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

RD Sandman

"Scout" wrote in
:

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

"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...power/wealth.h
tm 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.

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.

That's true but it is often rather difficult to know how someone will
vote.....see Souter.

True, which is why I feel some of that authority should be withdrawn
from Congress and put back into our hands.

You mean other than November.

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

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