"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.

"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.

gfn wrote in
:

On May 27, 5:46*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:8ce02ba4-e0fa-4501-94f1-87e144248f44@
e35g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:









On May 27, 3:35*pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:2bd8c587-d08d-465c-9e0a-ec529c2d92ba@
r20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

On May 27, 12:57*pm, RD Sandman
wrote
:
gfn wrote
innews:32f5e241-6e60-4d14-bfa8-cae2d3698f3e@
24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

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


ups .co m.
..

On May 26, 4:04 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:cd664af5-c0a8-4200-a50e-2cdb60b5a
031
@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
://
her
man
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?

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 $1
23.

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 comp
ly
and that it will cost absolutely NOTHING to comply with the
additional FairTax imposed?

You need to understand what compliance costs actually are.
*The
y
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?

There are also state compliance costs associated with state
income taxes for employees, inventory taxes, license renewals,
etc.. *Fair tax does nothing about them. *In addition you also
have s
ome
compliance taxes fo
r
the operation of the Fair Tax....someone has to pay it.

Because that has to do with state taxes. *The FairTax is about
federa
l
taxation.

The point is that those costs are still there. *They were somewhat
amortized when combined with federal taxation but even if that
goes away, the mechanisms of collecting those taxes don't.

The costs of production are there. *The costs of compliance are no
longer there.

They are for state and local reasons. *The only thing that went away
wa
s
the federal requirement. *Some of those are also state costs and they
have to remain in place along with the compliance costs that they
incur.
*
That hasn't changed.


And once again, the fairtax replaces embedded costs of complying with
FEDERAL tax laws.

I know that....however the mechanism for complying with those federal
laws is also used in some cases for state laws. Since those are not
addressed by the Fair Tax, they need to remain in place. When that
occurs, that cost cannot be removed.

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

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

"Scout" wrote in
:



"gfn" wrote in message
.
..
On May 27, 5:46 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
.
com:









On May 27, 3:35 pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:2bd8c587-d08d-465c-9e0a-ec529c2d92ba@
r20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

On May 27, 12:57 pm, RD Sandman
wrote
:
gfn wrote
innews:32f5e241-6e60-4d14-bfa8-cae2d3698f3e@
24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

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


oups .co m.
..

On May 26, 4:04 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:cd664af5-c0a8-4200-a50e-2cdb60b5a
031
@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://
her
man
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?

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 $1
23.

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 comp
ly
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?

There are also state compliance costs associated with state
income taxes for employees, inventory taxes, license renewals,
etc..
Fair tax does nothing about them. In addition you also have
some
compliance taxes fo
r
the operation of the Fair Tax....someone has to pay it.

Because that has to do with state taxes. The FairTax is about
federa
l
taxation.

The point is that those costs are still there. They were
somewhat amortized when combined with federal taxation but even
if that goes away, the mechanisms of collecting those taxes
don't.

The costs of production are there. The costs of compliance are no
longer there.

They are for state and local reasons. The only thing that went away
was the federal requirement. Some of those are also state costs and
they have to remain in place along with the compliance costs that
they incur. That hasn't changed.


And once again, the fairtax replaces embedded costs of complying with
FEDERAL tax laws.

And where exactly does it say it will do exactly that?




That part I agree with that the Fair Tax only addresses federal concerns.
However, if that compliance mechanism for federal taxes and costs is also
used for state taxes and costs, it and its accompanying costs cannot be
removed.

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

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

"Scout" wrote in
:



wrote in message
.
..
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.

3 people who all said basically the same thing. Seems John should buy
a clue.

Someone may need to remind him that it is larger than a vowel.

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

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

"Scout" wrote in
:



"gfn" wrote in message
..
.
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.

Ok, HOW exactly are these embedded costs going to just go away?

Do you think cost of compliance with EPA regulations is going to be
eliminated simply because you add yet another tax?


And where is the information that those costs total up to 23% of the
product cost. Tis awfully suspicious that the costs removed equal the
new costs put in when the new costs include all that federal tax revenue
that is currently being gathered.

Personal income tax - 45%
Payroll Taxes - 36%
Corporate income tax - 12%
Excise taxes - 3%
Other - 4%

http://tinyurl.com/6sdrrr

Some of those costs were already in the product cost so they didn't go
away.

I have no problem with the Fair Tax being calculated at 23% to gather all
that stuff in. The problem I have is the claim that the cost for that
stuff was 23% of the original product cost. That is the only way to add
23% tax and come up with the original cost for the product.

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

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

gfn wrote in
:

On May 27, 5:58*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message


...









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

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
fo
r
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.

Cite them.

fairtax.org. go read under the "research" link.


I went. Now which particular papers did you get that 23% of *product
cost* from? The only references I find to that 23% tax is for *revenue*
neutrality, which is the amount of taxes the federal government gets
through all those taxes.....not product cost. The closest cost to 23% I
see is the 22% cost for just tax compliances which are the costs of
collecting all those taxes including FICA and personal income tax, not
the product cost. Some of which will not be going away will not be going
away as the Fair Tax has its compliance costs also so that they have to
be included in the Fair Tax rate.

Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other. It seems we are addressing
two different things instead of being on the same page.

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

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

"Scout" wrote in
:



"gfn" wrote in message
.
..
On May 27, 5:58 pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message


m...









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

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?

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.

Cite them.

fairtax.org. go read under the "research" link.

I see links for:

About us
Contact
My Account
Logoout
About the Fairtax
News & Commentary
Grassroots
Take Action
Fairtax Caculator - Try it Now
Facebook signup
News & Calender links
Backup - The Basics
Ways and Means Committee Testimony
Fairtax Gear
facebook
twittter
Youtube
Taxavist
Fairtax Nation!
Political Support
Economic Support
Fairtax Books
Search national network
Find local leaders
Home

Don't see any "research" link

So, next time you post a cite, I expect a workable link that take me
directly to the information you claim exists because clearly your
claims about what I will find and where is incomplete, inadequate,
and/or non-existent.

Nor should I have to hunt around looking for your data. Your link
should take me directly to it.




I found the papers by clicking on "About the Fair Tax". That takes you to
a page where research is listed on the left hand side. Clicking on
"Research Papers" takes you to a page where the there are headings
listed. Click on the heading marked, "Taxes and Tax Reform". That will
give you another page where the papers are listed by subject.

Yews, he should have given you a link to get there. Since he didn't, I
will. Here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/3nr4da6

That should be the link he should have given you. Then he should have
stated which of those papers he got his data from.


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

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

"Scout" wrote in
:



"gfn" wrote in message
..
.
On May 27, 3:02 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
.
com:

On May 27, 12:23ÿpm, RD Sandman
wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:bf37633e-1273-4515-a00a-0a9570f6b140@
l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

Let's get rid of a lot crap and get down to the chase and the point
I am trying to make.

You keep stating that there will be 23% of the product cost removed
when Fair Tax is implemented, therefore the 23% of the Fair Tax will
simply bring the product back to the same price. You say that
research has shown that.

Now, let's look at the FAQ. It says that the Fair Tax will be
*revenue* neutral. It does NOT say it will be *cost* neutral. That
is YOUR claim, not theirs. Revenue neutral means that the amount of
tax revenue produced by the Fair Tax will be the same as current
practice provide. Cost neutral would indicate that cost of the
product to the public would not change. A statement that they do
not make.

Here is what the FAIR Tax FAQ says:

"Does the FairTax rate need to be much higher to be revenue neutral?

The proper tax rate has been carefully worked out; 23 percent does
the job of: (1) raising the same amount of federal funds as are
raised by the current system, (2) paying the universal rebate, and
(3) paying the collection fees to retailers and state governments.
Unlike some other proposals, this rate has been independently
confirmed by several different, nonpartisan institutions across the
country. Detailed calculations are available from FairTax.org. "

Note that it says, "..revenue neutral."

Let's try another spot:

"How does the FairTax affect wages and prices?

Americans who produce goods and earn wages must pay significant tax
and compliance costs under the current federal income tax. These
taxes and costs both reduce after-tax wages and profits and are then
passed on to the consumers of those goods and services in the form
of price increases. When the FairTax removes income, capital gains,
payroll, and estate and gift taxes, the pre-FairTax prices of these
goods and services will fall. The removal of these hidden taxes may
also allow wages to rise. Exactly how much prices will fall and
wages will rise depends on market forces. For example, in a
profession with many jobs and too few to fill them, wages will
likely increase more than in fields where there are too many
employees and not enough jobs."

Note again that it does not name a percentage for any cost
reduction. It says it will vary depending on market forces.

Here is another spot:

"
Since the FairTax plan is *revenue neutral*, the same amount of
resources is extracted from the economy as is extracted under
current law. These funds are, however, extracted in a less
economically damaging way. Every known economic projection shows the
economy doing better, often much better, under the FairTax.
Because the economy grows, is more efficient and more productive,
that means investment, wages, and consumption are higher than they
are under the income tax."

Again, it says "revenue neutral" not cost neutral. The research that
they claim the 23% number on is for revenue neutrality. That number
has nothing to do with product prices or costs.


Yes it does. The 23% is the embedded compliance "costs".

Cite where they specifically state that.




That is the same thing I have been asking him for. I know how the 23%
figure for the Fair Tax got calculated, I just want to know where that
23% figure he claims is in the cost of all products is worked out. Where
did THAT number come from. Methinks he is misreading something..

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

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

"Scout" wrote in
:



"Gray Ghost" wrote in message
. 97.142...
gfn wrote in
news:ef9eff13-5301-4e82-b5c0-66f67997c9d6
@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

On May 27, 10:09 am, "SaPeIsMa" wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

news:c0d226e9-3004-49e2-9639-
...
On May 26, 8:03 pm, "Scout"







wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

news:5e36036b-9c38-4449-8578-
...

On May 26, 1:05 pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:6b95e91a-138f-49b0-a7bd-e8e44a57e311
@e35g2000yqc.googlegroups
.com:

On May 25, 5:42 pm, RD Sandman

wro
te:
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
whe
n
the
y
buy something. They decide when to pay it, not when the
governm
ent
decides you owe it on payday.

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

The FairTax is effectively a replacement of the compliance
costs
t
hat
are already built in to every product and service you buy.

Not quite since those compliance costs are not the same
revenue
sour
ce
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
th
e
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
Fair
Tax
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?

The buyer ?
The buyer is paying for the cost which is built into the sale
pri
ce

There's no compliance cost to him with paying the sales tax. They
just pay it. Unlike the fed income tax compliance means CPAs,
TurboTax, manuals, etc.

The seller ?
The seller has the cost of managing and reporting the taxes
that
were

Oh, you mean like they already do with state sales taxes? By the
way, merchants and sellers are reimbursed for those costs. But, you
knew that already, didn't you?

Which is never enough.

Even if so, doesn't alter anything. That they pay the collection costs
via the tax collected doesn't alter ANYTHING.

Since that cost is simply buried in the tax in the form of a higher
tax rate.

Effective tax rate - 20%
compliance costs for the retailer - 3%
Fairtax = 23%

or we can not pay the retailed for his costs

Tax rate - 20%
Retailers compliance cost - 3%
Tax and costs passed on to the consumer - 23%

Either way, the government collects the same revenue, and the costs of
compliance are still passed on to the consumer.
The ONLY difference is where that cost is added in to the final price.

Indeed, I would tend to think the government model (first) would incur
a higher final cost since there would be yet more forms to fillout &
process, more people to handle those forms and more transfers of money
back and forth. All of which means MORE expense, not less.



Don't forget that Fair tax also includes your FICA taxes, personal income
taxes, etc...

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

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