like to get off this list
thanks

ken barber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
well, deri, all those college ecconomics classes must
be coloring my vision.

--- Deri James wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 Jul 2004 19:53, ken barber wrote:
> > hey kendall, after reading this i even more want
> you
> > to see http://www.fairtax.org it addresses most of
> > what i read in the other link.
> >
>
> Ken,
>
> Looking at fairtax.org made me feel like watching a
> Michael Moore movie!!
> Undoubtedly every fact is "true", the problem is
> that the circumstance in
> which a statement can be seen to be true are
> artificially created.
>
> The way to combat "spin" is to exercise common
> sense. I read on the website
> that the current fed tax bill is 1.2 trillion and
> that fairtax is designed to
> collect the same amountl, so it is not a tax cut as
> such. I also understand
> that the current fed income tax is "banded" (that is
> the tax rate is
> dependant on which income band you fall into). This
> means that the higher
> earners pay more tax. Now revenue from such a tax
> fits a bell curve, and the
> tax rate banding slightly skews the curve towards
> the higher earners (not as
> much as you might suppose) so in effect the vast
> burden of taxation falls on
> the middle earners. The fairtax method has a
> remarkably similar revenue
> profile, by providing rebates for the poorest the
> curve is slightly skewed
> towards the richest.
>
> Given that the revenue profile of both taxation
> methods will be broadly
> similar who are the real winners and losers. The
> poorest and richest will
> obviously gain - poor through receiving rebates, and
> rich through being free
> to utilise increased available capital (and make
> themselves richer), but
> there are other winners as well who are not so
> obvious. Employers, for a
> while, will better be able to withstand pressure
> for wage inflation, since
> employees will "feel" richer due to the increase in
> take home pay. B2B
> businesses would love this since they are operating
> within a tax free zone
> and not contributing to society (via taxation) just
> their shareholders.
> Prices & the cost of services will increase not just
> by the tax rate but
> also by the cost of collecting and administering the
> tax. The "price cut"
> which Ken mentions is difficult to visualise, the
> only "saving" I can see is
> a B2B employer no longer has the overhead of
> collecting tax from its
> employees and has no "final consumers" so does not
> have to collect this sales
> tax in its stead.
>
> Finally, since this is the C-Palsy List lets look at
> the effects on our
> members. Since this tax applies to ALL new goods and
> services the cost of
> Attendants (and all other services) will go up 23%.
>
> It is interesting to note the cost of utiising a
> prostitute should go down,
> since the tax doesn't apply to "used goods"!! I also
> wonder how long it'll
> take for car showrooms to offer "rent before you
> buy" deals, rent you a car
> for a month (on which you pay 23% tax) followed by
> purchasing a second-hand
> (ex-rental) car with no tax on it!!
>
> Not a good tax!!
>
> Cheers
>
> Deri
>




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


THAT IS THE GRAYLINE!!!!
gary norris gray
FIGHT THE POWER








---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!