On May 24, 8:26*pm, First Post wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2011 12:40:15 -0700 (PDT), gfn
wrote:









On May 24, 3:00*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote :

On May 24, 2:34*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:5111f00d-80ed-4513-9bae-c9a63b5cdb40@
x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

On May 24, 1:23*pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:75946acf-fb50-4a71-9677-e0b1afec14b0
@w19g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

On May 24, 11:24*am, John Smith wrote:
On 5/24/2011 8:20 AM, gfn wrote:

* ...

Where are some credible souces to back up any of that innuendo
you
keep
attempting to push?

Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying 42%
of all
of
governments costs, and sure looks like the top 19% are not
paying half of governments costs, until that happens they are
NOT paying their
fair
share ... a flat tax can fix that ...

Regards,
JS

I already said the tax data is at irs.gov

Now, as for a flat tax I agree with you 100%. *The one I
advocate is the FairTax.

That is not a flat tax, it is a sales tax.

It's a sales tax but it is flat. *It's a flat 23%.

You had better spend some time learning what a flat tax is.

I'm perfectly familiar with a flat tax.

Not sure about that since it has nothing to do with sales.

Sure I do. *The "flat tax" has the government deriving its revenue
from the income tax. The FairTax is related because it is a flat sales
tax that generates revenue from sales. *It replaces the income tax as
the method of funding government. *If you fully understand the FairTax
you will see exactly where I am coming from.

* The FairTax is a replacement

for the income tax.

Yes....and a flat tax is another method of figuring income tax.

Yeah....and they both accomplish the same thing. *The FairTax is
better because a flat tax still involves taxing income which then
leads to exemptions, deductions, and keeps the 16th amendment in place
as well as the IRS, and I can go on and on about the pitfalls of our
current tax system.

*It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator.

Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner.

You may think so. *I don't. *I think it needs too many adjustments so
that it does not become regressive.

I don't think so, I know so. *Tell me how this is regressive?

Current tax system:

Taxpayer earns $1000 a year.
IRS takes 25%: $250.
Taxpayer has $750 left to spend.
Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130.
Taxpayer has $620 left.

Fairtax system:

Taxpayer earns $1000 a year.
IRS takes 0%: $0
Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend
Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130.
Taxpayer has $870 left.

I'll go one better under the fairtax system.

Taxpayer earns $1000 a year.
IRS takes 0%: $0
Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend
Taxpayer buys a USED toaster for a total of $100.
Taxpayer pays NO fairtax sales tax.
Taxpayer has $900 left.

So, again, how is that regressive.

Three suggestions for you to find out why as well as any other
questions you might have:

1) go visit fairtax.org and read it from front to back. *Pay
particular attention to the FAQ.
2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz.
3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics"

It will all become crystal clear.

Got news for you Einstein. *You have to bring in over $5800 for any of
your income to be taxed. *The deductibles are as follows:

* * $5,800 for unmarried taxpayers or married taxpayers filing
separately,
* * $11,600 for married taxpayers filing jointly, and
* * $8,500 for taxpayers filing as head of household.
The additional standard deduction allowed for blind taxpayers and
senior citizens will be $1,150 if married filing jointly and $1,450 if
single.

And just how do you expect those in retail to determine how much to
tax any individual? *Are you suggesting that everyone carry some
special "rich guy" card around to show so they can get raped at the
cashier? *Or maybe create a grand database and require everyone in
retail to subscribe to it thus allowing them to know more about you
than most people care to share?
How about you just make everyone with over a $250,000 income sew a big
gold dollar sign on their clothing so they'll be easier to spot and
round up to put on the trains to the camps?

Furthermore, your insane notion that I should pay over 42 cents on the
dollar for any and all purchases I make simply because I am skilled
and lucky enough to get a considerably larger paycheck than you do
sounds more like typical class envy crap than anyhing that can be
called "fair".

Where did you come up with 42.7% *as being "fair"?
Are you simply figuring on that percentage leveling the playing field
to the point that no one will make anymore than the lowest paid in the
country? *That might make you feel all warm and fuzzy but at the same
time it would dramatically decrease any drive or desire for anyone to
actually be successful in any field. *Who the hell wants to go to
college and spend all that it takes to get a degree and go out and get
a $100,000 or $200,000 a year paycheck when they could save their
tuition and go get a job making tires and be able to keep the same
$50,000 or so a year without worrying about giving half or more to the
government?

Tell you what hotshot. *I'll put up how much in income, sales, excise,
property et al in taxes that I pay in a given year against what you
pay in total and just see how "fair" it comes out to be in reality.

Uncle Sam is already getting a quarter of my taxable income on top of
the state, city and county getting another 10 to 15 percent in
property, sales and other taxes.

Yours is the typical "I know how much anyone really needs to live on"
better than anyone else bull****.

But go ahead. *Place a ridiculous sales tax on the items that the
people you perceive as being wealthy purchase and watch your neighbors
and friends and family suddenly wondering why they're getting laid off
due to slow downs in sales of big ticket items that a lot of them get
paid to make.
Sure, the wealthy will continue to purchase the items that they really
really want, but a lot of us aren't going to be jumping on a $10,000
item that will end up costing over $14,000 after sales tax alone.
That's not how we managed to have anything in the bank in the first
place.
If your scheme were in place now then GM would have lost one sale that
I know of as I will not pay no $57,000 for the truck that has a
$40,000 price tag on it just so you don't have to pay a dime. *They
likely would have lost a ****load of sales as a result of such a tax
scheme.

You only see how such a scheme will benefit yourself and not how it
would affect anyone or anything else.
Such tunnelvision typically results in more harm than good in any
circumstance.

BTW, since your scheme is supposed to be an exercise in perfection,
can you tell us just what nations in the world have anything similar
that has been a boost to their economies or improved the quality of
life of the lowest income earners as a result?
Since you see the plan as an example of pure genius then it should be
no problem at all for you to show us where in the world it has worked.

Lastly, your "fair tax" would not eliminate the federal income tax nor
would it eliminate state income taxes or any of the other municipal,
county and state taxes. *
So your so called "fair tax" would simply be just another big money
grab and all of the horse**** predictions about it increasing
consumption and GDP etc is a load of pure crap.


FP, you may want to go back and clarify just who and what you are
responding to. I never suggested any 42% tax on anyone, John Smith
did. I did suggest the FairTax, which is significantly different than
what John Smith has been writing about. When you are ready to debate
the merits of the FairTax, which assumes you understand what it is,
then let's talk. First, you need to distinguish between what I
propose and what Smith propose.








--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)

If you woke up this morning....
Don't complain.