Lunch&Taxes HOWMUCH

A FairTax Rep and a US Tax Code Rep answer tax questions over lunch. "HOW MUCH WILL I BRING HOME?"

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• FairTax
• Fair
• Tax
• Hub
• Economy
• Stimulus
• Bailout
• HR25
• Boortz
• Linder
• Huckabee
• Taxation
• Simple
• Transparent

[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

[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.

[CCDesigner71]

@FairTaxisaLie READ IT: tinyurl re593htl

[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]

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]

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

[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 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.

[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.

[CCDesigner71]

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