"gfn" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 5:44 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
:









On May 27, 3:02 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:a55df435-ec3a-4cbd-96bd-a6a7c5e8166a@
v10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:

On May 27, 12:23ÿpm, RD Sandman
wrote
:
gfn wrote
innews:bf37633e-1273-4515-a00a-0a9570f6b140@
l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

Let's get rid of a lot crap and get down to the chase and the point I
am trying to make.

You keep stating that there will be 23% of the product cost removed
when Fair Tax is implemented, therefore the 23% of the Fair Tax will
simply bring the product back to the same price. You say that
research has shown that.

Now, let's look at the FAQ. It says that the Fair Tax will be
*revenue
*
neutral. It does NOT say it will be *cost* neutral. That is YOUR cl
aim,
not theirs. Revenue neutral means that the amount of tax revenue
produced by the Fair Tax will be the same as current practice
provide. Cost neutral would indicate that cost of the product to the
public would not change. A statement that they do not make.

Here is what the FAIR Tax FAQ says:

"Does the FairTax rate need to be much higher to be revenue neutral?

The proper tax rate has been carefully worked out; 23 percent does
the job of: (1) raising the same amount of federal funds as are
raised by the current system, (2) paying the universal rebate, and
(3) paying the collection fees to retailers and state governments.
Unlike some other proposals, this rate has been independently
confirmed by several different, nonpartisan institutions across the
country. Detailed calculations are available from FairTax.org. "

Note that it says, "..revenue neutral."

Let's try another spot:

"How does the FairTax affect wages and prices?

Americans who produce goods and earn wages must pay significant tax
and compliance costs under the current federal income tax. These
taxes and costs both reduce after-tax wages and profits and are then
passed on to the consumers of those goods and services in the form of
price increases. When the FairTax removes income, capital gains,
payroll, and estate and gift taxes, the pre-FairTax prices of these
goods and services will fall. The removal of these hidden taxes may
also allow wages to rise. Exactly how much prices will fall and wages
will rise depends on market forces. For example, in a profession with
many jobs and too few to fill them, wages will likely increase more
than in fields where there are too many employees and not enough
jobs."

Note again that it does not name a percentage for any cost reduction.

It
says it will vary depending on market forces.

Here is another spot:

"
Since the FairTax plan is *revenue neutral*, the same amount of
resources is extracted from the economy as is extracted under current
law. These funds are, however, extracted in a less economically
damaging way. Every known economic projection shows the economy doing
better, often much better, under the FairTax.
Because the economy grows, is more efficient and more productive,
that means investment, wages, and consumption are higher than they
are under the income tax."

Again, it says "revenue neutral" not cost neutral. The research that
they claim the 23% number on is for revenue neutrality. That number
has nothing to do with product prices or costs.

Yes it does. The 23% is the embedded compliance "costs".

And where is this noted other than by you? It is NOT in the FAQ.

I'll try

this one last time.

Go for it.

23% of every item you buy is composed embedded

costs passed on in the price of the product associated with compliance
of paying federal income and payroll taxes, including personal, gift,
estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security/Medicare,
self-employment, and corporate taxes. Those are "costs". When the
FairTax is implemented those costs go away. I won't re-hash why.

I am not asking why. I am asking where are you pulling that number from?


See the two links that I already sent you in another post.

So where exactly in the information presented by either of those links would
he find that information?

Care to quote for me the relevant sections that you assertion would address
his question?