Joe the Plumber? More like Joe the Scammer

[shira]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: child of wonder
Anyone have a link that objectively analyzes the Fair Tax? I'm curious to see what someone with some economic education and experience has to say about it.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes...nning_the_fairtax.html

"The 23 percent number in H.R. 25 is the equivalent of the 4.8 percent in the previous example. To calculate the real rate of the sales tax, we have to determine the original purchase price of an item. We can begin with the same $100 item, keeping in mind that a price tag that reads $100 has sales tax already built in. If our tax rate is 23 percent of the tax-inclusive sales price, then of the $100 final price, $23 of those dollars will be for taxes, meaning that the original pre-tax price of the item is $77. To get $23 in taxes on a $77 item, one must impose a 30 percent tax. In other words, a 23 percent sales tax on the tax-inclusive sales price is equivalent to a 30 percent tax on the actual price of the item."

First they present the math by working backwards from $100 dollars. $X = $100 - ($100*.23). Then they trick people with $77 + ($77 * X) = $100. Those are totally different figures.

Let's see what numbers we get when we try 77 + (77 * .23). That would be $94.71 and not $100. Maybe we should try $100 = x + (x * .23). That number is $81.30 not the $77 we are trying to be tricked into thinking.

You mean the fair tax people are trying to trick us, right?

If you think factcheck.org is trying to trick you, then you need to go read the article again.

I just showed you the math. They are not doing a correct comparison of numbers.

Who do you mean by "they?"

FactCheck.org is being totally consistent. ALL consumers think of a sales tax as a percentage ADDED to the listed price of an item. Thus, a $100 item with 5% sales tax costs $105. That's what's meant by an "exclusive" tax rate.

By similar reasoning, a $77 item with a 23% tax would be priced at $94.71. But, in fact, under the proposed FairTax, a $77 item would be priced at $100. That's a 29.9% exclusive tax rate, not 23%.

There's only one reason Americans for Fair Taxation don't compute their FairTax percentage the way any normal person would: They're trying to mislead you.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: child of wonder
Anyone have a link that objectively analyzes the Fair Tax? I'm curious to see what someone with some economic education and experience has to say about it.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes...nning_the_fairtax.html

"The 23 percent number in H.R. 25 is the equivalent of the 4.8 percent in the previous example. To calculate the real rate of the sales tax, we have to determine the original purchase price of an item. We can begin with the same $100 item, keeping in mind that a price tag that reads $100 has sales tax already built in. If our tax rate is 23 percent of the tax-inclusive sales price, then of the $100 final price, $23 of those dollars will be for taxes, meaning that the original pre-tax price of the item is $77. To get $23 in taxes on a $77 item, one must impose a 30 percent tax. In other words, a 23 percent sales tax on the tax-inclusive sales price is equivalent to a 30 percent tax on the actual price of the item."

First they present the math by working backwards from $100 dollars. $X = $100 - ($100*.23). Then they trick people with $77 + ($77 * X) = $100. Those are totally different figures.

Let's see what numbers we get when we try 77 + (77 * .23). That would be $94.71 and not $100. Maybe we should try $100 = x + (x * .23). That number is $81.30 not the $77 we are trying to be tricked into thinking.

You mean the fair tax people are trying to trick us, right?

If you think factcheck.org is trying to trick you, then you need to go read the article again.

I just showed you the math. They are not doing a correct comparison of numbers.

Who do you mean by "they?"

FactCheck.org is being totally consistent. ALL consumers think of a sales tax as a percentage ADDED to the listed price of an item. Thus, a $100 item with 5% sales tax costs $105. That's what's meant by an "exclusive" tax rate.

By similar reasoning, a $77 item with a 23% tax would be priced at $94.71. But, in fact, under the proposed FairTax, a $77 item would be priced at $100. That's a 29.9% exclusive tax rate, not 23%.

There's only one reason Americans for Fair Taxation don't compute their FairTax percentage the way any normal person would: They're trying to mislead you.

Then why do the Fairtax "people" label their plan as tax-inclusive? Isn't the idea of it behind the fair tax is to replace income tax and not sales tax?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: brandonbull
Then why do the Fairtax "people" label their plan as tax-inclusive? Isn't the idea of it behind the fair tax is to replace income tax and not sales tax?

The idea is to replace income tax with sales tax.

You can argue until the cows come home about the 'right' way to present this, because both are valid. What you can't argue is which makes more intuitive sense to the average consumer.

The Fairtax folks want the lower number published for reasons of optics, not due to some alturistic belief that sales tax numbers are stated incorrectly. Otherwise they would willingly clarify what they mean by a particular method of calculation, rather than attacking as incorrect and ignorant anyone who calculates the tax the way sales tax is normally calculated.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Stop shining the spotlight on this idiot. I was really pissed that Bill Mahr gave him airtime on his show. Good job Bill, you've become the hypocrite you admonish

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: brandonbull
Then why do the Fairtax "people" label their plan as tax-inclusive? Isn't the idea of it behind the fair tax is to replace income tax and not sales tax?

The idea is to replace income tax with sales tax.

You can argue until the cows come home about the 'right' way to present this, because both are valid. What you can't argue is which makes more intuitive sense to the average consumer.

The Fairtax folks want the lower number published for reasons of optics, not due to some alturistic belief that sales tax numbers are stated incorrectly. Otherwise they would willingly clarify what they mean by a particular method of calculation, rather than attacking as incorrect and ignorant anyone who calculates the tax the way sales tax is normally calculated.

Yep. And even at that, it's a phony number since it relies on two unrealistic premises. First, it assumes 100% compliance. That simply will not happen in the real world, meaning the rate will have to be increased to compensate for evasion.

Second, it assumes the tax will be applied to 100% of all transactions, vs. current sales taxes which apply to only about half. That's not realistic, especially at first, since the psychological impact will be devastating to some segments. Think about what happens to the struggling real estate market when a $250,000 house suddenly jumps to $325,000. Think about what happens to Detroit when a $30K car now costs almost $40K. It won't matter how many "Fair Tax" proponents prove mathematically the price is "really just the same."

The psychological effect -- the sticker shock -- will kill those industries and others relying on big-ticket sales. To prevent this, such items will have to somehow either be exempted from the tax, or the tax will have to be phased in, lowering the revenues generated and requiring either higher rates or other taxes. (Other taxes also effectively increase the overall "Fair Tax" rate since its benefits will be undermined.)

In short, the actual "Fair Tax" rate will have to be much higher than 23%/30%. Couple that with the revelation that it is, in fact, another "tax cut for the rich" and it is DOA.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: brandonbull
Then why do the Fairtax "people" label their plan as tax-inclusive? Isn't the idea of it behind the fair tax is to replace income tax and not sales tax?

The idea is to replace income tax with sales tax.

You can argue until the cows come home about the 'right' way to present this, because both are valid. What you can't argue is which makes more intuitive sense to the average consumer.

The Fairtax folks want the lower number published for reasons of optics, not due to some alturistic belief that sales tax numbers are stated incorrectly. Otherwise they would willingly clarify what they mean by a particular method of calculation, rather than attacking as incorrect and ignorant anyone who calculates the tax the way sales tax is normally calculated.

Yep. And even at that, it's a phony number since it relies on two unrealistic premises. First, it assumes 100% compliance. That simply will not happen in the real world, meaning the rate will have to be increased to compensate for evasion.

Second, it assumes the tax will be applied to 100% of all transactions, vs. current sales taxes which apply to only about half. That's not realistic, especially at first, since the psychological impact will be devastating to some segments. Think about what happens to the struggling real estate market when a $250,000 house suddenly jumps to $325,000. Think about what happens to Detroit when a $30K car now costs almost $40K. It won't matter how many "Fair Tax" proponents prove mathematically the price is "really just the same."

The psychological effect -- the sticker shock -- will kill those industries and others relying on big-ticket sales. To prevent this, such items will have to somehow either be exempted from the tax, or the tax will have to be phased in, lowering the revenues generated and requiring either higher rates or other taxes. (Other taxes also effectively increase the overall "Fair Tax" rate since its benefits will be undermined.)

In short, the actual "Fair Tax" rate will have to be much higher than 23%/30%. Couple that with the revelation that it is, in fact, another "tax cut for the rich" and it is DOA.

I have ZERO problem with the "sticker shock" "psychological effect" of this type of taxation. Maybe people would actually see how much the gov't really takes instead of having it mostly hidden.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Stop shining the spotlight on this idiot. I was really pissed that Bill Mahr gave him airtime on his show. Good job Bill, you've become the hypocrite you admonish

Do you know the definition of hypocrite?

 

[Zebo]

What are the realistic chances of a tax revolt? I'm in if 10 million or so other producers join me.... Can't put us all in jail and would certainly snowball.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Zebo
What are the realistic chances of a tax revolt? I'm in if 10 million or so other producers join me.... Can't put us all in jail and would certainly snowball.

0

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: brandonbull
Then why do the Fairtax "people" label their plan as tax-inclusive? Isn't the idea of it behind the fair tax is to replace income tax and not sales tax?

The idea is to replace income tax with sales tax.

You can argue until the cows come home about the 'right' way to present this, because both are valid. What you can't argue is which makes more intuitive sense to the average consumer.

The Fairtax folks want the lower number published for reasons of optics, not due to some alturistic belief that sales tax numbers are stated incorrectly. Otherwise they would willingly clarify what they mean by a particular method of calculation, rather than attacking as incorrect and ignorant anyone who calculates the tax the way sales tax is normally calculated.

Yep. And even at that, it's a phony number since it relies on two unrealistic premises. First, it assumes 100% compliance. That simply will not happen in the real world, meaning the rate will have to be increased to compensate for evasion.

Second, it assumes the tax will be applied to 100% of all transactions, vs. current sales taxes which apply to only about half. That's not realistic, especially at first, since the psychological impact will be devastating to some segments. Think about what happens to the struggling real estate market when a $250,000 house suddenly jumps to $325,000. Think about what happens to Detroit when a $30K car now costs almost $40K. It won't matter how many "Fair Tax" proponents prove mathematically the price is "really just the same."

The psychological effect -- the sticker shock -- will kill those industries and others relying on big-ticket sales. To prevent this, such items will have to somehow either be exempted from the tax, or the tax will have to be phased in, lowering the revenues generated and requiring either higher rates or other taxes. (Other taxes also effectively increase the overall "Fair Tax" rate since its benefits will be undermined.)

In short, the actual "Fair Tax" rate will have to be much higher than 23%/30%. Couple that with the revelation that it is, in fact, another "tax cut for the rich" and it is DOA.

I have ZERO problem with the "sticker shock" "psychological effect" of this type of taxation. Maybe people would actually see how much the gov't really takes instead of having it mostly hidden.

That would accomplish nothing.....all you'd see is the Economy grind to a halt.
edit-assuming the Economy is doing well

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: brandonbull
Then why do the Fairtax "people" label their plan as tax-inclusive? Isn't the idea of it behind the fair tax is to replace income tax and not sales tax?

The idea is to replace income tax with sales tax.

You can argue until the cows come home about the 'right' way to present this, because both are valid. What you can't argue is which makes more intuitive sense to the average consumer.

The Fairtax folks want the lower number published for reasons of optics, not due to some alturistic belief that sales tax numbers are stated incorrectly. Otherwise they would willingly clarify what they mean by a particular method of calculation, rather than attacking as incorrect and ignorant anyone who calculates the tax the way sales tax is normally calculated.

Yep. And even at that, it's a phony number since it relies on two unrealistic premises. First, it assumes 100% compliance. That simply will not happen in the real world, meaning the rate will have to be increased to compensate for evasion.

Second, it assumes the tax will be applied to 100% of all transactions, vs. current sales taxes which apply to only about half. That's not realistic, especially at first, since the psychological impact will be devastating to some segments. Think about what happens to the struggling real estate market when a $250,000 house suddenly jumps to $325,000. Think about what happens to Detroit when a $30K car now costs almost $40K. It won't matter how many "Fair Tax" proponents prove mathematically the price is "really just the same."

The psychological effect -- the sticker shock -- will kill those industries and others relying on big-ticket sales. To prevent this, such items will have to somehow either be exempted from the tax, or the tax will have to be phased in, lowering the revenues generated and requiring either higher rates or other taxes. (Other taxes also effectively increase the overall "Fair Tax" rate since its benefits will be undermined.)

In short, the actual "Fair Tax" rate will have to be much higher than 23%/30%. Couple that with the revelation that it is, in fact, another "tax cut for the rich" and it is DOA.

I have ZERO problem with the "sticker shock" "psychological effect" of this type of taxation. Maybe people would actually see how much the gov't really takes instead of having it mostly hidden.

That would accomplish nothing.....all you'd see is the Economy grind to a halt.
edit-assuming the Economy is doing well

Maybe, but atleast people would wake up to the reality of how much the gov't takes from them.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: geno

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Joe is a joke.

Not sure how you guys come up with the 'face of the Republican Party" BS.

Are you high!? His name was coming out of McCain's and dummy Palin's mouth every 30 seconds! That's where it came from! He might not be the "face" of the party, but you can blame the aforementioned boobs for thinking hoisting him up in front of the country was a good idea.

COUNTRY FIRST! http://chattahbox.com/images/2008/12/joe.jpg

Yeah, profjohn is delusional.

Jesus fucking Christ, she actually had a board of the old Nazi slogan? (and yes, that is where that comes from)

That is just fucking disgusting.

How come no one even mentioned that during the campaign though? Is it a photoshop, i hope it is.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: brandonbull
Then why do the Fairtax "people" label their plan as tax-inclusive? Isn't the idea of it behind the fair tax is to replace income tax and not sales tax?

The idea is to replace income tax with sales tax.

You can argue until the cows come home about the 'right' way to present this, because both are valid. What you can't argue is which makes more intuitive sense to the average consumer.

The Fairtax folks want the lower number published for reasons of optics, not due to some alturistic belief that sales tax numbers are stated incorrectly. Otherwise they would willingly clarify what they mean by a particular method of calculation, rather than attacking as incorrect and ignorant anyone who calculates the tax the way sales tax is normally calculated.

Yep. And even at that, it's a phony number since it relies on two unrealistic premises. First, it assumes 100% compliance. That simply will not happen in the real world, meaning the rate will have to be increased to compensate for evasion.

Second, it assumes the tax will be applied to 100% of all transactions, vs. current sales taxes which apply to only about half. That's not realistic, especially at first, since the psychological impact will be devastating to some segments. Think about what happens to the struggling real estate market when a $250,000 house suddenly jumps to $325,000. Think about what happens to Detroit when a $30K car now costs almost $40K. It won't matter how many "Fair Tax" proponents prove mathematically the price is "really just the same."

The psychological effect -- the sticker shock -- will kill those industries and others relying on big-ticket sales. To prevent this, such items will have to somehow either be exempted from the tax, or the tax will have to be phased in, lowering the revenues generated and requiring either higher rates or other taxes. (Other taxes also effectively increase the overall "Fair Tax" rate since its benefits will be undermined.)

In short, the actual "Fair Tax" rate will have to be much higher than 23%/30%. Couple that with the revelation that it is, in fact, another "tax cut for the rich" and it is DOA.

I have ZERO problem with the "sticker shock" "psychological effect" of this type of taxation. Maybe people would actually see how much the gov't really takes instead of having it mostly hidden.

That would accomplish nothing.....all you'd see is the Economy grind to a halt.
edit-assuming the Economy is doing well

Maybe, but atleast people would wake up to the reality of how much the gov't takes from them.

Trillions of dollars towards a project like Iraq that didn't do anything positive?

You were ok with that, weren't you you political dummy, but when there is investments into your OWN economy you protest.

You're so fucked up in the head you don't even get the basics.

IF McCain had won and done this you'd applaud it, you're so fucking predictable it's not even funny.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Trillions of dollars towards a project like Iraq that didn't do anything positive?

You were ok with that, weren't you you political dummy, but when there is investments into your OWN economy you protest.

You're so fucked up in the head you don't even get the basics.

IF McCain had won and done this you'd applaud it, you're so fucking predictable it's not even funny.

Buahahahaha!!!! You're such a tool. First off - Iraq hasn't cost that much, second it very much has done things that are positive, third - I don't care what you think of me, fourth - you don't live here, fifth - this isn't about the "economy" you twit, sixth - I didn't vote for McCain you simpleton, sevent - you're so dead ass wrong with everything in your post I literally laughed at how stupid it was.

Oh and one last thing - nothing you posted had to do with my post or the topic so shut your euro-spew hole.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
How come no one even mentioned that during the campaign though? Is it a photoshop, i hope it is.

It doesn't look like a photoshop to me.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Trillions of dollars towards a project like Iraq that didn't do anything positive?

You were ok with that, weren't you you political dummy, but when there is investments into your OWN economy you protest.

You're so fucked up in the head you don't even get the basics.

IF McCain had won and done this you'd applaud it, you're so fucking predictable it's not even funny.

Buahahahaha!!!! You're such a tool. First off - Iraq hasn't cost that much, second it very much has done things that are positive, third - I don't care what you think of me, fourth - you don't live here, fifth - this isn't about the "economy" you twit, sixth - I didn't vote for McCain you simpleton, sevent - you're so dead ass wrong with everything in your post I literally laughed at how stupid it was.

Oh and one last thing - nothing you posted had to do with my post or the topic so shut your euro-spew hole.

That sure put him in his place. Brilliant. I'll bet he's under the porch right now with his tail tucked way in.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Trillions of dollars towards a project like Iraq that didn't do anything positive?

You were ok with that, weren't you you political dummy, but when there is investments into your OWN economy you protest.

You're so fucked up in the head you don't even get the basics.

IF McCain had won and done this you'd applaud it, you're so fucking predictable it's not even funny.

Buahahahaha!!!! You're such a tool. First off - Iraq hasn't cost that much, second it very much has done things that are positive, third - I don't care what you think of me, fourth - you don't live here, fifth - this isn't about the "economy" you twit, sixth - I didn't vote for McCain you simpleton, sevent - you're so dead ass wrong with everything in your post I literally laughed at how stupid it was.

Oh and one last thing - nothing you posted had to do with my post or the topic so shut your euro-spew hole.

That sure put him in his place. Brilliant. I'll bet he's under the porch right now with his tail tucked way in.

No, he'll come back in with some other nonsense.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: brandonbull
Then why do the Fairtax "people" label their plan as tax-inclusive? Isn't the idea of it behind the fair tax is to replace income tax and not sales tax?

The idea is to replace income tax with sales tax.

You can argue until the cows come home about the 'right' way to present this, because both are valid. What you can't argue is which makes more intuitive sense to the average consumer.

The Fairtax folks want the lower number published for reasons of optics, not due to some alturistic belief that sales tax numbers are stated incorrectly. Otherwise they would willingly clarify what they mean by a particular method of calculation, rather than attacking as incorrect and ignorant anyone who calculates the tax the way sales tax is normally calculated.

Yep. And even at that, it's a phony number since it relies on two unrealistic premises. First, it assumes 100% compliance. That simply will not happen in the real world, meaning the rate will have to be increased to compensate for evasion.

Second, it assumes the tax will be applied to 100% of all transactions, vs. current sales taxes which apply to only about half. That's not realistic, especially at first, since the psychological impact will be devastating to some segments. Think about what happens to the struggling real estate market when a $250,000 house suddenly jumps to $325,000. Think about what happens to Detroit when a $30K car now costs almost $40K. It won't matter how many "Fair Tax" proponents prove mathematically the price is "really just the same."

The psychological effect -- the sticker shock -- will kill those industries and others relying on big-ticket sales. To prevent this, such items will have to somehow either be exempted from the tax, or the tax will have to be phased in, lowering the revenues generated and requiring either higher rates or other taxes. (Other taxes also effectively increase the overall "Fair Tax" rate since its benefits will be undermined.)

In short, the actual "Fair Tax" rate will have to be much higher than 23%/30%. Couple that with the revelation that it is, in fact, another "tax cut for the rich" and it is DOA.

I have ZERO problem with the "sticker shock" "psychological effect" of this type of taxation.

Fortunately for America, our leaders are responsible enough to have a problem with it. The alternative would be dumping even more trillions into trying to salvage the economy.

Maybe people would actually see how much the gov't really takes instead of having it mostly hidden.

I look at my 1040 each year, but that's just me. I would point out that the "Fair Tax" would actually tend to hide the cost of government since there wouldn't be that annual accounting of the taxes we each pay. Instead that information would be scattered across hundreds, perhaps thousands of your individual purchases, large and small.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: brandonbull
Then why do the Fairtax "people" label their plan as tax-inclusive? Isn't the idea of it behind the fair tax is to replace income tax and not sales tax?

The idea is to replace income tax with sales tax.

You can argue until the cows come home about the 'right' way to present this, because both are valid. What you can't argue is which makes more intuitive sense to the average consumer.

The Fairtax folks want the lower number published for reasons of optics, not due to some alturistic belief that sales tax numbers are stated incorrectly. Otherwise they would willingly clarify what they mean by a particular method of calculation, rather than attacking as incorrect and ignorant anyone who calculates the tax the way sales tax is normally calculated.

Yep. And even at that, it's a phony number since it relies on two unrealistic premises. First, it assumes 100% compliance. That simply will not happen in the real world, meaning the rate will have to be increased to compensate for evasion.

Second, it assumes the tax will be applied to 100% of all transactions, vs. current sales taxes which apply to only about half. That's not realistic, especially at first, since the psychological impact will be devastating to some segments. Think about what happens to the struggling real estate market when a $250,000 house suddenly jumps to $325,000. Think about what happens to Detroit when a $30K car now costs almost $40K. It won't matter how many "Fair Tax" proponents prove mathematically the price is "really just the same."

The psychological effect -- the sticker shock -- will kill those industries and others relying on big-ticket sales. To prevent this, such items will have to somehow either be exempted from the tax, or the tax will have to be phased in, lowering the revenues generated and requiring either higher rates or other taxes. (Other taxes also effectively increase the overall "Fair Tax" rate since its benefits will be undermined.)

In short, the actual "Fair Tax" rate will have to be much higher than 23%/30%. Couple that with the revelation that it is, in fact, another "tax cut for the rich" and it is DOA.

I have ZERO problem with the "sticker shock" "psychological effect" of this type of taxation.

Fortunately for America, our leaders are responsible enough to have a problem with it. The alternative would be dumping even more trillions into trying to salvage the economy.

Maybe people would actually see how much the gov't really takes instead of having it mostly hidden.

I look at my 1040 each year, but that's just me. I would point out that the "Fair Tax" would actually tend to hide the cost of government since there wouldn't be that annual accounting of the taxes we each pay. Instead that information would be scattered across hundreds, perhaps thousands of your individual purchases, large and small.

It's already "scattered". "fees" here, taxes on this that and the other, plus the 2 "hidden" taxes on your labor. So no, it's not only about "income tax".

Again, people waking up to how much the gov't takes from them via "sticker shock" isn't a negative IMO.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
[ ... ]
I look at my 1040 each year, but that's just me. I would point out that the "Fair Tax" would actually tend to hide the cost of government since there wouldn't be that annual accounting of the taxes we each pay. Instead that information would be scattered across hundreds, perhaps thousands of your individual purchases, large and small.

It's already "scattered". "fees" here, taxes on this that and the other, plus the 2 "hidden" taxes on your labor. So no, it's not only about "income tax".

Again, people waking up to how much the gov't takes from them via "sticker shock" isn't a negative IMO.

You know Cad, I've never figured out for sure whether your constant misrepresentation of others' comments and your evasion of actual points presented is due to a lack of integrity and reasoning skills, or whether you truly are simply reading impaired. Either way, rather than wasting more electrons trying to reiterate something you will again be unwilling or unable to address, I'll just leave your failure hanging there for all to enjoy.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: sandorski
sheesh, Dude needs to just pay his Taxes already. Sorry Joe, the IRS will not be brought down before you're required to Pay up.

If you weren't so busy giving bj's to all the Democrats, you'd realize that Joe paid his income taxes this year to the IRS, and will continue to do so as long as it is the law of the land.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yep. And even at that, it's a phony number since it relies on two unrealistic premises. First, it assumes 100% compliance. That simply will not happen in the real world, meaning the rate will have to be increased to compensate for evasion.

Second, it assumes the tax will be applied to 100% of all transactions, vs. current sales taxes which apply to only about half. That's not realistic, especially at first, since the psychological impact will be devastating to some segments. Think about what happens to the struggling real estate market when a $250,000 house suddenly jumps to $325,000. Think about what happens to Detroit when a $30K car now costs almost $40K. It won't matter how many "Fair Tax" proponents prove mathematically the price is "really just the same."

Think about what happens to Detroit what a U.S. made car has the tax burdens removed from production and is now price competitive with foreign autos. That $30k auto you first deduct off 30% that's sucked up by corporate and payroll taxes, then you tack on the 30% sales tax, and you're probably close enough to even price.

It's called knowledge. Learn to see the full picture. Stop sucking up to Progressives.

The basis of the fair tax is to put U.S. production on a more price competitive level against foreign competition. In other words, fair tax would bring more production back to the U.S. Last time I checked, more jobs is a good thing. You know, the opposite of what Obama's "stimulus" will achieve :roll:

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Think about what happens to Detroit what a U.S. made car has the tax burdens removed from production and is now price competitive with foreign autos. That $30k auto you first deduct off 30% that's sucked up by corporate and payroll taxes, then you tack on the 30% sales tax, and you're probably close enough to even price.

It's called knowledge. Learn to see the full picture. Stop sucking up to Progressives.

The basis of the fair tax is to put U.S. production on a more price competitive level against foreign competition. In other words, fair tax would bring more production back to the U.S. Last time I checked, more jobs is a good thing. You know, the opposite of what Obama's "stimulus" will achieve :roll:

And.. if you cut corporate taxes even further, and income taxes too, and eliminated those pesky minimum wage laws, and all that stupid safety legislation, so you could put locks back on the sweatshops.

Then EVERYONE could have a shiny new job for their 8th birthday, and you could compete even with China for the contract to make all that nice stuff in the dollar store.

So what, exactly is your point, other than shifting the tax burden away from the wealthy, which has always been the point of this?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
How come no one even mentioned that during the campaign though? Is it a photoshop, i hope it is.

It doesn't look like a photoshop to me.

Freaking LOL!! :laugh:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yep. And even at that, it's a phony number since it relies on two unrealistic premises. First, it assumes 100% compliance. That simply will not happen in the real world, meaning the rate will have to be increased to compensate for evasion.

Second, it assumes the tax will be applied to 100% of all transactions, vs. current sales taxes which apply to only about half. That's not realistic, especially at first, since the psychological impact will be devastating to some segments. Think about what happens to the struggling real estate market when a $250,000 house suddenly jumps to $325,000. Think about what happens to Detroit when a $30K car now costs almost $40K. It won't matter how many "Fair Tax" proponents prove mathematically the price is "really just the same."

Think about what happens to Detroit what a U.S. made car has the tax burdens removed from production and is now price competitive with foreign autos. That $30k auto you first deduct off 30% that's sucked up by corporate and payroll taxes, then you tack on the 30% sales tax, and you're probably close enough to even price.

It's called knowledge. Learn to see the full picture. Stop sucking up to Progressives.

The basis of the fair tax is to put U.S. production on a more price competitive level against foreign competition. In other words, fair tax would bring more production back to the U.S. Last time I checked, more jobs is a good thing.

Sorry dear, but a huge percentage of "foreign" cars are manufactured in the U.S., while a similar percentage of "Detroit" cars are produced in other countries. They will therefore remain on similar footing even if we magically replace ALL corporate and payroll taxes with the "Fair Tax." (Never mind too the inconvenient fact that many of our foreign auto competitors have higher taxes than we do, furthering undermining your talking point.)

You also ignored the point about real estate. Is foreign competition your scapegoat there too?

It's called knowledge. Learn to see the full picture. Start thinking for yourself and stop sucking up to the flat tax charlatans. They prey on the easily duped.

You know, the opposite of what Obama's "stimulus" will achieve :roll:

And here's where you reveal yourself as a truly mindless partisan hack, educated by the talk radio wing-nut infotainers rather than anything credible and rational. You're dismissed.