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

Goodbye, New York State residents are rushing for the exits
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=308249
cuhulin

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

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"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.

Yes.

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

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"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.

Yep, and just because you pull some bit or piece someone said elsewhere
doesn't mean they agree and/or support your claims in the product you put
together using that bit or piece.

Nor am I going to dig around trying to find out whether this is the case or
not, it's up to him to show me that what he claims is true. It's not my job
to figure out if it is.

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

On May 27, 7:28*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
"Scout" wrote :











"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.

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax. Specifically, the section
headed "Theories of retail pricing".

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

On May 27, 6:58*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

...









On May 27, 5:46 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
:

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


.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.

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

"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in :


"gfn" wrote in message
..
.
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
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:9cf9a67a-cb3c-4cd1-a678-
4e47e0379641
@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

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
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://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?

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

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

--
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?

Exactly my point.


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

I see you support Herman Cain. You do realize he supports the
FairTax don't you? I suspect a businessman like him has many of the
same questions all of you have been pelting me with. And I bet he
understand what compliance costs are and how they affect business.
And through all that he supports the FairTax. You still going to
vote vote for him? I trust him far more than I do the likes of
socialists like Obama. Cain will be getting my vote.

--
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?


The "Fair" tax, twisting the meaning of fair, is a sales tax and is
therefore inherently regressive



There is compensation for that, Sid.

--
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?
 

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in :


"gfn" wrote in message
.
..
On May 27, 7:28 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
"Scout" wrote
:











"gfn" wrote in message

m..
.
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.

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax. Specifically, the
section headed "Theories of retail pricing".

Wrongly titled the "Fair" tax should be labeled the "Unfair" tax.
Totally regressive it excuses the wealthiest among us.




Actually, it evens some stuff out. As he has noted, it is a sales tax
applied to purchases. The wealthy tend to purchase more items and ones
with a higher cost than poor folk do. After all, how many poor folk
purchase a 50' yacht from Broward Marine or Eggf Harbor? The tax is
based on the selling price of an item and is the same on all items.

Ergo, those who buy more items or more expensive ones will pay more tax.

Don't let your money envy and class jealousy blind you, Sid.

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

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

If a wealthy person makes $20 million dollars only that small portion he/she
spends is taxed.
The unspent portion remains untaxed.
People who work at jobs are not granted such privileges
The "Fair" tax is inherently UNFAIR...it's a sales tax and is inherently
regressive.

We have a good system that has been picked to pieces over the years.

The income to works.

It needs to have much of its giveaways removed.

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

"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in :


"gfn" wrote in message
.
..
On May 28, 10:13 am, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:f8953f5a-0de2-4b9c-96d7-135587d983c5@
16g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:











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
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:9cf9a67a-cb3c-4cd1-a678-
4e47e0379641
@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

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
jus
t
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://herman
cai
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
muc
h
competence?

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

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

--
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?

Exactly my point.

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

You think that is my primary concern? if the government is not
spending correctly then yes I want to starve it.

Everyone want to talk about taxes. How about we talk about excess,
not Constitutional spending. How about we talk about what they
should be doing
and how much it should cost and then think about a tax system to
support THAT amount, not create another tax system to raise the same
amount of money and continue spending at the same rate.


I absolutely agree with you 100%. What I am discussing is merely tax
reform, not spending reform. The fairtax is meant only to replace
the current tax structure. Spending is a whole new ball of wax.
And, it's there too that I also agree with Herman Cain. Dude, I'm on
your side on that.

I see you support Herman Cain. You do realize he supports the
FairTax don't you? I suspect a businessman like him has many of
the same questions all of you have been pelting me with. And I
bet he understand what compliance costs are and how they affect
business. And through all that he supports the FairTax. You still
going to vote vote for him? I trust him far more than I do the
likes of socialists like Obama. Cain will be getting my vote.

I rarely if ever agree with any candidate 100%. However I do need to
support one with my vote, I am not a believer in the idea that not
voting "sends a message". If you don't vote you have effectively
voted for the winner. I do not care for any of the old school
Republicans and I despise Obama so i have to pick someone. Honestly,
I might even support Ron Paul except that he is a little bit to
blind to the importance of the military and that disengaging the way
he wants to might be a little dangerous.

--
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?


The "Fair" tax is inherently unfair.

High earners are shield from the tax by the money they DON'T spend


So are the poor or do you think that the Good Fairy shows up at night and
robs their piggy bank or goes through their wallets?

--
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:

gfn wrote in
news:c373b161-64c5-4059-8812-505c1c48b2f6@
16g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:

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


...









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.


While true, as he pointed out, that is a different issue.

--
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?
 

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Scout" wrote in
:



"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in message
...

"gfn" wrote in message

...
On May 27, 7:28 pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
"Scout" wrote
:











"gfn" wrote in message

om..
.
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.

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax. Specifically, the
section headed "Theories of retail pricing".

Wrongly titled the "Fair" tax should be labeled the "Unfair" tax.
Totally regressive it excuses the wealthiest among us.

Sid isn't happy unless it's getting stuck to the wealthy to support
his poor ass.




Begorra, methinks you figgered it out.


..
..
I'm not poor.

I ride the tax gravy train same as you do.

10% tax on interest?

While those who work may pay up to 33% marginal tax.

Have you people no clue?

I suspect none of your have ever done a 1040.