Merlin Yoda does not understand the data, not realizing that the "wholly unrealistic assumption" they admit they are making is one of having static incomes.They then say almost all people will be better off(have an increase in "utility") because of "income mobility"-- this is where Merlin gets confused: that "income mobility" they establish to make people better off is income FALLING INTO POVERTY (>$10,000 a year), and they call that an INCREASE in "well-being". See Tinyurl 593htl, page 30 on.
correction "<$10,000". Again, tinyurl 593htl, page 30 on, in Americans for Fair Taxation's own research. Again, they fudge and call it "progressive by expenditure"(duh, lol) which ignores the fact that in reality middleclasses spend MORE (a larger percentage) of their income on average on items, rents, utilities etc. which would be taxed. As FT supporters' own researchers say:
"When people are sorted by income per capita*, it is regressive."
Is the FT/NASTI progressive or 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."
Those who undertand what this means now understand what a bad idea the "Fair" Tax is.
1969was1969 (aside from arguably being a sock puppet account) only is giving out select data and spinning that his/her ideological advantage. He/she never addresses the objective fact that the statistics and charts cited are based upon *wholly unrealistic assumptions* so as to do a through study (i.e. present an absolute worst-case scenario and see how things turn out even under those circumstances). Read the *whole* report rather than just look at one or two charts and you'll see what I mean.
Note massive drops in "well-being" when inc. is above $10k. Notice where the big "well-being" increase comes in-- years 7-8, when the person drops into poverty. This is how they claim with "income mobility" that those who make from $15k-$150k, who have negative well-being in those years will be "better off". Tinyurl 593htl, page 30 on.
@1969was1969 The important number to note in this table is the last, the "well-being" relative to the start =1.0 (i.e., the current tax system), and look at the income for that year. Basicallly, like they state under the static model (this is the "dynamic"), any year (all years are "static" by themselves) in which someone's income is from $15k to $150k, he "would lose" under the Fair Tax. Another representation of this result with different data (wages and labor) can be seen in Table 5.
Here is part of table 13, so folks can see HOW they claim middlleclass people would have positive "well-being/utility" over time, even though those making from $15k to $150k in any year would lose in that year (pay more in taxes):
This is "year,income for the year, utility/well being change", utility overall compared to year one" under Fair Tax...
Notice that CCDe points folks to a blog--I am pointing folks to Fair Tax org's own research, so that all can read and understand the trick being pulled, the fudging by defining what they call "gainers"/pos. "well-being". Long ago when I first read of this tax, I was fooled by the claims also, until I read their research and understood what it really is-- a tax cut for the very wealthy paid for by the middleclasses working more to pay higher average taxes just stay even with their current situ.
@1969was1969 "Notice that CCDe points folks to a blog--I am pointing folks to Fair Tax org's own research," Exactly. And you keep pointing them to the same unrealistic situation without giving them the rest of the information. I point them to my blog because I have provided ALL of the relevant information there (something I cannot do here over and over and over again). You are intentionally misstating information and I will correct it every time I see it. Paste tinyurl/re593htl into the URL
@CCDesigner71 lol, continually point to your blog, in which you misunderstand the research, not seeing the whole picture, which is where I point people. Are you STILL having trouble understanding Table 13? Go.Read.It. It is HOW they get the middleclasses to positive "utility/wellbeing-"-- by having them fall into poverty every few years. Note, they do not EVER state that those making $15k-$150k would pay LESS than now, under any scenario. Middleclasses pay more under it.
utility of "1.000")(cont) in the "dynamic (year-to-year) model? By having the person's income go out of the middleclass range which would have a negative effect and into a postive range-- either below $10,000 or above $150,000. And of course, as in reality, in most dynamic scenarios it is income mobility downward, into poverty. In their model, that makes the "well-being" GO UP. None of the "dynamic" situation counters the fact that those who make $15k to $150k in a year wil on average pay more.
by applying inc. mobility(cont). The static "conclusions" in those tables are that "utility" is down for part of the middleclasses. to counter this, the researchers look at the dynamic (year-to-year) situation, in which a person's income changes. This is Table 13. AS can be seen in Table 13, middleclass incomes in any year have a negative or stagnant effect on the "well-being(utility)" of the person. So how do they have the utility go up (remember, the starting point is utility of "1.000")(cont)
It is clear now where CCDe's confusion is coming from-- he is confusing "The conclusions reported in Tables 9 and 11 " with the statement they make that those who make from $15,000 to $150,000 "would lose" under the fair tax. The latter statemnt is the static situation, and applies to any and every year under the "Fair" Tax. The "conclusions" in Tables 9 and 11 are the "Static income"/instantaneous/single situations .. they they try and counter theses conclusions by applying inc mobility(cont)
@1969was1969 "CCDe's confusion is coming from" - No, no confusion here. The problem lies within your reasoning skills. See, arguments go like this: Person A (you) makes a claim. Person B (me) counters with an argument. Person A provides -additional- information proving his original claim.
You (@1969was1969, @Diskatopia, @FairTaxisaLie, any other names you're using) have failed to present any -additional- information on -every- account. You keep regurgitating the same faulty logic every time.
@CCDesigner71 No dude, you are confused and refuse to even go look at their own research, lol. I am not making the claim that anyone whose income stays in the range of $15,000 to $150,000 in any year "would lose" under this tax on avg. i, THEY ARE, in their research. Again, tinyurl 593htl, page 30 on INCLUDING TABLE 13, esp. years 7-8 and 15-16. You need to go and try to understand it, or have someone nearby explain it to you, and stop clinging to this like a religion.
No, it is not progressive, as their own research shows (tinyurl 593htl, page 30 on), those making from $15,00 to $150,000 would on average pay more in federal taxes than they do now and those who make more than $150,000 would on average pay less than they do now. This "Fair" Tax is highly regressive, because middleclass people spend a larger percentage of their income on items that would be taxed than do the wealthy.
@1969was1969 Seriously? After the information that was previously given to you, you STILL want to make these false claims? AND do it under a different name? Fine, then I will refute them here too.
Look at the 1st sentence of the paragraph following that "Now let us consider a more realistic scenario". 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. (cont1)
@CCDesigner71 Dude, you STILL are not understanding that at all, lol. Stop and think for a moment-- if those making from $15,000 to $150,000 "lose", AS THEY STATE, to what income range must the person's income mobility take him for him to "win". Yes: below $15k or above $150k. Guess where they (rightly) assume that person's income goes to every few years-- that's right, BELOW $15k. Look at Table 13, years 7-8 and 15-16. When you understand it, you will understand what they call "gaining", lol.
@1969was1969 (cont1)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. READ THE ENTIRE SECTION. By taking things out of context you are ruining your chances of benefiting under the FairTax.
I really wish this movement would catch on. There are so many great components that would propel our country. The fact that politicians would not be able to manipulate our citizens with the tax code is worth so much. Some of the unknowns are a little scary, however I believe that competition would prove to work like the models show.
Merlin Yoda does not understand the data, not realizing that the "wholly unrealistic assumption" they admit they are making is one of having static incomes.They then say almost all people will be better off(have an increase in "utility") because of "income mobility"-- this is where Merlin gets confused: that "income mobility" they establish to make people better off is income FALLING INTO POVERTY (>$10,000 a year), and they call that an INCREASE in "well-being". See Tinyurl 593htl, page 30 on.
1969was1969 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
correction "<$10,000". Again, tinyurl 593htl, page 30 on, in Americans for Fair Taxation's own research. Again, they fudge and call it "progressive by expenditure"(duh, lol) which ignores the fact that in reality middleclasses spend MORE (a larger percentage) of their income on average on items, rents, utilities etc. which would be taxed. As FT supporters' own researchers say:
"When people are sorted by income per capita*, it is regressive."
Regressive. No ifs-ands-or-buts.
*as is usual
1969was1969 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is the FT/NASTI progressive or 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."
Those who undertand what this means now understand what a bad idea the "Fair" Tax is.
1969was1969 4 weeks ago
1969was1969 (aside from arguably being a sock puppet account) only is giving out select data and spinning that his/her ideological advantage. He/she never addresses the objective fact that the statistics and charts cited are based upon *wholly unrealistic assumptions* so as to do a through study (i.e. present an absolute worst-case scenario and see how things turn out even under those circumstances). Read the *whole* report rather than just look at one or two charts and you'll see what I mean.
MerlinYoda 3 months ago
(continued)
Year 5, $10k ,-0.001, 0.999
Year 6, $10k ,0.005, 1.005
Year 7, $25k ,-0.008, 0.992
Year 8, <$10k ,0.060, 1.060
Year 9, <$10k ,0.065, 1.065
Note massive drops in "well-being" when inc. is above $10k. Notice where the big "well-being" increase comes in-- years 7-8, when the person drops into poverty. This is how they claim with "income mobility" that those who make from $15k-$150k, who have negative well-being in those years will be "better off". Tinyurl 593htl, page 30 on.
1969was1969 3 months ago
@1969was1969 The important number to note in this table is the last, the "well-being" relative to the start =1.0 (i.e., the current tax system), and look at the income for that year. Basicallly, like they state under the static model (this is the "dynamic"), any year (all years are "static" by themselves) in which someone's income is from $15k to $150k, he "would lose" under the Fair Tax. Another representation of this result with different data (wages and labor) can be seen in Table 5.
1969was1969 3 months ago
Here is part of table 13, so folks can see HOW they claim middlleclass people would have positive "well-being/utility" over time, even though those making from $15k to $150k in any year would lose in that year (pay more in taxes):
This is "year,income for the year, utility/well being change", utility overall compared to year one" under Fair Tax...
Year 1, $10k , -0.026, 0.974
Year 2, $50k ,-0.051, 0.949
Year 3, $50k ,-0.044, 0.956
Year 4, $25k ,-0.025, 0.975
(continued)
1969was1969 3 months ago
Notice that CCDe points folks to a blog--I am pointing folks to Fair Tax org's own research, so that all can read and understand the trick being pulled, the fudging by defining what they call "gainers"/pos. "well-being". Long ago when I first read of this tax, I was fooled by the claims also, until I read their research and understood what it really is-- a tax cut for the very wealthy paid for by the middleclasses working more to pay higher average taxes just stay even with their current situ.
1969was1969 3 months ago
@1969was1969 "Notice that CCDe points folks to a blog--I am pointing folks to Fair Tax org's own research," Exactly. And you keep pointing them to the same unrealistic situation without giving them the rest of the information. I point them to my blog because I have provided ALL of the relevant information there (something I cannot do here over and over and over again). You are intentionally misstating information and I will correct it every time I see it. Paste tinyurl/re593htl into the URL
CCDesigner71 3 months ago
@CCDesigner71 lol, continually point to your blog, in which you misunderstand the research, not seeing the whole picture, which is where I point people. Are you STILL having trouble understanding Table 13? Go.Read.It. It is HOW they get the middleclasses to positive "utility/wellbeing-"-- by having them fall into poverty every few years. Note, they do not EVER state that those making $15k-$150k would pay LESS than now, under any scenario. Middleclasses pay more under it.
1969was1969 3 months ago
utility of "1.000")(cont) in the "dynamic (year-to-year) model? By having the person's income go out of the middleclass range which would have a negative effect and into a postive range-- either below $10,000 or above $150,000. And of course, as in reality, in most dynamic scenarios it is income mobility downward, into poverty. In their model, that makes the "well-being" GO UP. None of the "dynamic" situation counters the fact that those who make $15k to $150k in a year wil on average pay more.
1969was1969 3 months ago
by applying inc. mobility(cont). The static "conclusions" in those tables are that "utility" is down for part of the middleclasses. to counter this, the researchers look at the dynamic (year-to-year) situation, in which a person's income changes. This is Table 13. AS can be seen in Table 13, middleclass incomes in any year have a negative or stagnant effect on the "well-being(utility)" of the person. So how do they have the utility go up (remember, the starting point is utility of "1.000")(cont)
1969was1969 3 months ago
It is clear now where CCDe's confusion is coming from-- he is confusing "The conclusions reported in Tables 9 and 11 " with the statement they make that those who make from $15,000 to $150,000 "would lose" under the fair tax. The latter statemnt is the static situation, and applies to any and every year under the "Fair" Tax. The "conclusions" in Tables 9 and 11 are the "Static income"/instantaneous/single situations .. they they try and counter theses conclusions by applying inc mobility(cont)
1969was1969 3 months ago
@1969was1969 "CCDe's confusion is coming from" - No, no confusion here. The problem lies within your reasoning skills. See, arguments go like this: Person A (you) makes a claim. Person B (me) counters with an argument. Person A provides -additional- information proving his original claim.
You (@1969was1969, @Diskatopia, @FairTaxisaLie, any other names you're using) have failed to present any -additional- information on -every- account. You keep regurgitating the same faulty logic every time.
CCDesigner71 3 months ago
@CCDesigner71 No dude, you are confused and refuse to even go look at their own research, lol. I am not making the claim that anyone whose income stays in the range of $15,000 to $150,000 in any year "would lose" under this tax on avg. i, THEY ARE, in their research. Again, tinyurl 593htl, page 30 on INCLUDING TABLE 13, esp. years 7-8 and 15-16. You need to go and try to understand it, or have someone nearby explain it to you, and stop clinging to this like a religion.
1969was1969 3 months ago
@1969was1969 READ IT: tinyurl re593htl
CCDesigner71 3 months ago
No, it is not progressive, as their own research shows (tinyurl 593htl, page 30 on), those making from $15,00 to $150,000 would on average pay more in federal taxes than they do now and those who make more than $150,000 would on average pay less than they do now. This "Fair" Tax is highly regressive, because middleclass people spend a larger percentage of their income on items that would be taxed than do the wealthy.
1969was1969 3 months ago
@1969was1969 Seriously? After the information that was previously given to you, you STILL want to make these false claims? AND do it under a different name? Fine, then I will refute them here too.
Look at the 1st sentence of the paragraph following that "Now let us consider a more realistic scenario". 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. (cont1)
CCDesigner71 3 months ago
@CCDesigner71 Dude, you STILL are not understanding that at all, lol. Stop and think for a moment-- if those making from $15,000 to $150,000 "lose", AS THEY STATE, to what income range must the person's income mobility take him for him to "win". Yes: below $15k or above $150k. Guess where they (rightly) assume that person's income goes to every few years-- that's right, BELOW $15k. Look at Table 13, years 7-8 and 15-16. When you understand it, you will understand what they call "gaining", lol.
1969was1969 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1969was1969 (cont1)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. READ THE ENTIRE SECTION. By taking things out of context you are ruining your chances of benefiting under the FairTax.
CCDesigner71 3 months ago
I really wish this movement would catch on. There are so many great components that would propel our country. The fact that politicians would not be able to manipulate our citizens with the tax code is worth so much. Some of the unknowns are a little scary, however I believe that competition would prove to work like the models show.
MariahandMacy1013 1 year ago 2