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

On May 25, 10:29*pm, John Smith wrote:
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 ...

Clearly, then, you should go plonk yourself.


... * plonk * ...

Regards,
JS

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

On May 26, 11:51*am, RD Sandman wrote:
"Scout" wrote :











wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 May 2011 22:59:21 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 May 2011 18:44:10 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:

Let's say your burger flipper makes $30,000 and your "wealth class"
makes
$1,000,000

The burger flipper (given the numbers above, the ones you snipped)
would be
paying all of $900 in taxes. Your "wealth class on the other hand
would be
paying $146,400. The effective tax rate, and you love talking about
effective rates, would have the effective tax rate on the burger
flipper be
3%, your wealth class, on the other hand, would have an effective
tax rate
of 14.6%

$900 for a low income in taxes is almost 90% of what they have over
what it takes to live on

Let's see about that shall we...

Poverty level (ability to survive) is $24,000

Which means he's $6,000 above that.

Of which he pays $900 in taxes

or....15% of what they have over what it takes to live on.

So where did you get 90%? Pull it out of your ass?

Because you assumed that a national poverty figure, set by the
****ing idiots that back the wealth class, is a figure that has
validity

Ok, then what number would you like to use?

I don't really care since it's going to be the same for everyone.

Second, the $900 you're proud of is only the FICA taxes, not the
total taxation paid by a low income earner. *Add to that $900, state,
local, county, and other federal taxes on food, clothing, shelter,
utilities, everything else.

Totally missing out on what is being said, aren't you?

WOW, I though he was smarter than that, but.......

Mr. Roselles is the only person on UseNet to successfully argue
himself *into* a paper bag.


--
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?
 

On May 26, 6:19*pm, Gray Ghost
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 reading
comprehension. *Was there something about "- $23" (read minus $23)
that you didn't get? *I guess the example wasn't simple enough for
you.

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


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

--
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?
 

On May 26, 6:52*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
Gray Ghost wrote 6.97.142:









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 reading
comprehension. *Was there something about "- $23" (read minus $23)
that you didn't get? *I guess the example wasn't simple enough for
you.

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

No, he thinks that the fair tax will replace them as they will no longer
be needed. He mainly needs to use more accurate numbers and understand
that he cannot subtract 23% from an item's cost, add stuff to it and
still have it be 23% when he puts it back in place. *Either his first 23%
is in error or the second one is.


$22 million in research says otherwise. On average, every good and
service you buy contains 23% in embedded costs. Those will go away as
market forces take hold. That 23% is replaced by the FairTax. Guys,
this isn't that hard.

--
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?
 

On May 26, 8:06*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"Gray Ghost" wrote in message

. 97.142...









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 reading
comprehension. *Was there something about "- $23" (read minus $23)
that you didn't get? *I guess the example wasn't simple enough for
you.

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

That seems to be his, utterly unrealistic, assertion.

Economist that I trust more than you say otherwise. I know who I put
more stock in.

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

On May 26, 6:23*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote :









On May 26, 4:04*pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:cd664af5-c0a8-4200-a50e-2cdb60b5a031
@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

On May 26, 3:20*pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:5e36036b-9c38-4449-8578-
:

Under the FairTax
- * * wholesale = $50
- * * compliance costs = - $23
- * * FairTax = $23
- * * sales and other taxes = $27
- * * Grand total = $100

You are obviously a Democrat.

Then Herman Cain must be too because he supports the FairTax.

--
Herman Cain for President! * * * * * * *http://hermancai
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 had
as
muc
h
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have THAT
much competence?

I refer to your math.

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 reading
comprehension. *Was there something about "- $23" (read minus $23)
that you didn't get? *I guess the example wasn't simple enough for
you.

Let's try it this way using YOUR figures above.

Originally

Wholesale - $50
Compliance costs - $23
Sales and other taxes - $27

Total product cost $100

Federal income tax revenue is a separate item.

* *****

Wholesale - %50
Compliance Costs - $23
Sales and other taxes - $27

Total product cost now - $50

Federal income tax revenue still a separate item.

* *****

Wholesale - $50
Add sales and other taxes -$27
Add Fair Tax - $23
Add money for loss of income tax revenue - $whatever

Oooops, it now comes to more than the original $100 since that revenue is
not a separate item anymore.


Oops, you are figuring it out incorrectly. Why are you removing sales
and other taxes? By those I am talking about state and local taxes.
So, let's try this again.

Current
- Wholesale: $50
- Add sales and other (local/city) taxes: $27
- Compliance costs: $23
- Total: $100

FairTax
- Wholesale: $50
- Add sales and other (local/city) taxes: $27
- FairTax: $23
- Total: $100

You can review my other posts to account for all the other benefits.

--
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?
 

On May 26, 8:06*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

...









On May 26, 4:04 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:cd664af5-c0a8-4200-a50e-2cdb60b5a031
@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

On May 26, 3:20 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:5e36036b-9c38-4449-8578-
:

Under the FairTax
- * * wholesale = $50
- * * compliance costs = - $23
- * * FairTax = $23
- * * sales and other taxes = $27
- * * Grand total = $100

You are obviously a Democrat.

Then Herman Cain must be too because he supports the FairTax.

--
Herman Cain for President! * * * * * * *http://hermancain.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 much
competence?

I refer to your math.

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 reading
comprehension. *Was there something about "- $23" (read minus $23)
that you didn't get? *I guess the example wasn't simple enough for
you.

Yep, and HOW exactly do you assume that compliance with sales and other
taxes will suddenly be reduced to zero, when they will still need to comply
and that it will cost absolutely NOTHING to comply with the additional
FairTax imposed?

You need to understand what compliance costs actually are. They are
the costs associated with complying with the federal income tax on
wages, regressive payroll taxes , the federal income tax on wages,
i.e. measuring, tracking, sheltering, documenting, and filing our
annual income.. If those taxes are gone then just what exactly is
there left to comply with and how does that cost any money?
Compliance costs of the income and payroll tax are like an anchor
holding back economic growth. We have nothing to show for the billions
spent each year on compliance. Hey, if you like having to spend money
on accountant, buy tax programs, spend countless hours figuring out
what you owe, have your income withheld and being taxed on what you
earn rather than what you spend, then there's nothing I can say that
will change your mind. I prefer a better way.

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

On May 26, 8:04*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"Gray Ghost" wrote in message

. 97.142...

gfn wrote in news:5e36036b-9c38-4449-8578-
:

Under the FairTax
- * * wholesale = $50
- * * compliance costs = - $23
- * * FairTax = $23
- * * sales and other taxes = $27
- * * Grand total = $100

You are obviously a Democrat.

Yep, notice nothing else has changed, but according to him, suddenly it will
cost NOTHING to comply with the still existing conditions, and will cost
nothing additional to comply with the new tax imposed.

As such his numbers are BS.

What's to comply with on a sales tax? Really, make your case? As for
the numbers, as I said, economists have looked at this. The research
is out there. I don't care if you summarily dismiss it. But, at
least take an objective look at the plan rather than gut reactions to
it. Of course, if you like the current tax system then god bless you.

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

On May 26, 7:58*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"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".

It's an assumption that is made by the DHH. It applies to
everyobody. No winners or losers (as our current tax code does).

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

On May 26, 8:03*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

...









On May 26, 1:05 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
:

On May 25, 5:42 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:7c91830c-c968-4f08-9c9e-77bc0350d428@
y19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

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
the
y
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.

Not quite since those compliance costs are not the same revenue source as
the income tax. *For your Fair Tax to work, that revenue source from
income needs to be added.....so it isn't simply the 'before' costs added
to the price of purchase.

No it doesn’t need to be added. *It’s already part of what you are
paying anyway. *Here’s a very simplified example:

Product costs $100, broken down as follows:

Under current system
- wholesale = $50
- compliance costs = $23
- sales and other taxes = $27
- Grand total = $100

Under the FairTax
- wholesale = $50
- compliance costs = - $23
- FairTax = $23
- sales and other taxes = $27
- Grand total = $100

Sorry, but how can you totally eliminate compliance costs, since there would
still be costs to complying with the FairTax as well as the sales and other
taxes.

As such simply saying it's not going to cost anything to comply with the tax
laws is an utterly false assumption.

Indeed since NOTHING else has changed the compliance costs would, at
minimum, stay the same, and given that the need to comply with the FairTax
would require some expense, the compliance cost would likely increase.

So in reality, what would happen would be more like:

*Under the FairTax
*- wholesale = $50
*- compliance costs = $26
*- FairTax = $23
*- sales and other taxes = $27
*- Grand total = $126

Let me ask you a real simple question. What cost do you incur to pay
a sales tax at the point of purchase?