Is the FairTax truly progressive?

No description available.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• FairTax
• VAT
• Value
• Added
• Tax
• Q&A
• National
• Sales
• NST
• Flat
• Reform
• Progressive

[1969was1969]

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.

[MerlinYoda]

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.

[1969was1969]

@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]

(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]

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]

@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]

@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.

[CCDesigner71]

@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]

@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.

[1969was1969]

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.