Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the record, let me say that I work in the field of policy analysis, and that tax policy is one of the threads that weaves its way in and out of what I do. I am not an expert on the Fair Tax. The reason for that is that not enough people take it seriously to generate any actual business over it. The answers you provided were not answers. In something on the order of half of the cases, they failed even to address the question that was asked. Worse yet is the fact that the backers of the Fair Tax themselves either can't or won't answer these and other questions. You can take my word for it, or you can go out and investigate the matter on your own. You will eventually come to the same conclusion either way. In considering the case made for the Fair Tax in toto, I will conclude with the words of Hans Blix when asked about Colin Powell's presentation on Iraq at the UN in February 2003...
"Pretty flimsy."
I'm aware of what you claim is your field of expertise. And, I'm certain you're not an expert on the Fair Tax. Many of the questions you asked were redundant and were easily answered. One answer that covered many of your questions was:
Retail prices drop when manufacturing costs drop, causing the cost of purchases after the FT to be generally equivilant to the cost before the FT.
You failed, or refused, to comprehend even this simple tenet of economics. I even provided examples of markets where this has occurred. Therefore, I suspect that any further discussion would be a waste of time.
I suspect that at some point you'll be required to address the Fair Tax. I just ask that, for the sake of your clients, you investigate it with more of an open mind instead of just what favors your ideology.
The most grossly unfair thing about federal systems, is the lack of Cost of Living Adjustment. From College Financial aid, to WIC, to many other schemas, they are benchmarked on a ridiculously low "poverty" line, and not at all adjusted to the cost of living in the locality. What it cost to get by in some places is a lot more than others.
Interestingly enough, one Fed gets it right. The military has the BAH set for over $1850 per month in NYC. (I haven't checked if it has gone up in the last year or two.) In other cities, the BAH is only $800 or thereabouts. At least the military understands that it costs more to live in other places and has a rock bottom standard of how their personnel should live. Good for them.
You provide a strong argument concluding that the more local the decisions the better the decisions. In other words, local charities and organizations can do a better job of doling out charity then government bureaucrats in Washingotn.
Just think all the illegals would have to pay tax too!!!
There would be NO IRS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not only that, but drug dealers, thieves, bookies, and the rest of the underground economy would be paying the same taxes as everyone else. Many people don't consider this when evaluating the Fair Tax. The underground economy would provide a substantial amount of revenue, for those who are concerned about "revenue neutrality".
I'm aware of what you claim is your field of expertise. And, I'm certain you're not an expert on the Fair Tax. Many of the questions you asked were redundant and were easily answered.
Yes, too easily....
Little girl: Why is the sky blue, Daddy?
Daddy: Because it is.
Little girl: But why is the sky blue, Daddy?
When your easy answer fails to resolve (or even address) the issue at hand, you can expect that the question will remain upon the table. Responding is not a substitute for answering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
One answer that covered many of your questions was: Retail prices drop when manufacturing costs drop, causing the cost of purchases after the FT to be generally equivilant to the cost before the FT.
You failed, or refused, to comprehend even this simple tenet of economics.
It isn't a simple tenet of economics. The effect on prices of a drop in costs of production depends heavily on the structure of an industry. In a model of pure competition, all reductions in production costs will be passed on by all producers. In a monopoly, there is no a priori reason to expect that any cost reductions will be passed on at all.
Fair Tax proponents depend heavily on their assumptions that the costs of complying with corporate tax law are substantial, that if the requirement of compliance were removed, all cost savings would be passed on to consumers, and that the amount thus passed on would be enough to cancel out the effects of their 30% Fair Tax surcharge. Unfortunately, they provide very little in the way of analytical substantiation for these assumptions. An independent observer is left with only the notion that corporate tax compliance does have costs, that if suddenly saved, some portion of those savings would be passed on to consumers, and that to the extent that they were passed on, they would act to ameliorate the effects of a tax surcharge. Fair Tax proponents and independent observers thus ariive at very different conclusions on the matter. In the one case, everyone lives happily ever after, just as in a fairy tale. In the other, no one actually knows what will happen. And that becomes a cause for concern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
I even provided examples of markets where this has occurred.
The examples of individual product markets are not meanigful. The Fair Tax claims require the entire economy -- i.e., all product markets taken together -- to behave in a particular and generally extreme manner. The case cannot be made merely through citing selected historical examples that seem to be favorable. We could digress into discussion of the particular markets you mentioned (computers, telephones, internet access, televisions, cameras, gasoline, automobiles, and airline tickets) and examine within each whether the claimed effect occurred and why, but there would be little point to going off on such a diversionary trek through the weeds when it is credible and consistent evidence for the premise as a whole being true that is called for. It would be entirely possible for the premise to hold within dozens of carefully selected product markets and yet fail (as much as miserably) across the economy taken in its entirety. The argument that while we are currently out of apples, we do have some oranges, does not much impress those whose interests lie in the baking of an apple pie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
Therefore, I suspect that any further discussion would be a waste of time.
The choice is yours. If you don't believe that there is knowledge to be gained from the questioning of unsupported assumptions, then you may be quite right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
I suspect that at some point you'll be required to address the Fair Tax. I just ask that, for the sake of your clients, you investigate it with more of an open mind instead of just what favors your ideology.
Should that case arise, I'll take the time to explore Fair Tax arguments, both pro and con, more deeply, but I will assure you that ideology will remain a complete non-factor in any case. Arguments are either well supported or they are not. The matter is independent of the political point of view of any reviewer.
The choice is yours. If you don't believe that there is knowledge to be gained from the questioning of unsupported assumptions, then you may be quite right.
No, I just believe that neither of us gain anything if one of us refuses to agree that the sky IS blue, or even that the universe exists that creates that color. Thanks for the exercise anyway.
You provide a strong argument concluding that the more local the decisions the better the decisions. In other words, local charities and organizations can do a better job of doling out charity then government bureaucrats in Washingotn.
Please review the concept of block grants, then check to see how many programs that are federally funded are actually administered at the state and local levels.
Please review the concept of block grants, then check to see how many programs that are federally funded are actually administered at the state and local levels.
Not only that, but drug dealers, thieves, bookies, and the rest of the underground economy would be paying the same taxes as everyone else. Many people don't consider this when evaluating the Fair Tax. The underground economy would provide a substantial amount of revenue, for those who are concerned about "revenue neutrality".
Many people? I don't know of anyone who has committed such a glaring oversight. I do know of people who have observed that Fair Tax proponents make use of the fact that few hard numbers are available concerning what is called the underground economy to make claims that can't be either verified or refuted. In essence, they let themselves off the hook here on both counts.
At the same time, it would seem unlikely that drug dealers are themselves going to start imposing the 30% Fair Tax surcharge at their own points of sale, and that would leave the net tax effects as lying within the idea that drug dealers purchase taxed items as a group more often than do drug users as a group. There may be some merit to this argument, but at its best, its effects are marginal, and the gross numbers involved are trivial in comparison to the estimated dimensions of the underground economy as a whole.
The Feds should not be involved with "College Aid", WIC, or other welfare programs. They should be left to the States and local governments.
Or, provide funding to private agencies, including FBO's who have more direct contact with those that need the help - cut the bureaucracy out of the welfare crap
The Feds should not be involved with "College Aid", WIC, or other welfare programs. They should be left to the States and local governments.
Or, provide funding to private agencies, including FBO's who have more direct contact with those that need the help - cut the bureaucracy out of the welfare crap
Very true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
