RadioBanter - View Single Post - Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?

Scout

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Scout" wrote in
:

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
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...er/wealth.html
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.

Agreed, but until I see some serious spending cuts and a clear, firm
(and preferably Constitutionally mandated) path to control spending
and reduce the debt, I would be most reluctant to accept the need for
any increase in taxation.

As would I.

We've been promised spending cuts before in exchange for a tax hike.
We got the hike....we didn't get the cuts.

That's why we have elections.

Which, even at best, is closing the barn door after the horse has run off.