Putnam’s Florida Grown PAC airs ad attacking DeSantis support of a 23 percent sales tax

by | Jul 25, 2018

Republican gubernatorial candidate Adam Putnam is hitting back at his GOP opponent Ron DeSantis in a new attack ad (see below) paid for by Putnam’s political committee, Florida Grown.

With polls reportedly showing DeSantis taking a double-digit lead over Putnam and President Donald Trump set to make a campaign appearance next week in Tampa on behalf of DeSantis, the Putnam ad attacks DeSantis for his past support of a proposed 23 percent national sales tax.

“In Washington, Congressman Ron DeSantis three times co-sponsored legislation to increase sales taxes by 23 percent, which would lead to skyrocketing costs for Florida families,” the Putnam campaign said in a news release announcing the new ad.

“What would a 23% sales tax do to Florida’s economy? If Congressman DeSantis had his way, everything would cost 23% more – groceries, gas, home purchases,” the narrator says in the 30 second ad. “Congressman DeSantis sponsored legislation to increase sales taxes by 23 percent, hurting families, destroying jobs, devastating tourism. Washington is full of bad ideas and phony politicians. Ron DeSantis and his huge tax increase fit right in.”

The idea of a 23 percent sales tax first surfaced in 2013 as the Fair Tax Act. DeSantis was a co-sponsor. The idea has surfaced in Congress year after year, but has never gone anywhere.

What the Florida ad doesn’t mention is that the  Fair Tax Act would also have repealed all federal income taxes, employment taxes, as well as the estate and gift taxes. It also included a proposed a monthly rebate for those below the poverty line.

“Adam Putnam is committed to reducing taxes and fees on hardworking Florida families and will fight to keep money in the pockets of Floridians and out of the hands of DC politicians,” the Putnam campaign said in its release.

DeSantis’ campaign manager Brad Herold appeared to respond to the Putnam ad in a Twitter post late Tuesday.

The ad is set to start airing statewide Wednesday and could set the tone for the remainder campaign as we head into the final month of the primary contest.

24 Comments

  1. Stephen Eldridge

    Rep. DeSantis is very wrong for Co-Sponsoring the FAIRtax (H.R. 25), because it is a Progressive financial scam.

    It is NOT favored by Conservatives, at least those who understand how it really works.

    Mr. Putnam understates just one of the FAIRtax’s many fatal flaws.

    Prices would rise by 30% (i.e., not the lower 23% noted in this article). The error results from the fact that the FAIRtax deceptively calculates that 23% rate by dividing the tax by the total charge INCLUDING the FAIRtax (A $100 pre-tax price requires a $30 tax, total $130; $30 tax is “only” 23% of $130, but is 30% the way we all understand sales taxes.

    Reply
    • John Hanson

      Well if you actually read the fairtax you would have found what you say here is not the truth. The cost of goods and services subject to the tax would drop by about the same amount of the sales tax since all associated embedded taxes would disappear.Plus everyone(including stupid people) would get a prebate every month on the amount you would be taxed on necessities of life. family of 2 about 480.00 dollars a month.Add that to all income taxes and any other federal taxes and its a great idea.

      Reply
      • Stephen Eldridge

        John Hanson,

        If you had been a tax lawyer/CPA, as I was, (I am guessing you were not) and if you had spent hundreds of hours studying and analyzing the FAIRtax (I am guessing that you did not), you would understand how very wrong you are.

        I. FAIRtaxsm Will INCREASE Prices by Almost 30%:

        For an overview, understand that AFFT’s original promise that we all get a raise while prices stay the same, just could not be true. It is impossible for all of us to be such big winners when the FairTax® is supposed to have us paying the same total dollars in federal tax, with only a very small dollar savings in compliance costs. If we all get a raise, prices must go up by virtually the same number of dollars.

        Originally, AFFT claimed that prices would remain the same under FairTax®. That is, they claimed that prices would first drop by 22% for today’s taxes that are “embedded” in the cost of goods we buy (i.e., from $100 down to $78) and then rise by $23 ($78 x 30% tax), and would thus remain relatively unchanged.

        This original AFFT claim was purportedly based upon a report issued by Harvard Prof. Dale Jorgenson for AFFT, but may have mis-stated Dr. Jorgenson’s conclusions. Among other things, Dr. Jorgenson stated that his 22% price decline would occur over a rather extended period of years, not immediately.

        In any event, Dr. Jorgenson later “clarified” that 2/3 of his original 22% price decline consisted of the savings in the employees’ taxes and “assumed” that employees would surrender their “raises” to their employers – i.e. that their old net pay would become their new gross pay. He “clarified” that he believed that would not occur – i.e., he believed that employers would be required to pay employees their full gross pay without reduction for now non-existent employee income and payroll taxes.

        Thus, Dr. Jorgenson was predicting a 7% (i.e., 1/3 x 22%) price decline and a 21% net price increase (i.e., $100 – $7 = $93 x 130% = $121).

        Next, AFFT Chief Economist Karen Walby demoted Dr. Jorgenson’s status to merely “one of many economists AFFT consulted.” She proceeded to claim, instead of Dr. Jorgenson’s 7% decline, that she believed there would be a 12.5% decline, which translates to a 14% price increase ($100 – $12.5 = $87.5 x 130% = $114).

        However, one of her items of reduction was a 7.9% factor for business income taxes – there were also separate factors for the employers’ share of payroll taxes and for compliance savings. Based upon available data (which in not fully precise), it appears that business income taxes are no more than 2+%, rather than her 7.9% (I challenge her calculation and ask to audit her numbers). When one corrects her 7.9% figure to the 2+%, her figures are in agreement with Dr. Jorgenson’s.

        Next, note that the (Jorgenson and corrected Walby) 21% price increase, “assumes” that fully 100% of their maximum potential 7% initial decline would be passed on to customers in the form of lower prices. In my opinion, that is entirely unrealistic. That 7% consists of about 4% in the employers’ share of payroll taxes.

        Many economists believe that employers view that as a cost of labor and thus such savings would be used to fund employee raises and thus would not be available to reduce prices. Of the remaining 3+%, it is more realistic to assume that some of that would be reinvested in the business and thus would not be available to reduce prices. Assuming that only one-half of that would reduce prices, prices would increase by 28-30%.

        Although one senior AFFT Board member admits that AFFT’s original “prices-stay-the-same” claim was a “mistake”, senior FairTax® propagandists (e.g., Glen Terrell & Dan Borowicz) continue to issue propaganda pieces that perpetuate the original AFFT “mistake” and others (e.g., Steve Curtis, AFFT Board member claims lower increases than even AFFT Chief Economist Karen Walby now admits to).

        AFFT’s Chief Economist Karen issued a new White Paper in 2013, which purported to show that the FAIRtax lowers the “true cost” of a US produced car. However, a study of her Paper reveals that that she shows (finally admits to?) the same pre-tax price (i.e., no price reduction) under both taxes and then adds the full 30% FAIRtax. This appears to admit to a full 30% price increase, giving up on her earlier baseless claim of a 12.5% decline noted above, which she does not reserve in this Paper. She notes that “While economists can dicker over how much producer prices-and therefore the costs of the vehicle-will fall, one factor is “indisputable” (i.e., her interest rate reduction) – that first phrase does not in any way rise to the level of her reserving her earlier claim of a 12.5% price reduction, before adding 30% FAIRtax.

        Walby then attempts to magically show that other savings will overcome the 30% FAIRtax. First, she claims that it is “undisputable” (in the opinion of FAIRtax marketers) that interest rates (on installment payments) will decline by 25%. No economic prediction is “indisputable” – by definition, all economic predictions are purely theoretical.

        Second, Walby attempts to justify her claim using Payroll and Income Taxes “saved” by FAIRtax. However, she uses very high (28%) marginal Income Tax rate that only a minority of taxpayers would pay, rather than using a much lower overall effective tax rate.

        Also, the FAIRtax would require consumers to pay for all former income and payroll taxes as well as all prior corporate income and payroll taxes. This added burden is far greater than her theoretical interest rate savings (and their additional-taxpayers claim has been disputed by independent economists and in any enwill be overwhelmed by the new Black Market).

        Note in summary of this Paper, that the cost Walby shows is the same under both taxes, and that the FAIRtax adds a full 30% so that the price paid at retail is 30% higher. Walby’s attempt to overcome that additional 30% cost is just more FAIRtax smoke and mirrors, i.e., claims that work only on the unsophisticated.

        II. The Prebate:

        Of prime importance, the Prebate is not a real refund of FT paid, as it appears to be. It is a $600B NEW ENTITLEMENT, with all Americans receiving a big monthly federal check – a very bad idea for those of us who are not Socialists. It is financially and politically unwise to create yet another huge entitlement that will only increase in the future.

        FT (Prebate) has the poor pay for no part of the fed budget, pay nothing for their personal SS/Medicare benefits, AND give them a big tax welfare check. FT (Prebate) extends tax welfare to the non-working poor – and also takes the next Progressive Cloward-Piven step towards giving SS/Medicare to all regardless of work, by removing the tax cost of reporting SS Wages, which “invites” fraud in reporting them (as also noted by other authors).

        The Prebate is calculated to merely repay the poor for any FT they pay (as if we all agree with that), but it would actually pay them far MORE by “assuming” the poor spend more than the underlying HHS Poverty Guidelines and that they will pay FT on all of their purchases (but they WON’T) – see http://sceldridge.wixsite.com/sceldridge#!ft-increases-tax-welfare/copu

        Reply
      • Stephen Eldridge

        John Hanson,

        If you were a retired tax lawyer/CPA (as I was and you likely were not) and if you had spent hundreds of hours studying anad analyzing the FAIRtax, as I have (and you likely did not), you would then understand how very uninformed and wrong you are. This material is not for stupid people.

        I will reply specifically in 2 parts, due to length.

        FAIRtaxsm Will INCREASE Prices by Almost 30%:

        For an overview, understand that AFFT’s original promise that we all get a raise while prices stay the same, just could not be true. It is impossible for all of us to be such big winners when the FairTax® is supposed to have us paying the same total dollars in federal tax, with only a very small dollar savings in compliance costs. If we all get a raise, prices must go up by virtually the same number of dollars.

        Originally, AFFT claimed that prices would remain the same under FairTax®. That is, they claimed that prices would first drop by 22% for today’s taxes that are “embedded” in the cost of goods we buy (i.e., from $100 down to $78) and then rise by $23 ($78 x 30% tax), and would thus remain relatively unchanged.

        This original AFFT claim was purportedly based upon a report issued by Harvard Prof. Dale Jorgenson for AFFT, but may have mis-stated Dr. Jorgenson’s conclusions. Among other things, Dr. Jorgenson stated that his 22% price decline would occur over a rather extended period of years, not immediately.

        In any event, Dr. Jorgenson later “clarified” that 2/3 of his original 22% price decline consisted of the savings in the employees’ taxes and “assumed” that employees would surrender their “raises” to their employers – i.e. that their old net pay would become their new gross pay.

        He “clarified” that he believed that would not occur – i.e., he believed that employers would be required to pay employees their full gross pay without reduction for now non-existent employee income and payroll taxes.

        Thus, Dr. Jorgenson was predicting a 7% (i.e., 1/3 x 22%) price decline and a 21% net price increase (i.e., $100 – $7 = $93 x 130% = $121).

        Next, AFFT Chief Economist Karen Walby demoted Dr. Jorgenson’s status to merely “one of many economists AFFT consulted.” She proceeded to claim, instead of Dr. Jorgenson’s 7% decline, that she believed there would be a 12.5% decline, which translates to a 14% price increase ($100 – $12.5 = $87.5 x 130% = $114).

        However, one of her items of reduction was a 7.9% factor for business income taxes – there were also separate factors for the employers’ share of payroll taxes and for compliance savings. Based upon available data (which in not fully precise), it appears that business income taxes are no more than 2+%, rather than her 7.9% (I challenge her calculation and ask to audit her numbers). When one corrects her 7.9% figure to the 2+%, her figures are in agreement with Dr. Jorgenson’s.

        Next, note that the (Jorgenson and corrected Walby) 21% price increase, “assumes” that fully 100% of their maximum potential 7% initial decline would be passed on to customers in the form of lower prices. In my opinion, that is entirely unrealistic. That 7% consists of about 4% in the employers’ share of payroll taxes.

        Many economists believe that employers view that as a cost of labor and thus such savings would be used to fund employee raises and thus would not be available to reduce prices. Of the remaining 3+%, it is more realistic to assume that some of that would be reinvested in the business and thus would not be available to reduce prices. Assuming that only one-half of that would reduce prices, prices would increase by 28-30%.

        Although one senior AFFT Board member admits that AFFT’s original “prices-stay-the-same” claim was a “mistake”, senior FairTax® propagandists (e.g., Glen Terrell & Dan Borowicz) continue to issue propaganda pieces that perpetuate the original AFFT “mistake” and others (e.g., Steve Curtis, AFFT Board member claims lower increases than even AFFT Chief Economist Karen Walby now admits to).

        AFFT’s Chief Economist Karen issued a new White Paper in 2013, which purported to show that the FAIRtax lowers the “true cost” of a US produced car. However, a study of her Paper reveals that that she shows (finally admits to?) the same pre-tax price (i.e., no price reduction) under both taxes and then adds the full 30% FAIRtax.

        This appears to admit to a full 30% price increase, giving up on her earlier baseless claim of a 12.5% decline noted above, which she does not reserve in this Paper.

        She notes that “While economists can dicker over how much producer prices-and therefore the costs of the vehicle-will fall, one factor is “indisputable” (i.e., her interest rate reduction) – that first phrase does not in any way rise to the level of her reserving her earlier claim of a 12.5% price reduction, before adding 30% FAIRtax.

        Walby then attempts to magically show that other savings will overcome the 30% FAIRtax. First, she claims that it is “undisputable” (in the opinion of FAIRtax marketers) that interest rates (on installment payments) will decline by 25%. No economic prediction is “indisputable” – by definition, all economic predictions are purely theoretical.

        Second, Walby attempts to justify her claim using Payroll and Income Taxes “saved” by FAIRtax. However, she uses very high (28%) marginal Income Tax rate that only a minority of taxpayers would pay, rather than using a much lower overall effective tax rate.

        Also, the FAIRtax would require consumers to pay for all former income and payroll taxes as well as all prior corporate income and payroll taxes. This added burden is far greater than her theoretical interest rate savings (and their additional-taxpayers claim has been disputed by independent economists and in any enwill be overwhelmed by the new Black Market).

        Note in summary of this Paper, that the cost Walby shows is the same under both taxes, and that the FAIRtax adds a full 30% so that the price paid at retail is 30% higher. Walby’s attempt to overcome that additional 30% cost is just more FAIRtax smoke and mirrors, i.e., claims that work only on the unsophisticated.

        Reply
        • gary

          Steven, sometimes you can’t see the forest because of the trees…what you do not realize is the benefits that this tax brings…first, the gov’t will collect more taxes, right away from pay checks and not have to borrow money until the end of the year…second, no estate taxes will put you cpa/lawyers out of business, so you should recluse yourself from this argument and go chase cars…third, the add is very misleading but I understand you man that will probably give you a cushy job needs more votes…too bad because that add cost Putnam my vote…

          Reply
          • Stephen Eldridge

            Gary,

            Bless your heart, but you are very confused.

            Under the FT the govt will NOT collect MORE money. The FT claims that it would collect the SAME amount that is paid today, but that is a lie because it would collect far LESS due to evasion and avoidance.

            Under the FT the govt will NOT get our money SOONER. Today, the govt gets out money sooner, (almost) as soon as we earn it. Under FT, the govt will have to wait until we spend it which may be a long time if we save moe of our money and maybe NEVER when we evade and avoid the FT.

            I don’t know how you could possibly have missed that the that I am RETIRED and my proposed Flat Income Tax would eliminate all tax professional. BTW, the Estate Tax is virtually dead already.

            Lastly, I really don’t care who is the FL Governor, I don’t live in FL (although I would like to see a Conservagtive Republican win and I do not know which of the 2 candidate qualify as such.

    • Steven D. Seay

      It is absolutely conservative. In fact, it should actually satisfy liberals as well because they can finally “sock it” to “rich Republicans” when they “buy their yachts.” To say otherwise is simply to not understand it, or to lie about it, or to be obtuse about it. So, which is it for you? You can be honest. This is a safe place.

      Reply
      • Stephen Eldridge

        Steven D. Seay,

        I think you are confused.

        Something that would please A Conservative (i.e. , one who seeks to conserve the Constitution as written, not as twisted by Progresuves) would NOT please a Progressive. That is, Conservatives and Progressives are opposites.

        The Fairtax is VERY Progressive (I.e., anti-Conservative. The Prebate redistributes more wealth. The AFFT markets it as very Progressive. When I get home, I will add illustrations of that, including a quote from Neal Boortz and from some of the AFFT Officers who commented in this discussion.

        Reply
    • V.kay

      He is not able to noe us he raising any taxes. Conservatives won’t ever allow it. And Trump haters better watch out cause you have NO COMMON SENSE. Trumps bade wants borders ice and police.. America 1st 70 million ppl are trumps base. We are not violent. Maxine big lips waters is dangerous and Bernie stupid .no socialism..watch what areal business man can do for america..dems lose control power and money . They will kill to won it’s spiritual warfare
      God sent Trump to drain the whole evil govt. Evil fbi heads

      Reply
  2. Stephen Eldridge

    John Hanson,

    IF you were a retired tax attorney/CPA as I was (unlikely) and IF you had spent hundreds of hours of professional research on the FAIRtax (unlikely), then you would appreciate how very wrong you are.

    Even the AFFT, and an economist it engaged, now admit that prices would rise substantially, and perhaps the full 30% – see http://sceldridge.wixsite.com/sceldridge/ft-will-increase-prices-by-nearly-30

    The Prebate is not a real refund of FT paid, as it appears to be. It is a $600B NEW ENTITLEMENT, with all Americans receiving a big monthly federal check – a very bad idea for those of us who are not Socialists. It is financially and politically unwise to create yet another huge entitlement that will only increase in the future.

    FT (Prebate) has the poor pay for no part of the fed budget, pay nothing for their personal SS/Medicare benefits, AND give them a big tax welfare check. FT (Prebate) extends tax welfare to the non-working poor – and also takes the next Progressive Cloward-Piven step towards giving SS/Medicare to all regardless of work, by removing the tax cost of reporting SS Wages, which “invites” fraud in reporting them (as also noted by other authors).

    The Prebate is calculated to merely repay the poor for any FT they pay (as if we all agree with that), but it would actually pay them far MORE by “assuming” the poor spend more than the underlying HHS Poverty Guidelines and that they will pay FT on all of their purchases (but they WON’T) – see http://sceldridge.wixsite.com/sceldridge#!ft-increases-tax-welfare/copu

    Reply
  3. M. T. Flynn

    This kind of attack turns me off Mr. Putnam completely! It’s dirty politics because it does not tell the full truth!!

    Reply
    • Stephen Eldridge

      M. T. Flynn,

      I am not favoring either candidate, but Mr. Putnam is largely correct in his criticism of Rep. DeSantis’ Co-sponsorship og the FAIRtax.

      That is, he UNDERSTATES the problem. The FAIRtax is a 30% (i.e., NOT 23% sales tax) and the FAIRtax has many other fatal flaws. see my LTE on the FAIRtax page of my website sceldridge.wixsite.com/sceldridge

      Reply
  4. JAMES M GORSIN

    Read the book by Neal Boortz on the fair tax and you will see that there is no increase of 23 or 30 %. There is already a 21% tax in the price of products due to the purchasing and manufacturing of each item sold.

    Reply
    • Stephen Eldridge

      James M. Gorsin,

      You have swallowed a lot of superficial propaganda. This is not simple stuff.

      FAIRtaxsm Will INCREASE Prices by Almost 30%:

      For an overview, understand that AFFT’s original promise that we all get a raise while prices stay the same, just could not be true. It is impossible for all of us to be such big winners when the FairTax® is supposed to have us paying the same total dollars in federal tax, with only a very small dollar savings in compliance costs. If we all get a raise, prices must go up by virtually the same number of dollars.

      Originally, AFFT claimed that prices would remain the same under FairTax®. That is, they claimed that prices would first drop by 22% for today’s taxes that are “embedded” in the cost of goods we buy (i.e., from $100 down to $78) and then rise by $23 ($78 x 30% tax), and would thus remain relatively unchanged.

      This original AFFT claim was purportedly based upon a report issued by Harvard Prof. Dale Jorgenson for AFFT, but may have mis-stated Dr. Jorgenson’s conclusions. Among other things, Dr. Jorgenson stated that his 22% price decline would occur over a rather extended period of years, not immediately.

      In any event, Dr. Jorgenson later “clarified” that 2/3 of his original 22% price decline consisted of the savings in the employees’ taxes and “assumed” that employees would surrender their “raises” to their employers – i.e. that their old net pay would become their new gross pay.

      He “clarified” that he believed that would not occur – i.e., he believed that employers would be required to pay employees their full gross pay without reduction for now non-existent employee income and payroll taxes.

      Thus, Dr. Jorgenson was predicting a 7% (i.e., 1/3 x 22%) price decline and a 21% net price increase (i.e., $100 – $7 = $93 x 130% = $121).
      Next, AFFT Chief Economist Karen Walby demoted Dr. Jorgenson’s status to merely “one of many economists AFFT consulted.” She proceeded to claim, instead of Dr. Jorgenson’s 7% decline, that she believed there would be a 12.5% decline, which translates to a 14% price increase ($100 – $12.5 = $87.5 x 130% = $114).

      However, one of her items of reduction was a 7.9% factor for business income taxes – there were also separate factors for the employers’ share of payroll taxes and for compliance savings. Based upon available data (which in not fully precise), it appears that business income taxes are no more than 2+%, rather than her 7.9% (I challenge her calculation and ask to audit her numbers). When one corrects her 7.9% figure to the 2+%, her figures are in agreement with Dr. Jorgenson’s.

      Next, note that the (Jorgenson and corrected Walby) 21% price increase, “assumes” that fully 100% of their maximum potential 7% initial decline would be passed on to customers in the form of lower prices. In my opinion, that is entirely unrealistic. That 7% consists of about 4% in the employers’ share of payroll taxes.

      Many economists believe that employers view that as a cost of labor and thus such savings would be used to fund employee raises and thus would not be available to reduce prices. Of the remaining 3+%, it is more realistic to assume that some of that would be reinvested in the business and thus would not be available to reduce prices. Assuming that only one-half of that would reduce prices, prices would increase by 28-30%.

      Although one senior AFFT Board member admits that AFFT’s original “prices-stay-the-same” claim was a “mistake”, senior FairTax® propagandists (e.g., Glen Terrell & Dan Borowicz) continue to issue propaganda pieces that perpetuate the original AFFT “mistake” and others (e.g., Steve Curtis, AFFT Board member claims lower increases than even AFFT Chief Economist Karen Walby now admits to).

      AFFT’s Chief Economist Karen issued a new White Paper in 2013, which purported to show that the FAIRtax lowers the “true cost” of a US produced car. However, a study of her Paper reveals that that she shows (finally admits to?) the same pre-tax price (i.e., no price reduction) under both taxes and then adds the full 30% FAIRtax.

      This appears to admit to a full 30% price increase, giving up on her earlier baseless claim of a 12.5% decline noted above, which she does not reserve in this Paper. She notes that “While economists can dicker over how much producer prices-and therefore the costs of the vehicle-will fall, one factor is “indisputable” (i.e., her interest rate reduction) – that first phrase does not in any way rise to the level of her reserving her earlier claim of a 12.5% price reduction, before adding 30% FAIRtax.

      Walby then attempts to magically show that other savings will overcome the 30% FAIRtax. First, she claims that it is “undisputable” (in the opinion of FAIRtax marketers) that interest rates (on installment payments) will decline by 25%. No economic prediction is “indisputable” – by definition, all economic predictions are purely theoretical.

      Second, Walby attempts to justify her claim using Payroll and Income Taxes “saved” by FAIRtax. However, she uses very high (28%) marginal Income Tax rate that only a minority of taxpayers would pay, rather than using a much lower overall effective tax rate.

      Also, the FAIRtax would require consumers to pay for all former income and payroll taxes as well as all prior corporate income and payroll taxes. This added burden is far greater than her theoretical interest rate savings (and their additional-taxpayers claim has been disputed by independent economists and in any enwill be overwhelmed by the new Black Market).

      Note in summary of this Paper, that the cost Walby shows is the same under both taxes, and that the FAIRtax adds a full 30% so that the price paid at retail is 30% higher. Walby’s attempt to overcome that additional 30% cost is just more FAIRtax smoke and mirrors, i.e., claims that work only on the unsophisticated.

      Reply
    • Steven D. Seay

      Yes. Boortz and Linder wrote 2 books on the subject. People should be aware of HOW the tax is computed before they object to it.

      Reply
      • Stephen Eldridge

        StevenD. Seay,

        It appears that you failed to read my reply to Mr. Gorsin just above, nor have you read my explanation of how the tax is calculated.

        A wise person would respect the opinion of a retired tax lawyer/CPA (like me).

        Boortz’s books are nothing but hot air. His understanding of taxation is nearly ZERO.

        Reply
        • J. Hanson

          a wise person will read the law and make up their own mind. You have twisted numbers and scenarios in your posts to much to make sense of them. It is clear however that you don’t consider removing all federal taxes we now pay amounts to anything. Also no where does the fairtax say you will get a refund on all FT you pay or everything you by. I consider myself rather well versed in the fairtax law since I have studied it since its inception and I would rather have it than the current law. As for trusting you because you say you are a retired tax attorney/CPA that is just ridiculous. My exwifes husband is a cpa and he has been trying to figure out my income for 30 years ain’t be successful yet., so pardon me if I think you are full of it.

          Reply
          • Stephen Eldridge

            J. Hanson,

            I am a wise person (and was a tax layer and CPA) and read the lead extensively. I then performed hundreds of hours of professional analyses and concluded that the FAIRtax was a progressive financial SCAM. Do you have any relevant professional training or experience with respect to this topic (I have lots)?

            One of the things I did extremely well was to explain complex matters to financial/tax audiences (do you have any financial expertise?) I think my numbers and scenarios make a great deal of sense. Why don’t you contact me via the Contact page of my website sceldridge.wixsite.com/sceldridge and I will help you to understand, as much as I can.

            .You wrote “ Also no where does the fairtax say you will get a refund on all FT you pay or everything you by.” Where did you see me say that? If you read my Illustration of the Prebate, see http://sceldridge.wixsite.com/sceldridge#!ft-increases-tax-welfare/copu ,
            you will understand that many people at the lower income levels will receive a Prebate that EXCEEDS the amount of FAIRtax they might pay.

            The fact that your brother-in-law can’t figure out your income is does not begin to justify your painting every CPA and tax lawyer as unworthy of respect, especially since it appears that you have little or no relevant expertise to understand the FAIRtax. Contact me via my website and I will help you as much as I can.

          • Stephen Eldridge

            J. Hanson,

            Upon review, I see that you have read and understood NONE of the fdetailed analysis that I have posetd in this discussion.

            Sir, it appears to me that you have no relevant expertise nor the ability to understand these complex issues, and arte merely a FAIRtax true-believer.

  5. Elaine Gervasi

    As a widow of a veteran, I’d like to see Social Security checks increased by 23%.

    Reply
    • Stephen Eldridge

      Elaine Gervasi,

      Prices will go up by the 30% (NOT 23%) FAIRtax.

      The FAIRtax (FT) marketers KNEW that and made sure that SS annual inflation adjustments would take into account prices INCLUDING the FT which means that SS benefits would increase by the 30% in the first FAIRtax year.

      BUT, seniors would be hurt in several ways;

      Seniors would start to pay for SS/Medicare again and some would pay a 2nd-3rd tax on their earnings.

      Many middle class seniors would pay more FT than they would have paid in Income Tax and many would lose purchasing power because of 1) the nearly 30% price increase, and 2) the higher S/L & federal taxes required because they must pay FT and can only get those funds from us, and 3) higher federal taxes due to nearly 30% higher SS & federal pension COLA’s and fraudulent SS benefits.

      Reply
  6. Rev Dr Samuel D Gowan

    I believ that DeSantis voted for the income tax cut making the ad and all this a meaningless moot discussion.

    MOOT = 2.
    LAW
    a mock trial set up to examine a hypothetical case as an academic exercise.

    The pointless ad has convinced me to vote for DeSantis when I was leaning toward voting for Putman.

    Reply
  7. Stephen Eldridge

    Rev Dr Samuel D Gowan,

    Without favoring either candidate, voting for a cut in the Income Tax rates, is an entirely different matter than Co-Sponsoring for the disastrous to replace the existing (but admittedly very faulty) Income Tax.

    Incientally, the term is “Moot Court.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply to gary Cancel reply

%d bloggers like this: