making from around $15,000 to $150,000 ,and would on average lower the taxes paid by those who make more than $150,000 a year. It is a very bad idea, and would destroy the US economy if enacted. Thankfully it never will even be considered for a vote.
Even their own researchers admit it is regressive. Here is the quote from one of the Beacon Hill treatises on the AFT site:
"The key result of the foregoing discussion is that it matters fundamentally how one frames the discussion of the distributional effects of the FairTax. When people are sorted by expenditure per capita, the FairTax is progressive; when they are sorted by income per capita, it is regressive."
The math error of this video is evident in the graph at the :59 mark--if you get 100% of your current wages (nothing deducted),that is STILL an expense for the business.That money you are getting is part of the 22% of the left hand column. Therefore, the only savings to the business would be about 3-7% (no matching SS and no corpTax). ASsuming the best case (7%), upon adding the tax in prices would go up to .93*1.3, about or about 121% of now. These are rough estimates, but the concept is clear.
Sorry; perhaps you missed the part about where businesses are exempt. To answer your question ("WHERE IS THE MONEY NOW?"), you are already paying it. What that means is that businesses do not pay taxes now. They write the check, but they charge you at the point of sale. You end up paying it. Don't believe me? Check out Southwest Airlines' new statement on taxes and fees you're paying.
@masnick Businesses CANNOT be exempt under the 23%i/30%e rate, the method used top calculate the rates included business, therefore if businesss are excluded, for the tax to be higher, the rate has to be higher (somewhere in the range of 28-35%).
"they charge you at the point of sale. You end up paying it." this is false-- the employee pays it from his wages, you pay his wages. the businesses charge you, the cust., for WAGES, they cannot know what the incometaxes are, that is included in wages.
@masnick Now, think about the income taxes-- employees pay them in AT DIFFERENT RATES. Some pay 0% or less once they get a refund, some pay 30+%. Prices go up (estimates range from 10-25%) when the sales tax is added. Those paying 0% now lose. Those paying 30% win. This idea is shown in Fair Tax Org's own research, at tinyurl 593htl, page 30 on, esp. Table 13 years 7-8. They state clearly that those making from $15k to $150k a year "would lose" (would pay more in taxes on average than now).
The math mistake in the video is evident at :57, and it is the same mistake many fans of the "Fair" Tax make-- counting the same monies twice in the left hand column. See that "cost of labor"? That either INCLUDES most of the 22% he adds on at the top of the column as "federal taxes embedded"-- or the other column should have a 45-50 cost of labor if your employer gives you your WHOLE paycheck. The way to understand this is to see taxes as coming from employees wages, NOT as a separate item.
For proof that the "Fair Tax" aka National Sales Tax Inclusive aka NASTI would raise the taxes of those making from about $15k to $150k a year while greatly lowering the taxes of most who make from around $150k up, one only needs to read and understand pages 30 on of one of fairtaxorg's own "research" at tinyurl 593htl. Pay particular attention to table 13-- this is how they claim the middleclass is better off under FT/NASTI, by them FALLING INTO POVERTY LEVEL every few years (see years 7-8).
In general this tax is a much better system than the one we have. It stimulates American job growth, reduces paperwork, and does not deprive workers of the fruits of their labor. However, the idea of a rebate for grocery and other basic purchases is flawed because it involves a tax filing by those wanting the rebate and a bunch of bureaucrats to process it. The system could be improved by exempting basic necessities at the cash register on purchase. Let software manage this, not bureaucracy.
I'm not sure about fair tax. Even if people kept their entire pay check and did not have to pay income taxes, would they be able to afford things if they had to pay a 23% tax on every purchase? Maybe, maybe not.
@AresCassell The Nordic Countries have a 25% sales tax plus income tax. In Denmark we also pay a 8% tax on our total income (called wordforce-contribution), after that we can earn 42,900 DKK a year (around $7,800) which isn't taxed by income tax. Everything over that is taxed by 37%. If you earn over 389,900 DKK ($70870) a year, then that is taxed by an extra of 15%. Even with all this and we still live pretty comfortably, so a 23% sales tax shouldn't be a problem for you. :)
@AresCassell Here's why: Let's say a DVD costs $1 to buy. The business that created the DVD pays income tax of, say, 20% on its income. So, of the $1 you spent, 20 cents is going to the government in the form of the company's income tax.
If the Fair Tax were passed, the company would not owe the income tax. No company would. Pretty soon all companies would lower their prices to compete with each other. Net result: you pay same thing you pay right now for the DVD, but it includes the tax.
@masnick You're forgetting that every co. would be paying 30% tax on supplies, parts, elctrcty, water, rent, etc. Think the math through, it is impossible to generate revenues by paying exactly the same for it as now, otherwise WHERE IS THAT MONEY NOW? What you forget is that if employees get their WHOLE PAYCHECK (including amts deducted now for ss & inc.tax), then the company still has that as an expense. And if the employee DOESN'T get that money, they are worse off than now in most cases.
@FairTaxisaLie Re: your discussion about paychecks: If the employer doesn't have to withhold your money and give it to the Feds, then you get it. They company agreed when they hired you to pay you a certain amount per year; either you get it all and pay taxes when you buy something, or the Feds take a portion before you ever see it and it's up to you to do all the paperwork and file a return, hoping your math is right. Which is easier for you?
@masnick If you get it, it is still a cost for the business.Prices go up. This shows the trick of the "Fair"Tax-- the middleclasses would get to keep the little bit they pay in income/SS (0~15%) and the wealthy would get to keep what they pay (17~35%), and prices would go up when the FT is added (because the business still has most of the tax costs-- it is in the money they give to you instead of collect and send in-- either way it costs them. When the sales tax is added on, the midclasses lose.
State and county taxes would have to sky rocket to pay the federal government. All goods , services, and property would be taxed at 23% and then add State and local government taxes,. Where is the fed gov going to get the money for the family rebates? This is a fraud.
"Not every household would benefit equally, however. (edit) Mid-income category households* would lose because the FairTax would impose a relatively higher tax rate on them." tinyurl 593htl
*those making from $15,000 to $150,000 a year
This is from Americans For Fair Taxation's own research. Clearly, supporters cannot challenge the statement that it would raise the effective tax rates of the middleclasses, because doing so negates the research they base their other arguments on.
We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. Politicians love visible beneficiaries & invisible victims !
There is no such thing as a good tax. Politicians are leaches, mostly !
Three groups spend other people's money: children, thieves, politicians. All three need supervision.
For proof that the "Fair Tax" aka National Sales Tax Inclusive aka NASTI would raise the taxes of those making from about $15k to $150k a year while greatly lowering the taxes of most who make from around $150k up, one only needs to read and understand pages 30 on of one of fairtaxorg's own "research" at tinyurl 593htl. Pay particular attention to table 13-- this is how they claim the middleclass is better off under FT/NASTI, by them FALLING INTO POVERTY LEVEL every few years (see years 7-8).
The "Fair" Tax aka national Sales Tax- Inclusive aka NASTI would on average raise the federal taxes of those making from $15k-$150k a year while lowering the fed taxes of those making over $150k a year. This is not debateable, it is from supporters' own site and "research".
How do they claim the middle classes will still be better off, then? By asserting that if one's income drops from $35k to $10k a year, one is better off. Does any sensible person think that way? tinyurl 593htl, table 13.
Or even better, Read Federalist Papers #21- if you know what that is which I doubt. The point I was making in my first reply was that there is a natural defense to high taxes because no one could buy anything so taxes have to stay low. They would never be @ 60%. Idiot.
Why isnt it a real plan? In every product made up in the cost there is usually about 23% Federal taxes that the business passes to the end user (buyer). That is not a made up number- people do research and study this. The Fair Tax wipes out this 23% and replaces it was a sales tax. Then your payroll and income tax at wiped out and you keep all of you paycheck and the feds still get their money, just on the supply side. Read the book before you make such ignorant statements.
If taxes via the fairtax were 60-90% then no one would buy anything thus what would be the point of the tax if no money could be raised? the point of taxes is to raise money. idiot
@JKendall2012 No kidding dumb fuck, that is why Fairtax is goofy. That is why they told your dumb ass that it would be 23%, and that prices would drop 22%. Fairtax leaders know their own plan is goofy.
It's not a real plan, it's a fucking gimmick, a farce, a pile of shit.
I have a question as to how enough revenue could be generated to provide each American family with rebates from the government on necessities. I mean, it really sounds too good to be true, that some new form of taxes could come out of nowhere and just fix our economy while somehow being cheaper than the current tax system we have. If you could explain it to me in greater detail, I would be eager to listen.
@ThatOneAccount931 They aren't promising you to give you enough money for necessities, you dumb ass.
God fucking almighty people are stupid. They are promising to give you enough to pay the TAXES on necessities. Of course, it's all bullshit, they are lying. See my vidoes about it. Click on my name, find my channel, see the vidoes.
@ItchMyFoot I did understand that the government wasn't going to pay for all the necessities that American families needed but rather the taxes on them. I suppose I didn't phrase it well. However, I do not appreciate you attacking me and then asking me to go and watch YOUR videos after you just called me a 'dumb ass'. I recommend that if you would like people to watch your videos, do not insult them prior to them doing so.
@ItchMyFoot Regardless that you are "tired of really stupid people", you have no right to call people names. Particularly those who are trying to educate themselves by asking questions. You claim to dislike those people who you believe to be less intelligent than yourself however, how can anyone increase their knowledge without asking questions? May I inquire as to your qualifications that allow you to so rudely judge the intelligence and lack thereof of an individual?
fairtax201, You saw THEIR bullshit and it seems pretty SOLID? YOu stupid fuck, go see Fairtax exposed, moron.
Fairtax isnt 23 or 30 or 50% -- it's a fucking hoax, a farce,they pretend to tax the GOVERNMENT to get that 23% to "work" Got that ? Too hard for you? Only people pay taxes -- they got 40% of their "revenue" coming from "government"
Fairtax is a fairy tale -- a farce. It's all lies, it's all bullshit. Sure, you can have a national sales tax, instead of all these other taxes. That part is true.
But it can't be anything close to 23%. Try 60-90%. That's right -- a 90% sales tax, and Fairtax leaders know it.
They know it, that is why they have avoided hearings under oath for 13 years. That's why it's all hush hush and secret. That's why there is no real "research" on it
@RooferHoofer Well, I've seen the calculations and assumptions for the 23% rate, and they seem pretty solid. The Brookings Institute, which is a center-left thinktank (and not a proponent of the FairTax) says the number would be 31%. I'm not sure who you are citing with the 60%-90% number, so I can't give any credibility to that at all. The 23% number is right, but I'd be happier with a 31% sales tax than the mess we have now!
@RooferHoofer Ohh yeah .. For sure, what ever you say man.....
Continue to invent fairy tales.
Aren't you the same guy I spoke with that didn't know how to "add" up the number of fairtax sponsors in congress.
Actually discussions on the house floor are welcome. thats what we ask of the chairman of the house ways and means committee.
rooferhoofer is a troll. What is the matter with your other 30+ nicknames? I guess people just didn't people listen then to his stupid senseless rants.
@RooferHoofer ...If you're going to down the program at least produce facts. The 23% is legit. The problem is, it hasnt been explained or understood properly by folks. Current tax code - $100 product today (pre-State sales tax) has approx 22% tax embedded in it. Actual product costs $81.97. FairTax - That $81.97 product has 23% added to it. New price $100.82 (pre-State sales tax).
@RooferHoofer Where do you get your figures (60-90%)?
All hush hush and secret? I haven't done much to learn about it, but it's all over the place.
A basic tenet of being taken seriously is to be truthful. If you don't know what you're talking about, just ask a few questions. You'll be flooded with answers. In other words, instead of accusing the Fair Tax proponents of lies and B.S., how about asking a few questions (like, "Where do you get your figures (23%)?")
This has been flagged as spam show
There really is no debate, as Americans For Fair Taxation's OWN RESEARCH states this fact: the "Fair" Tax aka National Sales Tax-Inclusive aka NASTI would on average raise the effective taxes (i.e. raise the amount of taxes they pay) of those making from around $15,000 to $150,000 ,and would on average lower the taxes paid by those who make more than $150,000 a year. It is a very bad idea, and would destroy the US economy if enacted. Thankfully it never will even be considered for a vote.
Diskatopia 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Even their own researchers admit it is regressive. Here is the quote from one of the Beacon Hill treatises on the AFT site:
"The key result of the foregoing discussion is that it matters fundamentally how one frames the discussion of the distributional effects of the FairTax. When people are sorted by expenditure per capita, the FairTax is progressive; when they are sorted by income per capita, it is regressive."
The "Fair" Tax aka NASTI is a bad idea.
Diskatopia 1 month ago
The math error of this video is evident in the graph at the :59 mark--if you get 100% of your current wages (nothing deducted),that is STILL an expense for the business.That money you are getting is part of the 22% of the left hand column. Therefore, the only savings to the business would be about 3-7% (no matching SS and no corpTax). ASsuming the best case (7%), upon adding the tax in prices would go up to .93*1.3, about or about 121% of now. These are rough estimates, but the concept is clear.
FairTaxisaLie 1 month ago
Sorry; perhaps you missed the part about where businesses are exempt. To answer your question ("WHERE IS THE MONEY NOW?"), you are already paying it. What that means is that businesses do not pay taxes now. They write the check, but they charge you at the point of sale. You end up paying it. Don't believe me? Check out Southwest Airlines' new statement on taxes and fees you're paying.
masnick 1 month ago
@masnick Businesses CANNOT be exempt under the 23%i/30%e rate, the method used top calculate the rates included business, therefore if businesss are excluded, for the tax to be higher, the rate has to be higher (somewhere in the range of 28-35%).
"they charge you at the point of sale. You end up paying it." this is false-- the employee pays it from his wages, you pay his wages. the businesses charge you, the cust., for WAGES, they cannot know what the incometaxes are, that is included in wages.
FairTaxisaLie 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@masnick "for the tax to be higher" should read "for the tax rate to be revenue neutral"
FairTaxisaLie 1 month ago
@masnick Now, think about the income taxes-- employees pay them in AT DIFFERENT RATES. Some pay 0% or less once they get a refund, some pay 30+%. Prices go up (estimates range from 10-25%) when the sales tax is added. Those paying 0% now lose. Those paying 30% win. This idea is shown in Fair Tax Org's own research, at tinyurl 593htl, page 30 on, esp. Table 13 years 7-8. They state clearly that those making from $15k to $150k a year "would lose" (would pay more in taxes on average than now).
FairTaxisaLie 1 month ago
The math mistake in the video is evident at :57, and it is the same mistake many fans of the "Fair" Tax make-- counting the same monies twice in the left hand column. See that "cost of labor"? That either INCLUDES most of the 22% he adds on at the top of the column as "federal taxes embedded"-- or the other column should have a 45-50 cost of labor if your employer gives you your WHOLE paycheck. The way to understand this is to see taxes as coming from employees wages, NOT as a separate item.
FairTaxisaLie 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For proof that the "Fair Tax" aka National Sales Tax Inclusive aka NASTI would raise the taxes of those making from about $15k to $150k a year while greatly lowering the taxes of most who make from around $150k up, one only needs to read and understand pages 30 on of one of fairtaxorg's own "research" at tinyurl 593htl. Pay particular attention to table 13-- this is how they claim the middleclass is better off under FT/NASTI, by them FALLING INTO POVERTY LEVEL every few years (see years 7-8).
FairTaxisaLie 1 month ago
In general this tax is a much better system than the one we have. It stimulates American job growth, reduces paperwork, and does not deprive workers of the fruits of their labor. However, the idea of a rebate for grocery and other basic purchases is flawed because it involves a tax filing by those wanting the rebate and a bunch of bureaucrats to process it. The system could be improved by exempting basic necessities at the cash register on purchase. Let software manage this, not bureaucracy.
gordonpwpa 2 months ago
I'm not sure about fair tax. Even if people kept their entire pay check and did not have to pay income taxes, would they be able to afford things if they had to pay a 23% tax on every purchase? Maybe, maybe not.
AresCassell 3 months ago
@AresCassell The Nordic Countries have a 25% sales tax plus income tax. In Denmark we also pay a 8% tax on our total income (called wordforce-contribution), after that we can earn 42,900 DKK a year (around $7,800) which isn't taxed by income tax. Everything over that is taxed by 37%. If you earn over 389,900 DKK ($70870) a year, then that is taxed by an extra of 15%. Even with all this and we still live pretty comfortably, so a 23% sales tax shouldn't be a problem for you. :)
Lemonz1989 3 months ago
@AresCassell Here's why: Let's say a DVD costs $1 to buy. The business that created the DVD pays income tax of, say, 20% on its income. So, of the $1 you spent, 20 cents is going to the government in the form of the company's income tax.
If the Fair Tax were passed, the company would not owe the income tax. No company would. Pretty soon all companies would lower their prices to compete with each other. Net result: you pay same thing you pay right now for the DVD, but it includes the tax.
masnick 2 months ago
@masnick You're forgetting that every co. would be paying 30% tax on supplies, parts, elctrcty, water, rent, etc. Think the math through, it is impossible to generate revenues by paying exactly the same for it as now, otherwise WHERE IS THAT MONEY NOW? What you forget is that if employees get their WHOLE PAYCHECK (including amts deducted now for ss & inc.tax), then the company still has that as an expense. And if the employee DOESN'T get that money, they are worse off than now in most cases.
FairTaxisaLie 1 month ago
@FairTaxisaLie Re: your discussion about paychecks: If the employer doesn't have to withhold your money and give it to the Feds, then you get it. They company agreed when they hired you to pay you a certain amount per year; either you get it all and pay taxes when you buy something, or the Feds take a portion before you ever see it and it's up to you to do all the paperwork and file a return, hoping your math is right. Which is easier for you?
masnick 1 month ago
@masnick If you get it, it is still a cost for the business.Prices go up. This shows the trick of the "Fair"Tax-- the middleclasses would get to keep the little bit they pay in income/SS (0~15%) and the wealthy would get to keep what they pay (17~35%), and prices would go up when the FT is added (because the business still has most of the tax costs-- it is in the money they give to you instead of collect and send in-- either way it costs them. When the sales tax is added on, the midclasses lose.
FairTaxisaLie 1 month ago
State and county taxes would have to sky rocket to pay the federal government. All goods , services, and property would be taxed at 23% and then add State and local government taxes,. Where is the fed gov going to get the money for the family rebates? This is a fraud.
dynobreath 3 months ago
"Not every household would benefit equally, however. (edit) Mid-income category households* would lose because the FairTax would impose a relatively higher tax rate on them." tinyurl 593htl
*those making from $15,000 to $150,000 a year
This is from Americans For Fair Taxation's own research. Clearly, supporters cannot challenge the statement that it would raise the effective tax rates of the middleclasses, because doing so negates the research they base their other arguments on.
1969was1969 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if U haven't heard it , U should ...
We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. Politicians love visible beneficiaries & invisible victims !
There is no such thing as a good tax. Politicians are leaches, mostly !
Three groups spend other people's money: children, thieves, politicians. All three need supervision.
onstageagain 6 months ago
For proof that the "Fair Tax" aka National Sales Tax Inclusive aka NASTI would raise the taxes of those making from about $15k to $150k a year while greatly lowering the taxes of most who make from around $150k up, one only needs to read and understand pages 30 on of one of fairtaxorg's own "research" at tinyurl 593htl. Pay particular attention to table 13-- this is how they claim the middleclass is better off under FT/NASTI, by them FALLING INTO POVERTY LEVEL every few years (see years 7-8).
FairTaxisaLie 7 months ago
The "Fair" Tax aka national Sales Tax- Inclusive aka NASTI would on average raise the federal taxes of those making from $15k-$150k a year while lowering the fed taxes of those making over $150k a year. This is not debateable, it is from supporters' own site and "research".
How do they claim the middle classes will still be better off, then? By asserting that if one's income drops from $35k to $10k a year, one is better off. Does any sensible person think that way? tinyurl 593htl, table 13.
FairTaxisaLie 8 months ago
and the Government already pays taxes asshole. If you work for the gov't you pay taxes.
JKendall2012 9 months ago
Or even better, Read Federalist Papers #21- if you know what that is which I doubt. The point I was making in my first reply was that there is a natural defense to high taxes because no one could buy anything so taxes have to stay low. They would never be @ 60%. Idiot.
JKendall2012 9 months ago
Why isnt it a real plan? In every product made up in the cost there is usually about 23% Federal taxes that the business passes to the end user (buyer). That is not a made up number- people do research and study this. The Fair Tax wipes out this 23% and replaces it was a sales tax. Then your payroll and income tax at wiped out and you keep all of you paycheck and the feds still get their money, just on the supply side. Read the book before you make such ignorant statements.
JKendall2012 9 months ago
If taxes via the fairtax were 60-90% then no one would buy anything thus what would be the point of the tax if no money could be raised? the point of taxes is to raise money. idiot
JKendall2012 9 months ago
@JKendall2012 No kidding dumb fuck, that is why Fairtax is goofy. That is why they told your dumb ass that it would be 23%, and that prices would drop 22%. Fairtax leaders know their own plan is goofy.
It's not a real plan, it's a fucking gimmick, a farce, a pile of shit.
ItchMyFoot 9 months ago
I have a question as to how enough revenue could be generated to provide each American family with rebates from the government on necessities. I mean, it really sounds too good to be true, that some new form of taxes could come out of nowhere and just fix our economy while somehow being cheaper than the current tax system we have. If you could explain it to me in greater detail, I would be eager to listen.
ThatOneAccount931 10 months ago
@ThatOneAccount931 They aren't promising you to give you enough money for necessities, you dumb ass.
God fucking almighty people are stupid. They are promising to give you enough to pay the TAXES on necessities. Of course, it's all bullshit, they are lying. See my vidoes about it. Click on my name, find my channel, see the vidoes.
ItchMyFoot 9 months ago
@ItchMyFoot I did understand that the government wasn't going to pay for all the necessities that American families needed but rather the taxes on them. I suppose I didn't phrase it well. However, I do not appreciate you attacking me and then asking me to go and watch YOUR videos after you just called me a 'dumb ass'. I recommend that if you would like people to watch your videos, do not insult them prior to them doing so.
ThatOneAccount931 9 months ago
Whatever, I am just tired of really stupid people getting the most simple shit entirely wrong.
Fairtax is goofy shit, and the only reason it can fool people, is that people are stupid.
ItchMyFoot 9 months ago
@ItchMyFoot Regardless that you are "tired of really stupid people", you have no right to call people names. Particularly those who are trying to educate themselves by asking questions. You claim to dislike those people who you believe to be less intelligent than yourself however, how can anyone increase their knowledge without asking questions? May I inquire as to your qualifications that allow you to so rudely judge the intelligence and lack thereof of an individual?
ThatOneAccount931 9 months ago
fairtax201, You saw THEIR bullshit and it seems pretty SOLID? YOu stupid fuck, go see Fairtax exposed, moron.
Fairtax isnt 23 or 30 or 50% -- it's a fucking hoax, a farce,they pretend to tax the GOVERNMENT to get that 23% to "work" Got that ? Too hard for you? Only people pay taxes -- they got 40% of their "revenue" coming from "government"
Solid like wet bullshit.
ItchMyFoot 10 months ago
Fairtax is a fairy tale -- a farce. It's all lies, it's all bullshit. Sure, you can have a national sales tax, instead of all these other taxes. That part is true.
But it can't be anything close to 23%. Try 60-90%. That's right -- a 90% sales tax, and Fairtax leaders know it.
They know it, that is why they have avoided hearings under oath for 13 years. That's why it's all hush hush and secret. That's why there is no real "research" on it
RooferHoofer 1 year ago
@RooferHoofer Well, I've seen the calculations and assumptions for the 23% rate, and they seem pretty solid. The Brookings Institute, which is a center-left thinktank (and not a proponent of the FairTax) says the number would be 31%. I'm not sure who you are citing with the 60%-90% number, so I can't give any credibility to that at all. The 23% number is right, but I'd be happier with a 31% sales tax than the mess we have now!
fairtax2010 1 year ago
Comment removed
garmeina 1 year ago
@RooferHoofer Ohh yeah .. For sure, what ever you say man.....
Continue to invent fairy tales.
Aren't you the same guy I spoke with that didn't know how to "add" up the number of fairtax sponsors in congress.
Actually discussions on the house floor are welcome. thats what we ask of the chairman of the house ways and means committee.
rooferhoofer is a troll. What is the matter with your other 30+ nicknames? I guess people just didn't people listen then to his stupid senseless rants.
dtvgmedia 1 year ago
Comment removed
headymoe 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RooferHoofer ...If you're going to down the program at least produce facts. The 23% is legit. The problem is, it hasnt been explained or understood properly by folks. Current tax code - $100 product today (pre-State sales tax) has approx 22% tax embedded in it. Actual product costs $81.97. FairTax - That $81.97 product has 23% added to it. New price $100.82 (pre-State sales tax).
headymoe 10 months ago
@RooferHoofer Where do you get your figures (60-90%)?
All hush hush and secret? I haven't done much to learn about it, but it's all over the place.
A basic tenet of being taken seriously is to be truthful. If you don't know what you're talking about, just ask a few questions. You'll be flooded with answers. In other words, instead of accusing the Fair Tax proponents of lies and B.S., how about asking a few questions (like, "Where do you get your figures (23%)?")
masnick 2 months ago