Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
 

RD Sandman wrote in
:

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 12:21 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.

Indeed and I like it.


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

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

Yes, but if that question is not answered we will never solve the
problem.


The problem is that it IS an ongoing problem and always will be.
Therfore we need to keep solving it as we go along. There is no
magic one shot elixer to fix it.


Which is why we need high capacity magazines.

I'd much rather work within the ballot box than the ammo box.

Look the future will have to take of itself. All we can do is fix what
is wrong now. The problem is to many people will not even publicly
acknowledge there is a problem, which in my mind calls into question
thier sanity.

So your solution is to go shoot them?



Couldn't hurt. That or commit them.

--
Herman Cain for President! http://hermancain.com/
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 much
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have THAT much
competence?

Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
 

RD Sandman wrote in
:

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

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


Why? Why should the government need any more than say 10% of the
private sector, except in case of war maybe, and probably not even
then?

Why should the government be entitled to any more than 10% of the
private sector?


Who said it should be? I said somebody has to be able to adjust the tax
rates. What the if the rate needed dropped to 5%?


Fine, Congress can lower the rate but not raise it. Cough-cough. Yeah

--
Herman Cain for President! http://hermancain.com/
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 much
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have THAT much
competence?

Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
 

RD Sandman wrote in
:


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.

What if the wound never heals because of the treatment?



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.

Really? Do you honestly think even 1/3 or spending could stand honest
Constitutional scrutiny. Maybe it's time we stop acting like children and
started acting like there was more to life than government grants.


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.

No, but unless the bleeding stops or slows significantly... Look, I no
longer beleive the bull**** about raising taxes/cutting spending. I became
poltically aware in the 80s with the line of **** the Democrats fed Reagan
and then they reneged. It just is no longer credible. You give them more
money, they'll spend twiec as much on things that hurt the economy.


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.

What makes you think I want to keep programs alive? I want dependency on
the fed stamped out, exterminated, destroyed, plowed under and the earth
salted


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.

Yeah, there is. All it takes is balls and a conscience.


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.

Um, by getting rid of all the government programs, taxes, regulations and
special interest bull**** that is currently choling the life of the
economy?


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.

"our laws"? Not mine. Marxists that want to control the economy maybe.


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.

OK, let's dump everything and start over. With the caveat that any
regulation MUST conform with the limits imposed by the Constitution.


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.

While I don't mind seeing the public sector die...

Unfortuneately I think the parasite may kill the host.


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.

Yeah the county wanted a license fee and piece of the action. I figured
after the feds, state and they got through with me it simply wasn't worth
it. I wasn't busting my ass to keep less than half of what I earned to make
the leechs fat, too.


--
Herman Cain for President! http://hermancain.com/
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 much
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have THAT much
competence?

Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
 

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:


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.

What if the wound never heals because of the treatment?

While true, it doesn't matter if the patient is dead.

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.

Really? Do you honestly think even 1/3 or spending could stand honest
Constitutional scrutiny. Maybe it's time we stop acting like children
and started acting like there was more to life than government grants.

Where do you come up with 1/3? SS is 20%, Medicare/Medicaid and other
safety net programs are another 35%, Defense is 20% and the current debt
in 2010 was 6%. That consumes 81% of the budget. That only leaves 19%
for EVERYTHING else and all those costs are climbing.

Of course we can cut back on Defense (which includes Homeland Security)
by taking the National Guard off the border (they are coming off anyway
by next year) and closing down many of our bases overseas, not buying any
more warships, dropping the F-35 and bringing our boys home from Iraq and
Afghanistan.

Obama's minions think they can get $500B out Medicare/Medicaid over the
next 10 years by elminating fraud and waste, but no one is really stating
where that waste and fraud is much less how to remove it. The Dems
aren't going to go for Ryan's plan although they haven't produced one of
their own......and won't until after the 2012 election. They'd rather
use Ryan's plan to badmouth the GOP to the voters.

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.

No, but unless the bleeding stops or slows significantly... Look, I no
longer beleive the bull**** about raising taxes/cutting spending. I
became poltically aware in the 80s with the line of **** the Democrats
fed Reagan and then they reneged. It just is no longer credible. You
give them more money, they'll spend twiec as much on things that hurt
the economy.

True, but for now, the Republicans control the House where all spending
bills originate. Do you think we can wait until Republicans control all
three again? Look what happened last time. It is never really good when
the same party controls both Houses and the presidency.

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.

What makes you think I want to keep programs alive? I want dependency
on the fed stamped out, exterminated, destroyed, plowed under and the
earth salted

You have to keep some of them going. You simply can't put grannie on an
ice floe and send her out to sea, no matter how much you'd like to. Yes,
there is a lot of folks receiving Medicaid and unemployment and welfare
that shouldn't. But shooting everyone on those programs isn't the answer
either. I'd love to say that as a people we need to assume
responsibility for those who are less fortunate than us, but if that had
occurred earlier in our history, we wouldn't have the programs (and their
attendant problems) that we do today.

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.

Yeah, there is. All it takes is balls and a conscience.

Sorry, but when cutting many of the things going on, balls and conscience
don't play well together. That human nature. We tend to say, hell, yes,
let's cut those programs those worthless assholes are on, but don't you
dare touch anything I may need, want or use.

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.

Um, by getting rid of all the government programs, taxes, regulations
and special interest bull**** that is currently choling the life of
the economy?

That 'special interest bull****' is part of capitalism. Not in theory
but in actuality. As are taxes and regulations.

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.

"our laws"? Not mine. Marxists that want to control the economy maybe.

Our laws. Get your head out of your ass, Ghost. If everone took that
approach we would all be shooting each other at dawn. Our problems have
come from BOTH sides of the argument and it will take BOTH sides to fix
them.

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.

OK, let's dump everything and start over. With the caveat that any
regulation MUST conform with the limits imposed by the Constitution.

How do you intend to do that? Have Congree declare this to be 1791?

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.

While I don't mind seeing the public sector die...

Unfortuneately I think the parasite may kill the host.

And when that happens the parasite no longer survives because it needs
the host.

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.

Yeah the county wanted a license fee and piece of the action. I
figured after the feds, state and they got through with me it simply
wasn't worth it. I wasn't busting my ass to keep less than half of
what I earned to make the leechs fat, too.

Not like that everywhere. When things get overregulated, businesses
move...to other cities, states or countries.



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

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

Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
 

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

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


Why? Why should the government need any more than say 10% of the
private sector, except in case of war maybe, and probably not even
then?

Why should the government be entitled to any more than 10% of the
private sector?


Who said it should be? I said somebody has to be able to adjust the
tax rates. What the if the rate needed dropped to 5%?


Fine, Congress can lower the rate but not raise it. Cough-cough. Yeah


In either case, someone or some entity needs to be able to adjust those
rates.

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

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

Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
 

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
:

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.

Indeed and I like it.


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

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

Yes, but if that question is not answered we will never solve the
problem.


The problem is that it IS an ongoing problem and always will be.
Therfore we need to keep solving it as we go along. There is no
magic one shot elixer to fix it.


Which is why we need high capacity magazines.

I'd much rather work within the ballot box than the ammo box.

Look the future will have to take of itself. All we can do is fix
what
is wrong now. The problem is to many people will not even publicly
acknowledge there is a problem, which in my mind calls into question
thier sanity.

So your solution is to go shoot them?



Couldn't hurt. That or commit them.


Let's look at it this way for a moment.

I wouldn't trust you with our government and making all the laws and
decisions. Would you trust me with it? Didn't think so. So here we are
at an impasse or having to work together when it is just two of us.
There are over 300 million here. And out of that 300 million would come
millions of ideas.....some good, some bad. None of them quickly settled.

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

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

Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/25/2011 8:00 PM, wrote:

...
Hence my remark that such a system would require a totalitarian state.


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

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


Don't forget, we plonk fools here ...

... plonk ...

Then why haven't you plonked yourself?

Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 May 2011 22:52:12 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:

The "burden" to the lowest income is significant compared to what they
make.

Really? I've seen no data that shows the relative burden is any less for
the
wealthy.


ya ****ing fool

any tax table would show you even if you were too stupid to figure out
that someone with just a $1 million pays a pittance in (all) taxes
compared to their income than a burger flipper has left over from what
it takes to survive.

Then feel free to cite any legitimate tax table you think will support your
claim.

Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 May 2011 23:13:44 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:

Anyone who believes that a poor single mother should be taxed the same
rate as a Billionaire or CEO raking in $200 Million is a ****ing
idiot.

So what is your proposal for a fair tax?

Not one millionaire ever went broke prior to 1980,

Henry Ford - bankrupt 1903

Strike ONE!

Walt Disney - bankrupt 1921

Strike TWO!

H. J. Heinz - bankrupt 1875

Strike THREE!

Claernce Saunders - bankrupt 1922

Strike FOUR!

Milton Hershy - bankrupt 1880

Strike FIVE!

Ulysses S. Grant - bankrupt 1881

Strike SIX!

I think that's pretty much an out even in Tee Ball.

Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
 

"gfn" wrote in message
...
On May 25, 5:42 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
:

Sure I do. The "flat tax" has the government deriving its revenue
from the income tax.

Yep....at a flat rate for everybody.

As does the FairTax. Best part is the consumer pays it only when they
buy something. They decide when to pay it, not when the government
decides you owe it on payday.

It looks like they are trying to mix sales tax with the old luxury tax.


The FairTax is effectively a replacement of the compliance costs that
are already built in to every product and service you buy. The luxury
tax would have been a tax on top of that.

The FairTax is related because it is a flat sales

tax that generates revenue from sales. It replaces the income tax
as the method of funding government. If you fully understand the
FairTax
you will see exactly where I am coming from.

Then to keep it from becoming regressive you must drop that sales tax
from certain items, like food, housing, public transportation,
gasoline, etc.. or you end up with the poor paying a much larger
percentage of their income on those taxes than the wealthy.

Nope, There are two reasons why it's not regressive. First, people
pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level.

Which means that someone, somewhere needs to know your income.

Every household


No, they just need to know how many people are in your household.
That determines the prebate, not one's income.

receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods
and services.

I looked at the prebate schedule. Where in there does income come into
it for that poverty level?

It doesn't. Nor does it need to. It only needs to figure what the
cost of essential goods and services are for a family of X number of
people. A family of four that makes $100,000 requires the same
essential goods and services as a family of four that makes $50,000.

False assumption.

Any number of variables factor in to what goods and services would be
essential and what it would cost for those goods and services.

All you are doing is picking an "average" which would reward some family by
paying them for non-essential goods and services and punishing others by
failing to reimburse them valid and legitimated costs for essential goods
and services.

IOW, overall most people wouldn't balance out, only the small minority right
at and around the "average".