Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

"Scout" wrote in
:



"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/24/2011 12:05 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
news:irgufi$l7$7@dont- email.me:

On 5/24/2011 11:36 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
news:irgsdu$b0g$2@dont- email.me:

On 5/24/2011 10:24 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
:

On 5/24/2011 9:02 AM, gfn wrote:
On May 24, 11:24 am, John
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.
Let me put this more bluntly. If I buy and item and pay
7% sales
tax,
the top one percent should buy an item and pay a 42.7%
sales tax,
that
way they will be contributing their fair share to run
government
...
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...wer/wealth.htm
l
And how do you know that at the time of purchase?
You set up a system which handles it ... where they pay
their fair
share
of the cost of government.
IOW, when buying a pack of gum at a Stop-N-Rob, you have to
go through
a
check on your income so they know how much tax to charge?

C'mon, even you can't be that stupid.


The flat tax, the flat tax, I thought you would be able to
catch on ... I was wrong.
A flat tax is on income. It replaces the current method of
calculating income tax by applying the same tax rate to all
income not just wages and salaries. I gave an example of it
here in this thread. Did you take the time to read it? It is
really quite simply and quite short so you should have no
problem understanding it.

What you proposed above is a sales tax and it sure as hell
isn't flat. A flat sales tax would be the same percentage on
whatever was purchased and no matter who purchased it.

You need to learn a bit more before you venture out into the
real world.

Everyone paying their fair share, this is how the discussion
began, or, basically, everyone being equally taxed.


Let's see person A buys product Z and pays 7% in taxes. Person B
buys product Z and pays 7% in taxes

What's more fair than that?

Same product, same taxes paid.

Fair.

Or a person earns $50K and is taxed 15% on amount over federal
poverty level. Another person earns $500K and is taxed 15% on
amount over federal poverty level. Same percentage on taxable
income paid. Fair.

The big problem with sales taxes is what is taxed. How about
food or necessities? Food stamps? Now you begin to list
exemptions....and the list goes on......Thanks, Sonny and
Cher......



The real problem is...

First you have to decide how much the government needs to funtion.

That is true under any taxing scheme.

To do that you have to decide what the government should be doing.

Same here and that is most of the discussion and difference between
liberals and conservatives.

I think rather than discussing camoflaging how the feds fleece the
taxpayer those questions really need to be answered.

Yep, but, good luck. Those discussions have been going on for two
hundred years.

I am of the opinion that taxes overall hurt the economy by taking
people's hard earned money. I don't care if you are the bus boy or
the owner of the chain. You earened it, it's yours.

However, one does get things from having a government.

Overall if the bite is reasonably low than whatever negative
effects it has are mitigated. But the only really effective way to
increase government revenues is to have a going, expanding
economy. That way whatever "protection" money the government
extorts from the people can increase without increasing the
percentage that it takes.

True.

Of course that would require a complete ovrehaul of most federal
policies and the expulsion of Marxists and enviromentalists.

One would have to stop viewing tax policy as a method of molding
people's behavior and relegate to the neccessary evil it is.

Frankly I have yet to hear anyone explain to me how we can tax out
way out of the current crisis wherein the debt equals the GDP and
is likely to double in 8 years. There is simply no possible way to
do it without removing so much wealth from the private sector as
to thorougly tank the economy, which will in turn make the problem
immeasurably worse.

To get out of this will require BOTH taxes and spending cuts.
Doing just one or the other won't do it.

Well, I disagree on this. The leech class has been feasting on the
middle calss for a long time. I think it's time the middle class got
a break and the leeches were starved.

Given the amount of debt that we are discussing the only things that
will work are reducing spending, reducing taxes and regulation so
the economy can come back and then the expanding economy will pay it
down. Provided the leech class doesn't restart spending.

I don't think we can cut enough and get the folks reelected we want
in there. Too many people are stuck to too many entitlements for
those to be drastically cut.....nibbled at and cut over time,
yes.....but not all at once. Medicare, for example, is forecast by
the Medicare Trust folks to hit a cost of $931B in the next 10 years.
Medicaid will double, and SS will go up by 70%.



But I maintain that further taxation takes money out of the hands of
the producer class and further injures the economy so that higher
rates will return lower revenues.

I agree with that but is that injury more or less than what we already
have. It is like putting a bandage on a wound. It works, it does good,
helps healing but it often hurts when removed.


There is simply no rational way to tax us out of this problem!

Nor is there a rational way to cut spending far enough to get us out of
this problem. Ergo, the solution needs to combine both.....more taxes
for certain areas and pretty damn heavy cost cutting in certain areas.

Seriously how much more can we afford to take out of the private
economy? $1 trillion, $2 trillion? $4 trillion?

Our debt is now equal to our GNP. They both stand at about $14.3T and we
are borrowing $0.40 on the dollar. We can't keep doing that and maintain
our status on borrowing percentages.

The only way to do it is DRASTIC spending reductions and DRASTIC tax
cuts so as to allow the producer class to keep it's money and be able
to spend it.

Excuse me, but with DRASTIC tax cuts, how do you intend to keep programs
alive AND pay down the debt. That is like maxing out your credit cards
and then leaving your job as an engineer to flip burgers for miminum
wage. The revenue needs to keep coming. In fact the more revenue, the
faster we can pay down that debt.

Unless people are buying things and generating demand it
just can't happen. And more and more people will become dependent on
the government. More people will be living off of fewer people. There
is no possible way that that is a return to prosperity, no matter what
the Marxists beleive.

And there is really no way to simply cut, cut, cut and cut like many
others believe.

Clearly there are other issues. Offshoring jobs in particular is very
toxic. If you move the jobs overseas, then people here don't work.

Then the laws need to be changed to fix that. We need to find a way to
tax offshore income rather than just leave it float in the wind. We need
to find ways to make our labor more viable here than in France or China.

People not working means they can't buy what they need or want. No
growth. I know what I'm talking about I'm a developer and the number
of jobs going to India and the foreigners being brought in to work
cheaper in essentially captive jobs is killing domestic programmers
and developers.

And I have been in hardware development and quite familiar with
outsourcing on both materials and labor. It is a practice that became
paramount due to competition and our laws.

And it isn't that we are overpriced. Some of the
offers I've seen recently have been downright insulting for someone
with as much experience as I have.

Sorry....

Also, over regulation takes it's toll. A couple out in Missouri fined
10s of thousands for selling rabbits without a license, Amish being
attacked like Waco for selling milk (for God's sake!) to people who
apparently know the "risks" and are more than happy to balance that
with the benefits, Boeing being told they can't build a plant in North
Carolina becuase the UNIONS don't like it? **** me! What has this
country come to?

Regulation needs to make sense.....nuch of what you stated above doesn't.
Yes, I know it is there, but we need to change that however deregulating
everything is not the answer either.

Drastic spending cuts aren't just about stopping the hemorrhaging of
debt but to kill the federal behemoth which is (delibertately in my
opinion) stifling every bit of creativity and entrepreneurship.

Don't worry, it won't. Without a viable private sector, the public one
cannot survive.

Good God, I tried to start a business back in teh 90s, just me and my
computer doing development on the side, in my home office. Not only
did the fed and state want thier cut the ****ing county had thier
greedy paws out for a piece of the action. I think I ended up owing
more in taxes than I got to keep. What the **** sense does that make?

Interesting. I owned a computor consulting business and had no problems
like that. I had costs for a business license and they made me a taxing
point for state sales taxes....but that was about it.




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

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