View Single Post
  #172   Report Post  
Old May 28th 11, 12:14 AM posted to talk.politics.guns,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,rec.radio.shortwave,alt.conspiracy
RD Sandman RD Sandman is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2010
Posts: 159
Default Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?

"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 12:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
:

On 5/24/2011 11:40 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
:

On 5/24/2011 10:47 AM, gfn wrote:
...
Sure it is. It gives a clear, concise and true picture
of who pays the federal income tax burden in this
country. If you want to talk about all taxes and all
revenue that goes to the government then your right. I
know of no place that compiles that data. ...
OK. Then, please cut and paste the relevant parts here,
I need them pointed out to me.
If you can't understand the date presented at that site,
you have no hope of understanding any data presented to
you. Which explains some of your ideas.....
If it is so simple, as you pretend, it would be no problem
... you are attempting a circular argument ...

Just post something which proves your point ... if you can,
from the site you are claiming explains it openly ... DUH!
I didn't make that claim, however, here is the data:

2008

Top 1% AGI$380,354 Percentage 38.02
Top 5% AGI$159,619 Percentage 58.72
Top 10% AGI$113,799 Percentage 69.94
Top 25% AGI$ 67,280 Percentage 86.34
Top 50% AGI$ 33,048 Percentage 97.30
Bottom 50% AGI$ 33,048 Percentage 2.70

2007

Top 1% AGI$410,096 Percentage 40.42
Top 5% AGI$160,041 Percentage 60.63
Top 10% AGI$113,018 Percentage 71.22
Top 25% AGI$ 66,532 Percentage 86.59
Top 50% AGI$ 32,879 Percentage 97.11
Bottom 50% AGI$ 32,879 Percentage 2.89

Here is the site:

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

The Virginian-Pilot
© May 15, 2011
By Don Tabor

Who really pays the baker's taxes? The baker may write the
check, but he does not bear the cost, and in that paradox
lies the cause of much of the bitter partisanship and
polarization that poisons our political process. But to
understand that problem, we must consider how taxes are
applied to the production of goods and services.

So, how does the loaf of bread the baker sells come to
market?

A farmer grew and harvested wheat for sale to the miller to
be made into flour for the baker. The farmer paid income
taxes based on his profit from the sale and property tax on
his farm and equipment. Those taxes were, from his point of
view, just another cost of doing business in the course of
earning his living, no different from fuel for his tractor
or wages and taxes for employees.

Since every other farmer had roughly the same expenses and
taxes, the price they charge the miller must cover their
expenses and taxes, plus their after-tax disposable income
and savings. Otherwise, there would be no point in growing
wheat. All of these costs and taxes were passed on to the
miller, embedded in the price of wheat.

Likewise, when the miller sold the flour ground from the
wheat to the baker, his taxes, plus the income and Social
Security taxes he withheld from his employees, plus the
farmer's taxes, were all passed on to the baker.

The baker then sold his bread made from the flour, carrying
with it his own taxes plus those of his employees, plus all
those previous taxes from the farmer, miller and their
employees, hidden in the price of that loaf of bread. The
buyer and his family ate the bread, and, having done so,
could not sell it to anyone else and pass the taxes along,
as the baker and everyone else before had done.

So, it is the consumer who paid the baker's taxes, along
with the farmer's taxes, the miller's taxes and the taxes
they withheld from all of their employees. From bread to
automobiles to brain surgery, the price of everything we buy
carries in it the hidden taxes of everyone who contributed
to the production of that product or service to the tune of,
on average, 23 cents of every dollar we spend for federal
taxes alone.

Our complex, pervasive and expensive tax code is, in
reality, a scheme to draft businesses and individuals as
unpaid and unknowing tax collectors to gather a hidden sales
tax and to keep voters from realizing who really bears the
burden of those high taxes.

There is no way around this central reality that all income
and business taxes are a deception and that all taxes are
eventually paid by the consumer, hidden in the price of
goods and services. It doesn't matter what tax rate is
applied to which tax bracket, or what deductions you
receive. These devices change only the degree to which you
are a tax collector, but the burden taxes place on your life
depends solely on what you spend.

Paying this hidden consumption tax is unavoidable, but the
illusion of income-based taxing does a great deal of harm.
First, it distorts our economic decisions. Goods and
services that are provided by highly taxed individuals and
companies, like health care, are artificially more expensive
than necessary, while raw materials and natural resources
are underpriced, leading to overconsumption and waste.

But even worse, these hidden taxes distort the political
process, encouraging government overspending by politicians
who exploit the mistaken belief of many voters that
government spending can be paid for solely by taxing
corporations or the "rich." All of the exploitation of envy
and demagoguery - which brings so much ill will to our
politics and drives wedges between Americans who would be
better served by mutual respect and compassion - is
ultimately the meaningless exploitation of a lie.

Our income tax system, with its escalating marginal rates,
appears progressive, but the reality is extremely
regressive. Currently, the lower income 45 percent of wage
earners may pay no income tax directly, but in reality, with
their FICA taxes added to the hidden embedded tax, their
true federal tax burden is almost 30 percent of their meager
income.

Voters might well choose differently were they aware that
government spending is ultimately paid for by everyone,
through an invisible sales tax disguised as a high cost of
living.

Guest columnist Don Tabor of Chesapeake is a grandfather,
Libertarian activist and proprietor of TidewaterLiberty.com.
He is a dentist in Norfolk and Hampton.

A flat tax, and NO OTHER TAXES! PERIOD!

Agreed. A flat tax. Mr A buys a product he pays the same tax
as Mr. B.

Mr. A pays the same rate of taxes on his income that Mr. B
does.

No exceptions, no exclusions, except those which apply to ALL.

If you're going to exempt Mr. A housing, food, medical, then
Mr B gets the exact same exemptions.

Otherwise, it's not a flat tax.




And it won't fix the problem he is whining about....which is
the rich not paying a hundred times what the poor do.


And truthfully you never will. It is childish whining to think
so. The best you can hope for is that everyone pays the same
percentage without a plethora of deductions and weasel outs.

Which is what my flat tax proposal does.

AFter, of course, you tell me exactly how much the guv needs and
why.

GG, somehow I doubt that decision is up to you.

Actually, I think if we fixed the income the federal government
had to work with by eliminating their power to impose or increase
taxes, I bet the rest would, over time, resolve itself.

Somebody has to be able to adjust tax rates... If not Congress
then who?

Decrease, by Congress.

Increase, by vote during a general election.


I think one can do the same thing with spending proposals as we would
like to see in regulatory proposals.

A. What problem is being fixed or addressed?
B. What measurement system is going to be used or put in place to
ensure that result is occurring?
C. How long will that measurement be given to show results.
D. If measurement shows no gain or the law doesn't work, law will
automatically sunset after stated period of time.

That should apply to all legislation.


Maybe, but nothing there would prevent overspending, even massive
overspending as long as they can show some sort of results.

True, results are good, but there is a limit to how much we can afford
no matter how much a lot of it might benefit people.


I agree but see that as a different problem. It is here and now that
what you want must occur. My thing above is for now on.


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

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