Smart Democrats Should Be Worried

Smart democrats don't really care what John Fund thinks. Originally Posted by Doove

How would you know what smart Democrats think? Have you asked them what they think of John Fund's writing? Obviously, you can't speak from personal experience.

damn, I should have used my psychic power and figured out you were talking about fair tax because you didnt say anything about fair tax until now .. Originally Posted by CJ7

COG has talked about it quite a few times. You must have a short memory.

COG about the fairtax -

It would be fine for me (high income, but a tightwad).

What about the little old lady who got her ass taxed off for the past 50 years, now has meager income (not paying any fed income tax) and is living off savings. The FT is on medical services, so she takes out $$ from her savings (already taxed) and tack on 23% tax to her medical bills? Originally Posted by Submodo

The Fairtax has a rebate system for the poor. They would actually be better off under the Fairtax. We would have to repeal the sixteenth amendment before putting it in place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kweiXVdoApc

My guess is you've never heard of him. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Wrong again.

His goofy smile (along with Stephen Moore's) makes it impossible for me to take him seriously.

I wasn't really talking about "the poor."

I was more interested in those middle that have paid income taxes, but weren't in the upper strata to enjoy the exotic tax dodges.

Now that they are in their spending down phase, we hit them with 23% tax on their purchases - ALL their purchases? On money they have already been taxed on when they earned it?

I'm all for this new system as long as there is a fair transition as well as a fair tax.

I saw nothing on the transition on the website. Maybe I missed it.

Wrong again.

His goofy smile (along with Stephen Moore's) makes it impossible for me to take him seriously. Originally Posted by Doove

That sounds like a reasonable way to judge someone's intelligence. How do you feel about this guy's intelligence? He looks kind of goofy to me.

It seems like John Fund always has a smirky smile on his face. I think that's goofy.

Stephen Moore always seems to be acting like a giggly 11 year old school girl who got a backstage pass to a Justin Beiber concert. I think that's goofy.

Oh, and neither of those two are suffering from ALS.

It seems like John Fund always has a smirky smile on his face. I think that's goofy.

Stephen Moore always seems to be acting like a giggly 11 year old school girl who got a backstage pass to a Justin Beiber concert. I think that's goofy.

Oh, and neither of those two are suffering from ALS. Originally Posted by Doove

I really thing getting Ryan was a *some*what smart choice for the Republicants. I think in a head to head debate with Biden, he would do very well. But if I were Mitt Romney and head of the RNC, I would have Mitt in a room learning how to debate, b/c Obama (just like he did with John McCant) will clean Romney's clock. Obama will also revitalize the youth and minority vote and send them to the polls in droves!

Really Joe? My comment upset you that much?

I wasn't really talking about "the poor."

I was more interested in those middle that have paid income taxes, but weren't in the upper strata to enjoy the exotic tax dodges.

Now that they are in their spending down phase, we hit them with 23% tax on their purchases - ALL their purchases? On money they have already been taxed on when they earned it?

I'm all for this new system as long as there is a fair transition as well as a fair tax.

I saw nothing on the transition on the website. Maybe I missed it. Originally Posted by Submodo

You really don't understand the FairTax. Please go to the website and learn about it. It is easy to pick and choose little areas and distort them, but when taken in context, they are perfectly understandable. It is the most studied and vetted tax system ever proposed.

I'll take the 23% on right here. Right now, economists have calculated that 23% of everything you buy is due to embedded tax and tax compliance costs. When the income tax is repealed, that embedded cost goes away, and natural market forces will drive the price level down.

Here is where people like to demagogue. "Well, what if the companies don't lower their prices? Huh? What then?" The answer is simple. If a can of Coke costs $1, and a can of Pepsi costs $1 under the current system, what leads to you to choose one over the other? Now, when the income tax is repealed, and let's say Coke decides, "Hey, we can make out like bandits by leaving our price the same." Guess what. Pepsi lowers their price to $0.77. which would you choose? Most would choose Pepsi.

Now, we have both Coke and Pepsi at $0.77, then the FairTax of 23% of the total price is added. They now cost $1.00 each, and we're back to normal, EXCEPT, you, as a consumer no longer pays payroll tax or income tax, so you get your whole paycheck. The price level remains stable, purchasing power increases, and that is a good thing.

Nobody will be adding 23% to prices that include the embedded tax and compliance costs. Those are taken away before the FairTax is implemented.

Each product and industry will have different price elasticities of demand, but overall, the price level will not change.

Read about the FairTax. It is fascinating, simple, and so necessary. If there are some glitches due to pensioners living on previously taxed dollars, I'm sure there can be some accommodation for them in the bill.

But watch out for the demagogues. A lot of politicians, lobbyists and industries have a lot invested in the current system. They won't give up their perks without a fight. But the end result will be better for everyone.

www.fairtax.org

Really Joe? My comment upset you that much? Originally Posted by Doove

No, I'm not upset.

You really don't understand the FairTax. Please go to the website and learn about it. It is easy to pick and choose little areas and distort them, but when taken in context, they are perfectly understandable. It is the most studied and vetted tax system ever proposed.

I'll take the 23% on right here. Right now, economists have calculated that 23% of everything you buy is due to embedded tax and tax compliance costs. When the income tax is repealed, that embedded cost goes away, and natural market forces will drive the price level down.

Here is where people like to demagogue. "Well, what if the companies don't lower their prices? Huh? What then?" The answer is simple. If a can of Coke costs $1, and a can of Pepsi costs $1 under the current system, what leads to you to choose one over the other? Now, when the income tax is repealed, and let's say Coke decides, "Hey, we can make out like bandits by leaving our price the same." Guess what. Pepsi lowers their price to $0.77. which would you choose? Most would choose Pepsi.

Now, we have both Coke and Pepsi at $0.77, then the FairTax of 23% of the total price is added. They now cost $1.00 each, and we're back to normal, EXCEPT, you, as a consumer no longer pays payroll tax or income tax, so you get your whole paycheck. The price level remains stable, purchasing power increases, and that is a good thing.

Nobody will be adding 23% to prices that include the embedded tax and compliance costs. Those are taken away before the FairTax is implemented.

Each product and industry will have different price elasticities of demand, but overall, the price level will not change.

Read about the FairTax. It is fascinating, simple, and so necessary. If there are some glitches due to pensioners living on previously taxed dollars, I'm sure there can be some accommodation for them in the bill.

But watch out for the demagogues. A lot of politicians, lobbyists and industries have a lot invested in the current system. They won't give up their perks without a fight. But the end result will be better for everyone.

www.fairtax.org Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I spent a fair bit of time today reading about the fair tax on the website you linked. Just because I have questions, that you don't seem to have any answer for except "I'm sure that can be addressed" doesn't mean I don't understand it. It means there are a lot of details left out.

As in all things taxation, the devil is in the details.

If it were 1913, and we're all starting from ground zero, I say fair tax all the way. We would have been much better off than what we have created with the income tax system.

You seem to have left out the scenario where Coke and Pepsi both keep their price at 1.00. I guess that could never happen.

I spent a fair bit of time today reading about the fair tax on the website you linked. Just because I have questions, that you don't seem to have any answer for except "I'm sure that can be addressed" doesn't mean I don't understand it. It means there are a lot of details left out.

As in all things taxation, the devil is in the details.

If it were 1913, and we're all starting from ground zero, I say fair tax all the way. We would have been much better off than what we have created with the income tax system.

You seem to have left out the scenario where Coke and Pepsi both keep their price at 1.00. I guess that could never happen. Originally Posted by Submodo

If Coke and Pepsi didn't drop their prices, then everyone would drink RC Cola at a lower price until Coke and Pepsi were forced to compete. The lower cost of production would result in lower prices. Capitalism does work. Competition does lower prices.

The lower cost of production would result in lower prices. Originally Posted by joe bloe

It could result in lower prices. Not necessarily low enough to offset the increase in sales tax.

This whole revenue neutral idea assumes firms will pass all the savings from their lower costs of production on to consumers. Quite an assumption.