"Scout" wrote in
:



"Gray Ghost" wrote in message
. 97.142...
gfn wrote in
news:c373b161-64c5-4059-8812-505c1c48b2f6@
16g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:

On May 28, 10:28 am, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message


m...









On May 27, 12:49 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:a3818cb8-5698-4e24-8be3-
:

On May 27, 12:35 pm, Gray Ghost grey_ghost471-newsgro...
@yahoo.com
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:9cf9a67a-cb3c-4cd1-a678-
4e47e0379641
@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

On May 26, 6:19 pm, Gray Ghost grey_ghost471-newsgro...
@yahoo.co
m
wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:f287e735-90d5-42c1-a14d-
55a606092fd9
@
28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:

wholesale = $50
compliance costs = - $23
FairTax = $23
sales and other taxes = $27

Unless they changed the rules of math by Congressionl
decree
that's
$123.

You can refer to my math, in return I will refer to your
readi
ng
comprehension. Was there something about "- $23" (read
minu
s
$23)
that you didn't get? I guess the example wasn't simple
enou
gh
for
you.

Didn't see any minuses in there. You think compliance
costs are just
goin
g
to away?

Yes I do. As do the economists that examined the plan and
the
way
market forces work.

--
Herman Cain for President! http://her
mancai
n.c
om/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that
Obama
h
ad
as
muc
h
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have
THAT much
competence?

And economists are never mistaken, cough-cough, hack-hack.

Of course not. They've told us over and over again how our
curren
t
tax system would fully fund the government.

--
Herman Cain for President! http://herman
cain.c
om/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that
Obama had
as
muc
h
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have
THAT
muc
h
competence?

Exactly my point.

But you are perfectly fine with maintaining a system that
currently falls well short of funding the federal government?

Given the tax and spend attitude, NO amount of taxation will feed
the
bea
st.
Even under Clinton will tax increases and a massive increase in
revenue
d
ue
to a booming economy, the federal government still managed to
invent new
and
wonderful ways to spend absolutely everything it got and still
needed to borrow even more.

The problem is a lack of control on spending, not on the level of
taxatio
n.

Exactly. That's why something like the FT is revenue neutral. It's
a mechanism to maintain current levels of tax revenue. Controlling
spending is a completely different issue.


And it's pointless going through the exercise of changing the
collection method if spending doesn't change.

Further, let's assume for a moment that there is a net "savings" for
people under the new tax structure.....wouldn't that seem to be a
justification for the government to simply raise the tax rate so as to
maintain current spending levels with smaller deficits, thus negating
anything that his plan might gain?




One reason why simply adding taxes doesn't fix anything. It really never
gets applied to current programs and their overruns.

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

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