|
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
John Smith wrote in
: On 5/24/2011 11:42 AM, gfn wrote: On May 24, 2:34 pm, RD wrote: wrote om: On May 24, 1:23 pm, RD wrote: wrote in news:75946acf-fb50-4a71-9677-e0b1afec14b0 @w19g2000yql.googlegroups.com: 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. That is not a flat tax, it is a sales tax. It's a sales tax but it is flat. It's a flat 23%. You had better spend some time learning what a flat tax is. I'm perfectly familiar with a flat tax. The FairTax is a replacement for the income tax. It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator. Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. I think the flat tax is great. I assume you mean Fair Tax, since that is the proposal to get all taxes from sales or use. The term in common use today for flat tax is on income. And, once implemented, all other taxes are dropped. These other taxes being drivers licenses, contracting licences, cell phone fees/charges (except for ACTUAL service charges) , property taxes, use taxes, excise taxes, fuel taxes, all other sales taxes, etc., etc. Or, simply, ONE TAX PERIOD! Yep, and that means that the wealthy and the poor pay the same taxes rather than the wealthy paying more. Do you know what problem you are trying to fix? According to your statements, it is to get the wealthy to pay more. There is no way to do that with a sales or use tax. Even the morons will then realize what they actually pay in taxes (which is about 40% - 50% of their incomes, or more.) That part has some truth in it. -- 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 news:irh10k$l7$15@dont-
email.me: 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! Regards, JS Then LEARN what the term "flat tax" means in currect usage. It is an income tax. -- 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?
"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. -- 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?
" wrote in
: On May 24, 10:45*am, gfn wrote: On May 24, 12:07*pm, John Smith wrote: 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 k eep attempting to push? Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying 42% of al l of governments costs, and sure looks like the top 19% are not paying ha lf of governments costs, until that happens they are NOT paying their f air 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 i s 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 ... Impossible to implement. It *might* be possible to implement - in a totalitarian state. The government would have to always know what your worth (in terms of wealth) is at all times, and exactly what you purchase throughout the year, and when. Yikes. I suspect that such a system would encourage a black market or two. And a MASSIVE tracking system on the income status of over 300 million people. Think BIG BROTHER in real time. -- 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 news:irh49m$id0$3@dont-
email.me: On 5/24/2011 1:18 PM, wrote: ... You chose the easy point of my post to reply to. The point you ignored is that your suggested system - "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 ..." - is either impossible to implement, or requires a dictatorship. ... Yes, that is a fair system, you simply want to take it literally and say it doesn't work. I am not stuck on any particular system to implement it with. Any system which can demonstrate that it can successfully accomplish the goal, and costing the least, would be great. THINK for a change, John. How would a system like that have to work? How would a merchant know whether to charge 7% sales tax or 42% sales tax or some amount in between? Any system only needs to manage that 1% of those with control of 42.7% of the financial money pay 42.7% of the sales taxes. And that 20% at the top pay 50.3% of the taxes. And just how do you think it knows which one you are? Or who is in those brackets? You are looking at Big Brother from 1984 big time. I simply gave a simplified version of what is to be accomplished. No, you showed that you really don't understand what is involved in that scheme. Those with any common sense would have realized it was over simplified ... REally, really oversimplified....so much so that you don't seem to have any grasp of the basics. I don't give a rats arse how you get the water from the well, just that the water comes from the well ... If you are whining about the costs and fairness of things, you really should care. In this case you are pushing the costs would completely overwhelm the result. -- 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 :
On 5/24/2011 1:38 PM, wrote: As long as it is a fair system, where criminals can "shelter" money in foreign countries and pay a tax which is in scale to what all others pay (exempting the poor, starving, without medical, etc.) I am for it ... anything else is just the criminals setting up another system to buy politicians, get special favors, and steal others money to pay the bills while they get the pay check ... That is pure bull**** emotion and not much thought as to implementation. -- 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 25, 3:18*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote : On May 24, 3:00 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:fafaebf4-7788-4906-a699-839c2c5dac6b@ s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 2:34 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:5111f00d-80ed-4513-9bae-c9a63b5cdb40@ x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 1:23 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote in news:75946acf-fb50-4a71-9677-e0b1afec14b0 @w19g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 11:24 am, John Smith 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. That is not a flat tax, it is a sales tax. It's a sales tax but it is flat. It's a flat 23%. You had better spend some time learning what a flat tax is. I'm perfectly familiar with a flat tax. Not sure about that since it has nothing to do with sales. 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. 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. Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services. Second, per my example an item that costs $100 today still costs $100 under the FairTax. If that's regressive then sign me up. The poor are always going to pay a larger percentage of their income on everything. No tax system is going to change that. Isn't that what the bulk of this thread is about? The FairTax is a replacement for the income tax. Yes....and a flat tax is another method of figuring income tax. Yeah....and they both accomplish the same thing. *The FairTax is better because a flat tax still involves taxing income which then leads to exemptions, deductions, and keeps the 16th amendment in place as well as the IRS, and I can go on and on about the pitfalls of our current tax system. A flat tax on income replaces the current tax system. *If properly administered it only has ONE deduction and that is poverty level wages for a family of four. *Everyone gets that ONE deduction, or exemption if you prefer, and no other. *You can do your tax on a postcard. Under the FairTax you don't have to worry about deductions or exemptions. You don't even have to do your taxes on a postcard because there is nothing to do. April 15 would be just another beautiful spring day. Here's the problem with the flat tax, it retains the invasive income tax administration apparatus and can easily revert to a graduated, convoluted mess, as it has many times over many years. In addition, a large part of the burden of the flat tax -- the business tax -- will remain hidden from people in the retail price of goods and services. Under a flat tax, individuals would still file an income tax return each year. Postcard or not, it's still a return. While this is a simple postcard, the record keeping requirement is still there. Under the FairTax, individuals never file a tax return again, ever! Under the flat tax, the payroll tax would be retained and income tax withholding would still be with us. Under the FairTax, the payroll tax, which is a larger and more regressive tax burden for most Americans than is the income tax, is repealed. Under the FairTax, what you earn is what you keep. No more withholding taxes; no more income tax. It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator. Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner. You may think so. I don't. I think it needs too many adjustments so that it does not become regressive. I don't think so, I know so. *Tell me how this is regressive? Current tax system: Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 25%: $250. Taxpayer has $750 left to spend. Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130. Taxpayer has $620 left. Fairtax system: Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 0%: $0 Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130. Taxpayer has $870 left. I'll go one better under the fairtax system. Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 0%: $0 Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend Taxpayer buys a USED toaster for a total of $100. Taxpayer pays NO fairtax sales tax. Taxpayer has $900 left. So, again, how is that regressive. Same taxpayer......buys $100 worth of groceries.....pays $123 for them. Stop right there. That's incorrect. Under the FairTax the $100 of groceries will still cost $100. There's no need to even go any further with your example. Rich guy, he eats the same, so he buys a $100 worth of groceries...pays * $123 for them. *Which one spent the bigger percentage of their income on a necessity? *OK, let's fix it....we will not pay that tax on groceries....oooops, you just generated an exception. * Three suggestions for you to find out why as well as any other questions you might have: 1) go visit fairtax.org and read it from front to back. *Pay particular attention to the FAQ. 2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz. 3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics" It will all become crystal clear. I am familiar with sales tax schemes, they have been around for years. * With exemptions, they become just as convoluted as the current system. Excise luxury taxes were another attempt to soak the rich as poor poeple would never buy luxury taxed items. *How did that work out? You may be familiar with sales tax schemes, but it's clear you aren't familiar with the FairTax. Instead of speculating as you have done above why not go visit the site and base your criticisms on the plan itself? You will find that many of the things you raised above are answered there. Look, I'm with you that a flat tax would be better than the current system. Problem is that it, as opposed to something like the FairTax, leaves itself open to far more manipulation than the FairTax. The tax code itself is evidence of just that. -- 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 :
On 5/24/2011 1:44 PM, Dave LaRue wrote: ... Well, it is impossible for you to be smart, you retard. You can't do otherwise, you retard. You are like dog **** on the shoe ... And, nothing but personal attacks, opinions, etc. ... sad, so very, very sad ... Perhaps it you paid some attention to what it would take to implement such a system and what it would cost in freedom, etc.. then perhaps folks wouldn't be so hard on you. Instead you simply seem to wish to deal on emotion. -- 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?
"Scout" wrote in
: "John Smith" wrote in message ... On 5/24/2011 11:36 AM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in news:irgsdu$b0g$2@dont- email.me: On 5/24/2011 10:24 AM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in : On 5/24/2011 9:02 AM, gfn wrote: On May 24, 11:24 am, John wrote: On 5/24/2011 8:20 AM, gfn wrote: ... Where are some credible souces to back up any of that innuendo you keep attempting to push? Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying 42% of all of governments costs, and sure looks like the top 19% are not paying half of governments costs, until that happens they are NOT paying their fair share ... a flat tax can fix that ... Regards, JS I already said the tax data is at irs.gov Now, as for a flat tax I agree with you 100%. The one I advocate is the FairTax. Let me put this more bluntly. If I buy and item and pay 7% sales tax, the top one percent should buy an item and pay a 42.7% sales tax, that way they will be contributing their fair share to run government ... http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html And how do you know that at the time of purchase? You set up a system which handles it ... where they pay their fair share of the cost of government. IOW, when buying a pack of gum at a Stop-N-Rob, you have to go through a check on your income so they know how much tax to charge? C'mon, even you can't be that stupid. The flat tax, the flat tax, I thought you would be able to catch on ... I was wrong. Oh, flat tax, then they should pay 7% tax just like EVERYONE ELSE....not the 42.7% you asserted they should be paying. I'm not sure that John is knowledgable enough to contune this thread. He seems to be stuck on the emotion of the discussion rather than on the practicality or complexity of installing what he wants. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
On 5/25/2011 12:25 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in : On 5/24/2011 12:05 PM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in news:irgufi$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...er/wealth.html 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. Of course, even with a flat tax certain safeguards would have to be in place from preventing criminals from crimes which would allow them to ignore the taxes. See Al Capone. For example, a case where they made their dollars here and bought only foreign goods in mexico or canada ... it is a given, as soon as any fix, situation, solution, etc. is enacted, the criminals will come crawling out from under their rocks attempting to avoid it ... some of these safeguards to prevent this will have to be worked out as we catch the criminals ... Unfortunately, every discussion must begin on the premise that everyone is capable of realizing "common sense." At the bottom of the fair tax or fair tax is the real intent and sole purpose that all contribute equally and in direct relationship to how much they profit from business here. Just how is your fair tax different from your scenarios above. After all, you said folks would by only foreign goods from outside the US which avoids your fair tax. I said everyone needs taxed at an equal rate of every dollar earned. I said crooks will always attempt to break any laws in existence. Regards, JS |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
On 5/25/2011 12:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in news:irh49m$id0$3@dont- email.me: On 5/24/2011 1:18 PM, wrote: ... You chose the easy point of my post to reply to. The point you ignored is that your suggested system - "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 ..." - is either impossible to implement, or requires a dictatorship. ... Yes, that is a fair system, you simply want to take it literally and say it doesn't work. I am not stuck on any particular system to implement it with. Any system which can demonstrate that it can successfully accomplish the goal, and costing the least, would be great. THINK for a change, John. How would a system like that have to work? How would a merchant know whether to charge 7% sales tax or 42% sales tax or some amount in between? Any system only needs to manage that 1% of those with control of 42.7% of the financial money pay 42.7% of the sales taxes. And that 20% at the top pay 50.3% of the taxes. And just how do you think it knows which one you are? Or who is in those brackets? You are looking at Big Brother from 1984 big time. I simply gave a simplified version of what is to be accomplished. No, you showed that you really don't understand what is involved in that scheme. Those with any common sense would have realized it was over simplified ... REally, really oversimplified....so much so that you don't seem to have any grasp of the basics. I don't give a rats arse how you get the water from the well, just that the water comes from the well ... If you are whining about the costs and fairness of things, you really should care. In this case you are pushing the costs would completely overwhelm the result. I said everyone needs taxed at an equal rate on every dollar earned ... I said crooks will always attempt to avoid this. Regards, JS |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
RD Sandman wrote in
: gfn wrote in : On May 24, 3:00*pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:fafaebf4-7788-4906-a699-839c2c5dac6b@ s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 2:34*pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:5111f00d-80ed-4513-9bae-c9a63b5cdb40@ x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 1:23*pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote in news:75946acf-fb50-4a71-9677-e0b1afec14b0 @w19g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 11:24*am, John Smith 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. That is not a flat tax, it is a sales tax. It's a sales tax but it is flat. *It's a flat 23%. You had better spend some time learning what a flat tax is. I'm perfectly familiar with a flat tax. Not sure about that since it has nothing to do with sales. Sure I do. The "flat tax" has the government deriving its revenue from the income tax. Yep....at a flat rate for everybody. 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. * The FairTax is a replacement for the income tax. Yes....and a flat tax is another method of figuring income tax. Yeah....and they both accomplish the same thing. The FairTax is better because a flat tax still involves taxing income which then leads to exemptions, deductions, and keeps the 16th amendment in place as well as the IRS, and I can go on and on about the pitfalls of our current tax system. A flat tax on income replaces the current tax system. If properly administered it only has ONE deduction and that is poverty level wages for a family of four. Everyone gets that ONE deduction, or exemption if you prefer, and no other. You can do your tax on a postcard. *It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator. Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner. You may think so. *I don't. *I think it needs too many adjustments so that it does not become regressive. I don't think so, I know so. Tell me how this is regressive? Current tax system: Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 25%: $250. Taxpayer has $750 left to spend. Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130. Taxpayer has $620 left. Fairtax system: Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 0%: $0 Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130. Taxpayer has $870 left. I'll go one better under the fairtax system. Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 0%: $0 Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend Taxpayer buys a USED toaster for a total of $100. Taxpayer pays NO fairtax sales tax. Taxpayer has $900 left. So, again, how is that regressive. Same taxpayer......buys $100 worth of groceries.....pays $123 for them. Rich guy, he eats the same, so he buys a $100 worth of groceries...pays $123 for them. Which one spent the bigger percentage of their income on a necessity? OK, let's fix it....we will not pay that tax on groceries....oooops, you just generated an exception. Three suggestions for you to find out why as well as any other questions you might have: 1) go visit fairtax.org and read it from front to back. Pay particular attention to the FAQ. 2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz. 3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics" It will all become crystal clear. I am familiar with sales tax schemes, they have been around for years. With exemptions, they become just as convoluted as the current system. Excise luxury taxes were another attempt to soak the rich as poor poeple would never buy luxury taxed items. How did that work out? Ask John Kerry. -- Herman Cain for President! http://hermancain.com/ If you don't support him you are a Racist!! He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer) Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that Obama had as much ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have THAT much competence? |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in : "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in : "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote in news:irgik5$f2r$3@dont- email.me: 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 ... Oh, you mean one like this? A tax on *ALL* income no matter where derived. One deduction. Federal poverty level for a family of four and everybody gets that deduction. Have a tax rate of, say 15% and the current poverty level at $24K and we get the following: A person who earns up to $24K, pays nada... A person who earns $50K, pays $3,900 (50-24x15%) A person who earns $100K, pays $11,400 (100-24x15%) A person who earns $500K, pays $71,400 (500-24x15%) A person who earns a million pays $146,400 (1000-24x15%) That do it for you? . . If you add a $1,000 tax to the $50,000 guy he becomes homeless If you add a $1,000 tax to the $1,000,000 guy...he never notices it. That's what's UNFAIR. Nope, what's unfair is YOU expecting OTHERS to pay for what YOU want. The EFFECT on the wealthy taxpayer is nil. The EFFECT on the low income tax payer is catastrophic. Interestingly, no one is asking that $50K guy for that extra grand, but here you are whining that the million dollar guy won't as affected. The problem Democrats will have is that sometime they will run out of other people's money. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. That's what is unfair. A small increase of tax on a low earner is a huge burden The same increase on a wealthy person is INSIGNIFICANT. No one is asking for the same increase from both parties, you idiot. Besides if the low earner is really a low earner like the 45% who don't pay tax in the first place, how can you increase the tax on them. They still won't reach the AGI that pays taxes. Increasing the tax percentage doesn't do a damn thing to change their AGI. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. I gave an example of how the same number (dollars) has a different affect on people of different wealth. You didn’t understand it.....what's the word you used....you idiot! |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"RD Sandman" wrote in message ... gfn wrote in : On May 24, 3:00 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:fafaebf4-7788-4906-a699-839c2c5dac6b@ s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 2:34 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:5111f00d-80ed-4513-9bae-c9a63b5cdb40@ x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 1:23 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote in news:75946acf-fb50-4a71-9677-e0b1afec14b0 @w19g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 11:24 am, John Smith 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. That is not a flat tax, it is a sales tax. It's a sales tax but it is flat. It's a flat 23%. You had better spend some time learning what a flat tax is. I'm perfectly familiar with a flat tax. Not sure about that since it has nothing to do with sales. Sure I do. The "flat tax" has the government deriving its revenue from the income tax. Yep....at a flat rate for everybody. 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. The FairTax is a replacement for the income tax. Yes....and a flat tax is another method of figuring income tax. Yeah....and they both accomplish the same thing. The FairTax is better because a flat tax still involves taxing income which then leads to exemptions, deductions, and keeps the 16th amendment in place as well as the IRS, and I can go on and on about the pitfalls of our current tax system. A flat tax on income replaces the current tax system. If properly administered it only has ONE deduction and that is poverty level wages for a family of four. Everyone gets that ONE deduction, or exemption if you prefer, and no other. You can do your tax on a postcard. It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator. Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner. You may think so. I don't. I think it needs too many adjustments so that it does not become regressive. I don't think so, I know so. Tell me how this is regressive? Current tax system: Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 25%: $250. Taxpayer has $750 left to spend. Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130. Taxpayer has $620 left. Fairtax system: Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 0%: $0 Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130. Taxpayer has $870 left. I'll go one better under the fairtax system. Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 0%: $0 Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend Taxpayer buys a USED toaster for a total of $100. Taxpayer pays NO fairtax sales tax. Taxpayer has $900 left. So, again, how is that regressive. Same taxpayer......buys $100 worth of groceries.....pays $123 for them. Rich guy, he eats the same, so he buys a $100 worth of groceries...pays $123 for them. Which one spent the bigger percentage of their income on a necessity? OK, let's fix it....we will not pay that tax on groceries....oooops, you just generated an exception. Three suggestions for you to find out why as well as any other questions you might have: 1) go visit fairtax.org and read it from front to back. Pay particular attention to the FAQ. 2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz. 3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics" It will all become crystal clear. I am familiar with sales tax schemes, they have been around for years. With exemptions, they become just as convoluted as the current system. Excise luxury taxes were another attempt to soak the rich as poor poeple would never buy luxury taxed items. How did that work out? -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. More nonsense. We have a system that was god when it started and has been eroded over the years. It was sound. It can be made sound again without phony "fair" tax and "flat" tax nonsense Fix it. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"gfn" wrote in message ... On May 25, 3:18 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote : On May 24, 3:00 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:fafaebf4-7788-4906-a699-839c2c5dac6b@ s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 2:34 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:5111f00d-80ed-4513-9bae-c9a63b5cdb40@ x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 1:23 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote in news:75946acf-fb50-4a71-9677-e0b1afec14b0 @w19g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 11:24 am, John Smith 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. That is not a flat tax, it is a sales tax. It's a sales tax but it is flat. It's a flat 23%. You had better spend some time learning what a flat tax is. I'm perfectly familiar with a flat tax. Not sure about that since it has nothing to do with sales. 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. 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. Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services. Second, per my example an item that costs $100 today still costs $100 under the FairTax. If that's regressive then sign me up. The poor are always going to pay a larger percentage of their income on everything. No tax system is going to change that. Isn't that what the bulk of this thread is about? The FairTax is a replacement for the income tax. Yes....and a flat tax is another method of figuring income tax. Yeah....and they both accomplish the same thing. The FairTax is better because a flat tax still involves taxing income which then leads to exemptions, deductions, and keeps the 16th amendment in place as well as the IRS, and I can go on and on about the pitfalls of our current tax system. A flat tax on income replaces the current tax system. If properly administered it only has ONE deduction and that is poverty level wages for a family of four. Everyone gets that ONE deduction, or exemption if you prefer, and no other. You can do your tax on a postcard. Under the FairTax you don't have to worry about deductions or exemptions. You don't even have to do your taxes on a postcard because there is nothing to do. April 15 would be just another beautiful spring day. Here's the problem with the flat tax, it retains the invasive income tax administration apparatus and can easily revert to a graduated, convoluted mess, as it has many times over many years. In addition, a large part of the burden of the flat tax -- the business tax -- will remain hidden from people in the retail price of goods and services. Under a flat tax, individuals would still file an income tax return each year. Postcard or not, it's still a return. While this is a simple postcard, the record keeping requirement is still there. Under the FairTax, individuals never file a tax return again, ever! Under the flat tax, the payroll tax would be retained and income tax withholding would still be with us. Under the FairTax, the payroll tax, which is a larger and more regressive tax burden for most Americans than is the income tax, is repealed. Under the FairTax, what you earn is what you keep. No more withholding taxes; no more income tax. It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator. Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner. You may think so. I don't. I think it needs too many adjustments so that it does not become regressive. I don't think so, I know so. Tell me how this is regressive? Current tax system: Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 25%: $250. Taxpayer has $750 left to spend. Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130. Taxpayer has $620 left. Fairtax system: Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 0%: $0 Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130. Taxpayer has $870 left. I'll go one better under the fairtax system. Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 0%: $0 Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend Taxpayer buys a USED toaster for a total of $100. Taxpayer pays NO fairtax sales tax. Taxpayer has $900 left. So, again, how is that regressive. Same taxpayer......buys $100 worth of groceries.....pays $123 for them. Stop right there. That's incorrect. Under the FairTax the $100 of groceries will still cost $100. There's no need to even go any further with your example. Rich guy, he eats the same, so he buys a $100 worth of groceries...pays $123 for them. Which one spent the bigger percentage of their income on a necessity? OK, let's fix it....we will not pay that tax on groceries....oooops, you just generated an exception. Three suggestions for you to find out why as well as any other questions you might have: 1) go visit fairtax.org and read it from front to back. Pay particular attention to the FAQ. 2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz. 3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics" It will all become crystal clear. I am familiar with sales tax schemes, they have been around for years. With exemptions, they become just as convoluted as the current system. Excise luxury taxes were another attempt to soak the rich as poor poeple would never buy luxury taxed items. How did that work out? You may be familiar with sales tax schemes, but it's clear you aren't familiar with the FairTax. Instead of speculating as you have done above why not go visit the site and base your criticisms on the plan itself? You will find that many of the things you raised above are answered there. Look, I'm with you that a flat tax would be better than the current system. Problem is that it, as opposed to something like the FairTax, leaves itself open to far more manipulation than the FairTax. The tax code itself is evidence of just that. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. Nonsense. Stupid nonsense! |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
RD Sandman wrote in
: "Scout" wrote in : "John Smith" wrote in message ... On 5/24/2011 12:05 PM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in news:irgufi$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...er/wealth.html 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. To do that you have to decide what the government should be doing. I think rather than discussing camoflaging how the feds fleece the taxpayer those questions really need to be answered. 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. 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. 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. The truth of this must be recognized and those that ignore the question should in turn be ignored. They are greedy, twisted people that want to punish the successful, get thier government cheese and then ignore the calamity for our children and grand children. And us. They imagine somehow the beast will continue feeding enough to support them, in spite of what the vampirism does to the country as a whole. -- 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
: "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. AFter, of course, you tell me exactly how much the guv needs and why. -- 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
: " wrote in : On May 24, 10:45*am, gfn wrote: On May 24, 12:07*pm, John Smith wrote: 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 k eep attempting to push? Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying 42% of al l of governments costs, and sure looks like the top 19% are not paying ha lf of governments costs, until that happens they are NOT paying their f air 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 i s 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 ... Impossible to implement. It *might* be possible to implement - in a totalitarian state. The government would have to always know what your worth (in terms of wealth) is at all times, and exactly what you purchase throughout the year, and when. Yikes. I suspect that such a system would encourage a black market or two. And a MASSIVE tracking system on the income status of over 300 million people. Think BIG BROTHER in real time. Isn't that what we are trying to get away from? I don't much like the government reviewing my personal financial information. Privacy and all that. -- 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 25, 4:45*pm, "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote:
"RD Sandman" wrote in message ... gfn wrote in : On May 24, 3:00 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:fafaebf4-7788-4906-a699-839c2c5dac6b@ s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 2:34 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:5111f00d-80ed-4513-9bae-c9a63b5cdb40@ x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 1:23 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote in news:75946acf-fb50-4a71-9677-e0b1afec14b0 @w19g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 11:24 am, John Smith 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. That is not a flat tax, it is a sales tax. It's a sales tax but it is flat. *It's a flat 23%. You had better spend some time learning what a flat tax is. I'm perfectly familiar with a flat tax. Not sure about that since it has nothing to do with sales. Sure I do. *The "flat tax" has the government deriving its revenue from the income tax. Yep....at a flat rate for everybody. 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. * The FairTax is a replacement for the income tax. Yes....and a flat tax is another method of figuring income tax. Yeah....and they both accomplish the same thing. *The FairTax is better because a flat tax still involves taxing income which then leads to exemptions, deductions, and keeps the 16th amendment in place as well as the IRS, and I can go on and on about the pitfalls of our current tax system. A flat tax on income replaces the current tax system. *If properly administered it only has ONE deduction and that is poverty level wages for a family of four. *Everyone gets that ONE deduction, or exemption if you prefer, and no other. *You can do your tax on a postcard. *It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator. Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner. You may think so. *I don't. *I think it needs too many adjustments so that it does not become regressive. I don't think so, I know so. *Tell me how this is regressive? Current tax system: Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 25%: $250. Taxpayer has $750 left to spend. Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130. Taxpayer has $620 left. Fairtax system: Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 0%: $0 Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130. Taxpayer has $870 left. I'll go one better under the fairtax system. Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 0%: $0 Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend Taxpayer buys a USED toaster for a total of $100. Taxpayer pays NO fairtax sales tax. Taxpayer has $900 left. So, again, how is that regressive. Same taxpayer......buys $100 worth of groceries.....pays $123 for them. Rich guy, he eats the same, so he buys a $100 worth of groceries...pays $123 for them. *Which one spent the bigger percentage of their income on a necessity? *OK, let's fix it....we will not pay that tax on groceries....oooops, you just generated an exception. Three suggestions for you to find out why as well as any other questions you might have: 1) go visit fairtax.org and read it from front to back. *Pay particular attention to the FAQ. 2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz. 3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics" It will all become crystal clear. I am familiar with sales tax schemes, they have been around for years. With exemptions, they become just as convoluted as the current system. Excise luxury taxes were another attempt to soak the rich as poor poeple would never buy luxury taxed items. *How did that work out? -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. More nonsense. We have a system that was god when it started and has been eroded over the years. It was sound. It can be made sound again without phony "fair" tax and "flat" tax nonsense Fix it. Talk about nonsense. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
On May 25, 3:46*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
John Smith wrote : On 5/24/2011 1:44 PM, Dave LaRue wrote: ... Well, it is impossible for you to be smart, you retard. You can't do otherwise, you retard. You are like dog **** on the shoe ... And, nothing but personal attacks, opinions, etc. ... * sad, so very, very sad ... Perhaps it you paid some attention to what it would take to implement such a system and what it would cost in freedom, etc.. then perhaps folks wouldn't be so hard on you. *Instead you simply seem to wish to deal on emotion. Liberals can't connect the dots of freedom and implementation of his unworkable plan. You nailed it when you mentioned "emotion". But, that's how liberals react. Not with logic or thought, but emotion. -- 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:
On 5/25/2011 12:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in news:irh49m$id0$3@dont- email.me: On 5/24/2011 1:18 PM, wrote: ... You chose the easy point of my post to reply to. The point you ignored is that your suggested system - "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 ..." - is either impossible to implement, or requires a dictatorship. ... Yes, that is a fair system, you simply want to take it literally and say it doesn't work. I am not stuck on any particular system to implement it with. Any system which can demonstrate that it can successfully accomplish the goal, and costing the least, would be great. THINK for a change, John. How would a system like that have to work? How would a merchant know whether to charge 7% sales tax or 42% sales tax or some amount in between? Any system only needs to manage that 1% of those with control of 42.7% of the financial money pay 42.7% of the sales taxes. And that 20% at the top pay 50.3% of the taxes. And just how do you think it knows which one you are? Or who is in those brackets? You are looking at Big Brother from 1984 big time. I simply gave a simplified version of what is to be accomplished. No, you showed that you really don't understand what is involved in that scheme. Those with any common sense would have realized it was over simplified ... REally, really oversimplified....so much so that you don't seem to have any grasp of the basics. I don't give a rats arse how you get the water from the well, just that the water comes from the well ... If you are whining about the costs and fairness of things, you really should care. In this case you are pushing the costs would completely overwhelm the result. I said everyone needs taxed at an equal rate on every dollar earned ... I said crooks will always attempt to avoid this. I have no real problem with a "luxury" tax, too. Cell Phones for instance? Noop Cell phones with camera's all the "apps?" Yup. Basic 19" TV's? Noop. Large screen LED/LCD things that cover an entire wall? Yup. Chevy's? Noop. They are already sorry for buying them. Cadillac's, BMW's, Mercedes' and the like? Yup. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
Dave LaRue wrote in news:4ddd70a9$0$9061
: John Smith wrote: On 5/25/2011 12:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in news:irh49m$id0$3@dont- email.me: On 5/24/2011 1:18 PM, wrote: ... You chose the easy point of my post to reply to. The point you ignored is that your suggested system - "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 ..." - is either impossible to implement, or requires a dictatorship. ... Yes, that is a fair system, you simply want to take it literally and say it doesn't work. I am not stuck on any particular system to implement it with. Any system which can demonstrate that it can successfully accomplish the goal, and costing the least, would be great. THINK for a change, John. How would a system like that have to work? How would a merchant know whether to charge 7% sales tax or 42% sales tax or some amount in between? Any system only needs to manage that 1% of those with control of 42.7% of the financial money pay 42.7% of the sales taxes. And that 20% at the top pay 50.3% of the taxes. And just how do you think it knows which one you are? Or who is in those brackets? You are looking at Big Brother from 1984 big time. I simply gave a simplified version of what is to be accomplished. No, you showed that you really don't understand what is involved in that scheme. Those with any common sense would have realized it was over simplified ... REally, really oversimplified....so much so that you don't seem to have any grasp of the basics. I don't give a rats arse how you get the water from the well, just that the water comes from the well ... If you are whining about the costs and fairness of things, you really should care. In this case you are pushing the costs would completely overwhelm the result. I said everyone needs taxed at an equal rate on every dollar earned ... I said crooks will always attempt to avoid this. I have no real problem with a "luxury" tax, too. Cell Phones for instance? Noop Cell phones with camera's all the "apps?" Yup. Basic 19" TV's? Noop. Large screen LED/LCD things that cover an entire wall? Yup. Chevy's? Noop. They are already sorry for buying them. Cadillac's, BMW's, Mercedes' and the like? Yup. Do the words "equal protection" mean ANYTHING to you? I fail to see anything in there about income levels determing anything. -- 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?
Have you got any diesel fuel?
///If I had any more diesel fuel, they would make me join that Opec!/// cuhulin |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in :
"RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in : "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in : "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote in news:irgik5$f2r$3@dont- email.me: 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 ... Oh, you mean one like this? A tax on *ALL* income no matter where derived. One deduction. Federal poverty level for a family of four and everybody gets that deduction. Have a tax rate of, say 15% and the current poverty level at $24K and we get the following: A person who earns up to $24K, pays nada... A person who earns $50K, pays $3,900 (50-24x15%) A person who earns $100K, pays $11,400 (100-24x15%) A person who earns $500K, pays $71,400 (500-24x15%) A person who earns a million pays $146,400 (1000-24x15%) That do it for you? . . If you add a $1,000 tax to the $50,000 guy he becomes homeless If you add a $1,000 tax to the $1,000,000 guy...he never notices it. That's what's UNFAIR. Nope, what's unfair is YOU expecting OTHERS to pay for what YOU want. The EFFECT on the wealthy taxpayer is nil. The EFFECT on the low income tax payer is catastrophic. Interestingly, no one is asking that $50K guy for that extra grand, but here you are whining that the million dollar guy won't as affected. The problem Democrats will have is that sometime they will run out of other people's money. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. That's what is unfair. A small increase of tax on a low earner is a huge burden The same increase on a wealthy person is INSIGNIFICANT. No one is asking for the same increase from both parties, you idiot. Besides if the low earner is really a low earner like the 45% who don't pay tax in the first place, how can you increase the tax on them. They still won't reach the AGI that pays taxes. Increasing the tax percentage doesn't do a damn thing to change their AGI. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. I gave an example of how the same number (dollars) has a different affect on people of different wealth. You didn’t understand it..... OH, I understood it. Just commented that no one is asking for that so it is a canard and little else. -- 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?
gfn wrote in
: 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 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 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? From what I see, it is based on number of adults and number of dependents. Second, per my example an item that costs $100 today still costs $100 under the FairTax. If that's regressive then sign me up. The poor are always going to pay a larger percentage of their income on everything. No tax system is going to change that. Isn't that what the bulk of this thread is about? Not on a flat tax like I proposed. The difference is slight, depending on your income, but it is there. The FairTax is a replacement for the income tax. Yes....and a flat tax is another method of figuring income tax. Yeah....and they both accomplish the same thing. *The FairTax is better because a flat tax still involves taxing income which then leads to exemptions, deductions, and keeps the 16th amendment in place as well as the IRS, and I can go on and on about the pitfalls of our current tax system. A flat tax on income replaces the current tax system. *If properly administered it only has ONE deduction and that is poverty level wages for a family of four. *Everyone gets that ONE deduction, or exemption if you prefer, and no other. *You can do your tax on a postcard. Under the FairTax you don't have to worry about deductions or exemptions. You don't even have to do your taxes on a postcard because there is nothing to do. April 15 would be just another beautiful spring day. Here's the problem with the flat tax, it retains the invasive income tax administration apparatus and can easily revert to a graduated, convoluted mess, as it has many times over many years. And your fair tax needs to know number of adults in the household along with number of dependents. There is also nothing there that prevents it from becoming another convoluted mess. Congress can **** up a bowling ball. In addition, a large part of the burden of the flat tax -- the business tax -- will remain hidden from people in the retail price of goods and services. This is an interesting point since there are supposedly intelligent folks in this newsgroup that don't understand that all businesses end up passing all their costs to the consumer in the price of the product or service. If they don't, after awhile they go under. Under a flat tax, individuals would still file an income tax return each year. Postcard or not, it's still a return. While this is a simple postcard, the record keeping requirement is still there. Under the FairTax, individuals never file a tax return again, ever! Federally, that could be true, however, when looking at state and local taxes, it is bull****. Under the flat tax, the payroll tax would be retained and income tax withholding would still be with us. Yep. Under the FairTax, the payroll tax, which is a larger and more regressive tax burden for most Americans than is the income tax, is repealed. No, actually, it isn't. It is simply placed in the Fair Tax. Under the FairTax, what you earn is what you keep. No more withholding taxes; no more income tax. Just more taxes on the point of sale while all taxes from state and local governments remains intact. It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator. Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner. You may think so. I don't. I think it needs too many adjustments so that it does not become regressive. I don't think so, I know so. *Tell me how this is regressive? snip...... Same taxpayer......buys $100 worth of groceries.....pays $123 for them. Stop right there. That's incorrect. Under the FairTax the $100 of groceries will still cost $100. There's no need to even go any further with your example. I was speaking of the actual worth of the product. Yes, there are business taxes, etc.. in there but one cannot generate a new tax without adding to what is already there. So a product which today costs $100 plus city and state sales taxes will now cost the difference between the 23% sales tax and the old taxes on the product plus city and state sales taxes. What you have done is taken the taxes previously included the product price and moved them into your Fair Tax in addition to the hit on that tax replacing federal income taxes and FICA. Rich guy, he eats the same, so he buys a $100 worth of groceries...pays * $123 for them. *Which one spent the bigger percentage of their income o n a necessity? *OK, let's fix it....we will not pay that tax on groceries....oooops, you just generated an exception. * Three suggestions for you to find out why as well as any other questions you might have: 1) go visit fairtax.org and read it from front to back. *Pay particular attention to the FAQ. I have. 2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz. Why? If they can't explain it on their website.......... 3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics" It will all become crystal clear. I am familiar with sales tax schemes, they have been around for years. * With exemptions, they become just as convoluted as the current system. Excise luxury taxes were another attempt to soak the rich as poor poeple would never buy luxury taxed items. *How did that work out? You may be familiar with sales tax schemes, but it's clear you aren't familiar with the FairTax. Instead of speculating as you have done above why not go visit the site and base your criticisms on the plan itself? You will find that many of the things you raised above are answered there. Been there, read it. Look, I'm with you that a flat tax would be better than the current system. Problem is that it, as opposed to something like the FairTax, leaves itself open to far more manipulation than the FairTax. The tax code itself is evidence of just that. Are you trying to say that Congress cannot **** with the Fair Tax as much as they can **** with a flat tax? I don't think so. -- 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:
Dave LaRue wrote in news:4ddd70a9$0$9061 : John Smith wrote: On 5/25/2011 12:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in news:irh49m$id0$3@dont- email.me: On 5/24/2011 1:18 PM, wrote: ... You chose the easy point of my post to reply to. The point you ignored is that your suggested system - "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 ..." - is either impossible to implement, or requires a dictatorship. ... Yes, that is a fair system, you simply want to take it literally and say it doesn't work. I am not stuck on any particular system to implement it with. Any system which can demonstrate that it can successfully accomplish the goal, and costing the least, would be great. THINK for a change, John. How would a system like that have to work? How would a merchant know whether to charge 7% sales tax or 42% sales tax or some amount in between? Any system only needs to manage that 1% of those with control of 42.7% of the financial money pay 42.7% of the sales taxes. And that 20% at the top pay 50.3% of the taxes. And just how do you think it knows which one you are? Or who is in those brackets? You are looking at Big Brother from 1984 big time. I simply gave a simplified version of what is to be accomplished. No, you showed that you really don't understand what is involved in that scheme. Those with any common sense would have realized it was over simplified ... REally, really oversimplified....so much so that you don't seem to have any grasp of the basics. I don't give a rats arse how you get the water from the well, just that the water comes from the well ... If you are whining about the costs and fairness of things, you really should care. In this case you are pushing the costs would completely overwhelm the result. I said everyone needs taxed at an equal rate on every dollar earned ... I said crooks will always attempt to avoid this. I have no real problem with a "luxury" tax, too. Cell Phones for instance? Noop Cell phones with camera's all the "apps?" Yup. Basic 19" TV's? Noop. Large screen LED/LCD things that cover an entire wall? Yup. Chevy's? Noop. They are already sorry for buying them. Cadillac's, BMW's, Mercedes' and the like? Yup. Do the words "equal protection" mean ANYTHING to you? Indeed I do understand. What's that got to do with a luxury tax? I fail to see anything in there about income levels determing anything. I wasn't talking about income levels. I was talking more about a "fair sales Luxury tax", that keeps, or rather helps keep in check, the "truly poor" from buying said items whilst they are on welfare and food stamps, like they do now as they fool the system. Most wealthy people could care less what they pay for anything. They already want and buy the biggest and baddest, and buy the first models and prototypes just because it's there! THEY bring the costs down when they finally go into major production! Cost means NOTHING to them! But poor slobs don't need, nor want them, until the items or tech becomes more afforable. Again, thank us, the rich that bring these items to the masses at a lower cost, to the poor! So again, don't tax our (the rich) incomes, tax SAID ITEMS that even the poor choose to buy, instead of the food they need. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142: RD Sandman wrote in : gfn wrote in : On May 24, 3:00*pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:fafaebf4-7788-4906-a699-839c2c5dac6b@ s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 2:34*pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:5111f00d-80ed-4513-9bae-c9a63b5cdb40@ x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 1:23*pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote in news:75946acf-fb50-4a71-9677-e0b1afec14b0 @w19g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 11:24*am, John Smith 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. That is not a flat tax, it is a sales tax. It's a sales tax but it is flat. *It's a flat 23%. You had better spend some time learning what a flat tax is. I'm perfectly familiar with a flat tax. Not sure about that since it has nothing to do with sales. Sure I do. The "flat tax" has the government deriving its revenue from the income tax. Yep....at a flat rate for everybody. 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. * The FairTax is a replacement for the income tax. Yes....and a flat tax is another method of figuring income tax. Yeah....and they both accomplish the same thing. The FairTax is better because a flat tax still involves taxing income which then leads to exemptions, deductions, and keeps the 16th amendment in place as well as the IRS, and I can go on and on about the pitfalls of our current tax system. A flat tax on income replaces the current tax system. If properly administered it only has ONE deduction and that is poverty level wages for a family of four. Everyone gets that ONE deduction, or exemption if you prefer, and no other. You can do your tax on a postcard. *It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator. Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner. You may think so. *I don't. *I think it needs too many adjustments so that it does not become regressive. I don't think so, I know so. Tell me how this is regressive? Current tax system: Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 25%: $250. Taxpayer has $750 left to spend. Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130. Taxpayer has $620 left. Fairtax system: Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 0%: $0 Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130. Taxpayer has $870 left. I'll go one better under the fairtax system. Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 0%: $0 Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend Taxpayer buys a USED toaster for a total of $100. Taxpayer pays NO fairtax sales tax. Taxpayer has $900 left. So, again, how is that regressive. Same taxpayer......buys $100 worth of groceries.....pays $123 for them. Rich guy, he eats the same, so he buys a $100 worth of groceries...pays $123 for them. Which one spent the bigger percentage of their income on a necessity? OK, let's fix it....we will not pay that tax on groceries....oooops, you just generated an exception. Three suggestions for you to find out why as well as any other questions you might have: 1) go visit fairtax.org and read it from front to back. Pay particular attention to the FAQ. 2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz. 3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics" It will all become crystal clear. I am familiar with sales tax schemes, they have been around for years. With exemptions, they become just as convoluted as the current system. Excise luxury taxes were another attempt to soak the rich as poor poeple would never buy luxury taxed items. How did that work out? Ask John Kerry. YOu mean after claiming everyone should pay their fair burden, he moors his yacht where the taxes are much less than if he moors it at home? -- 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?
"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in :
"RD Sandman" wrote in message ... gfn wrote in : On May 24, 3:00 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:fafaebf4-7788-4906-a699-839c2c5dac6b@ s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 2:34 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:5111f00d-80ed-4513-9bae-c9a63b5cdb40@ x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 1:23 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote in news:75946acf-fb50-4a71-9677-e0b1afec14b0 @w19g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 11:24 am, John Smith 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. That is not a flat tax, it is a sales tax. It's a sales tax but it is flat. It's a flat 23%. You had better spend some time learning what a flat tax is. I'm perfectly familiar with a flat tax. Not sure about that since it has nothing to do with sales. Sure I do. The "flat tax" has the government deriving its revenue from the income tax. Yep....at a flat rate for everybody. 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. The FairTax is a replacement for the income tax. Yes....and a flat tax is another method of figuring income tax. Yeah....and they both accomplish the same thing. The FairTax is better because a flat tax still involves taxing income which then leads to exemptions, deductions, and keeps the 16th amendment in place as well as the IRS, and I can go on and on about the pitfalls of our current tax system. A flat tax on income replaces the current tax system. If properly administered it only has ONE deduction and that is poverty level wages for a family of four. Everyone gets that ONE deduction, or exemption if you prefer, and no other. You can do your tax on a postcard. It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator. Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner. You may think so. I don't. I think it needs too many adjustments so that it does not become regressive. I don't think so, I know so. Tell me how this is regressive? Current tax system: Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 25%: $250. Taxpayer has $750 left to spend. Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130. Taxpayer has $620 left. Fairtax system: Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 0%: $0 Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130. Taxpayer has $870 left. I'll go one better under the fairtax system. Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 0%: $0 Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend Taxpayer buys a USED toaster for a total of $100. Taxpayer pays NO fairtax sales tax. Taxpayer has $900 left. So, again, how is that regressive. Same taxpayer......buys $100 worth of groceries.....pays $123 for them. Rich guy, he eats the same, so he buys a $100 worth of groceries...pays $123 for them. Which one spent the bigger percentage of their income on a necessity? OK, let's fix it....we will not pay that tax on groceries....oooops, you just generated an exception. Three suggestions for you to find out why as well as any other questions you might have: 1) go visit fairtax.org and read it from front to back. Pay particular attention to the FAQ. 2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz. 3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics" It will all become crystal clear. I am familiar with sales tax schemes, they have been around for years. With exemptions, they become just as convoluted as the current system. Excise luxury taxes were another attempt to soak the rich as poor poeple would never buy luxury taxed items. How did that work out? -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. More nonsense. We have a system that was god when it started and has been eroded over the years. It was sound. It can be made sound again without phony "fair" tax and "flat" tax nonsense Fix it. YOu just don't understand either the Fair Tax or a flat income tax, Sid. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
John Smith wrote in
: On 5/25/2011 12:25 PM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in : On 5/24/2011 12:05 PM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in news:irgufi$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...er/wealth.html 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. Of course, even with a flat tax certain safeguards would have to be in place from preventing criminals from crimes which would allow them to ignore the taxes. See Al Capone. For example, a case where they made their dollars here and bought only foreign goods in mexico or canada ... it is a given, as soon as any fix, situation, solution, etc. is enacted, the criminals will come crawling out from under their rocks attempting to avoid it ... some of these safeguards to prevent this will have to be worked out as we catch the criminals ... Unfortunately, every discussion must begin on the premise that everyone is capable of realizing "common sense." At the bottom of the fair tax or fair tax is the real intent and sole purpose that all contribute equally and in direct relationship to how much they profit from business here. Just how is your fair tax different from your scenarios above. After all, you said folks would by only foreign goods from outside the US which avoids your fair tax. I said everyone needs taxed at an equal rate of every dollar earned. My flat tax does that. Fair Tax (or a sales tax) does not. I said crooks will always attempt to break any laws in existence. That would be true regardless of the taxing system. -- 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 : "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...er/wealth.html 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. The truth of this must be recognized and those that ignore the question should in turn be ignored. They are greedy, twisted people that want to punish the successful, get thier government cheese and then ignore the calamity for our children and grand children. And us. They imagine somehow the beast will continue feeding enough to support them, in spite of what the vampirism does to the country as a whole. -- 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 : "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. -- 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 : " wrote in news:c3320493-53c4-474c-b720-3f6944f4ad00 @r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 10:45*am, gfn wrote: On May 24, 12:07*pm, John Smith wrote: 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 k eep attempting to push? Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying 42% of al l of governments costs, and sure looks like the top 19% are not paying ha lf of governments costs, until that happens they are NOT paying their f air 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 i s 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 ... Impossible to implement. It *might* be possible to implement - in a totalitarian state. The government would have to always know what your worth (in terms of wealth) is at all times, and exactly what you purchase throughout the year, and when. Yikes. I suspect that such a system would encourage a black market or two. And a MASSIVE tracking system on the income status of over 300 million people. Think BIG BROTHER in real time. Isn't that what we are trying to get away from? I don't much like the government reviewing my personal financial information. Privacy and all that. Then a sales tax that proportions its charges on income is not the answer. -- 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
: On 5/25/2011 12:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in news:irh49m$id0$3@dont- email.me: On 5/24/2011 1:18 PM, wrote: ... You chose the easy point of my post to reply to. The point you ignored is that your suggested system - "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 ..." - is either impossible to implement, or requires a dictatorship. ... Yes, that is a fair system, you simply want to take it literally and say it doesn't work. I am not stuck on any particular system to implement it with. Any system which can demonstrate that it can successfully accomplish the goal, and costing the least, would be great. THINK for a change, John. How would a system like that have to work? How would a merchant know whether to charge 7% sales tax or 42% sales tax or some amount in between? Any system only needs to manage that 1% of those with control of 42.7% of the financial money pay 42.7% of the sales taxes. And that 20% at the top pay 50.3% of the taxes. And just how do you think it knows which one you are? Or who is in those brackets? You are looking at Big Brother from 1984 big time. I simply gave a simplified version of what is to be accomplished. No, you showed that you really don't understand what is involved in that scheme. Those with any common sense would have realized it was over simplified ... REally, really oversimplified....so much so that you don't seem to have any grasp of the basics. I don't give a rats arse how you get the water from the well, just that the water comes from the well ... If you are whining about the costs and fairness of things, you really should care. In this case you are pushing the costs would completely overwhelm the result. I said everyone needs taxed at an equal rate on every dollar earned ... I said crooks will always attempt to avoid this. If you are going to keep dodging the questions put to you, there really isn't much sense continuing this. -- 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?
gfn wrote in
: On May 25, 3:46*pm, RD Sandman wrote: John Smith wrote : On 5/24/2011 1:44 PM, Dave LaRue wrote: ... Well, it is impossible for you to be smart, you retard. You can't do otherwise, you retard. You are like dog **** on the shoe ... And, nothing but personal attacks, opinions, etc. ... * sad, so very, very sad ... Perhaps it you paid some attention to what it would take to implement suc h a system and what it would cost in freedom, etc.. then perhaps folks wouldn't be so hard on you. *Instead you simply seem to wish to deal on emotion. Liberals can't connect the dots of freedom and implementation of his unworkable plan. You nailed it when you mentioned "emotion". But, that's how liberals react. Not with logic or thought, but emotion. Ahhh, you noticed that..... -- 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 ... 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. Paying the "same percentage" is not fair. The BURDEN is much less on the wealthy. ....and why ...radio.shortwave...? more obsolete thinking! |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 May 2011 14:07:09 -0500, RD Sandman wrote: Besides if the low earner is really a low earner like the 45% who don't pay tax in the first place A low earner pays as much tax on goods and services as a ****ing billionaire you dip**** asshole, and is a bigger burden on their existence that anyone else. No, actually a billionaire tends to spend much more since they purchase considerably more goods and services, and thus pay more tax as a result. You're talking about tax on income, which the wealth class can affect more than a burger flipper Actually the wealthy would be affected more since the poverty level deduction is negligible for their income, but a significant part of the income of your burger flipper. 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 $146,400. The effective tax rate, and you love talking about effective rates, would have the effective tax rate on the burger flipper be 3%, your wealth class, on the other hand, would have an effective tax rate of 14.6% So the tax is clearly affecting the wealth class far more than it would the burger flipper, so your objection has no merit. In fact none of your objections have had any merit since your complaint seems to be that unless we stick to the wealthy then it's impossible. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in message ... "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in : "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in : "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote in news:irgik5$f2r$3@dont- email.me: 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 ... Oh, you mean one like this? A tax on *ALL* income no matter where derived. One deduction. Federal poverty level for a family of four and everybody gets that deduction. Have a tax rate of, say 15% and the current poverty level at $24K and we get the following: A person who earns up to $24K, pays nada... A person who earns $50K, pays $3,900 (50-24x15%) A person who earns $100K, pays $11,400 (100-24x15%) A person who earns $500K, pays $71,400 (500-24x15%) A person who earns a million pays $146,400 (1000-24x15%) That do it for you? . . If you add a $1,000 tax to the $50,000 guy he becomes homeless If you add a $1,000 tax to the $1,000,000 guy...he never notices it. That's what's UNFAIR. Nope, what's unfair is YOU expecting OTHERS to pay for what YOU want. The EFFECT on the wealthy taxpayer is nil. The EFFECT on the low income tax payer is catastrophic. Interestingly, no one is asking that $50K guy for that extra grand, but here you are whining that the million dollar guy won't as affected. The problem Democrats will have is that sometime they will run out of other people's money. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. That's what is unfair. A small increase of tax on a low earner is a huge burden The same increase on a wealthy person is INSIGNIFICANT. No one is asking for the same increase from both parties, you idiot. Besides if the low earner is really a low earner like the 45% who don't pay tax in the first place, how can you increase the tax on them. They still won't reach the AGI that pays taxes. Increasing the tax percentage doesn't do a damn thing to change their AGI. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. I gave an example of how the same number (dollars) has a different affect on people of different wealth. So did I. Your low wage earner would have (after taxes) and increase in income of 13%, while the wealth class would have an increase in wealth of less than 1%. Sure, the tax is more significant to the low wage earner, but the boost in income is also more significant as well. You wish to ignore that half of the equation. Why is that? You didn’t understand it.....what's the word you used....you idiot! |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"gfn" wrote in message ... On May 25, 3:18 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote : On May 24, 3:00 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:fafaebf4-7788-4906-a699-839c2c5dac6b@ s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 2:34 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:5111f00d-80ed-4513-9bae-c9a63b5cdb40@ x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 1:23 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote in news:75946acf-fb50-4a71-9677-e0b1afec14b0 @w19g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 11:24 am, John Smith 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. That is not a flat tax, it is a sales tax. It's a sales tax but it is flat. It's a flat 23%. You had better spend some time learning what a flat tax is. I'm perfectly familiar with a flat tax. Not sure about that since it has nothing to do with sales. 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. 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. Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services. How exactly do you determine what are "essential goods and services" never mind how much such "essential goods and services" a particular household requires? Let's take an example. A poor family is an old but well insulated house. High effeciency heating system. Pays $200 for heating. Another poor family in a old, uninsulated and drafty house with an old heating system. Pays $450 for heating. Do you effectively impose a tax on one poor family and/or pay the other for non-essential goods and services? Because what would be essential for one family might be nothing more than a luxury for the other. So, please define for me exactly how you determine the EXACT nature of essential goods and services for each household and exactly how much they spent on such goods and services. Second, per my example an item that costs $100 today still costs $100 under the FairTax. If that's regressive then sign me up. Hmmm... you impose a tax, and then state you're going to collect nothing in taxes.... The poor are always going to pay a larger percentage of their income on everything. No tax system is going to change that. Isn't that what the bulk of this thread is about? Not necessarily. Look at some of the living expenses of the wealthy, or better yet those who were wealthy that no longer are. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in message ... "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... gfn wrote in : On May 24, 3:00 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:fafaebf4-7788-4906-a699-839c2c5dac6b@ s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 2:34 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:5111f00d-80ed-4513-9bae-c9a63b5cdb40@ x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 1:23 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote in news:75946acf-fb50-4a71-9677-e0b1afec14b0 @w19g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 11:24 am, John Smith 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. That is not a flat tax, it is a sales tax. It's a sales tax but it is flat. It's a flat 23%. You had better spend some time learning what a flat tax is. I'm perfectly familiar with a flat tax. Not sure about that since it has nothing to do with sales. Sure I do. The "flat tax" has the government deriving its revenue from the income tax. Yep....at a flat rate for everybody. 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. The FairTax is a replacement for the income tax. Yes....and a flat tax is another method of figuring income tax. Yeah....and they both accomplish the same thing. The FairTax is better because a flat tax still involves taxing income which then leads to exemptions, deductions, and keeps the 16th amendment in place as well as the IRS, and I can go on and on about the pitfalls of our current tax system. A flat tax on income replaces the current tax system. If properly administered it only has ONE deduction and that is poverty level wages for a family of four. Everyone gets that ONE deduction, or exemption if you prefer, and no other. You can do your tax on a postcard. It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator. Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner. You may think so. I don't. I think it needs too many adjustments so that it does not become regressive. I don't think so, I know so. Tell me how this is regressive? Current tax system: Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 25%: $250. Taxpayer has $750 left to spend. Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130. Taxpayer has $620 left. Fairtax system: Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 0%: $0 Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130. Taxpayer has $870 left. I'll go one better under the fairtax system. Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 0%: $0 Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend Taxpayer buys a USED toaster for a total of $100. Taxpayer pays NO fairtax sales tax. Taxpayer has $900 left. So, again, how is that regressive. Same taxpayer......buys $100 worth of groceries.....pays $123 for them. Rich guy, he eats the same, so he buys a $100 worth of groceries...pays $123 for them. Which one spent the bigger percentage of their income on a necessity? OK, let's fix it....we will not pay that tax on groceries....oooops, you just generated an exception. Three suggestions for you to find out why as well as any other questions you might have: 1) go visit fairtax.org and read it from front to back. Pay particular attention to the FAQ. 2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz. 3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics" It will all become crystal clear. I am familiar with sales tax schemes, they have been around for years. With exemptions, they become just as convoluted as the current system. Excise luxury taxes were another attempt to soak the rich as poor poeple would never buy luxury taxed items. How did that work out? -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. More nonsense. We have a system that was god when it started and has been eroded over the years. It was sound. It can be made sound again without phony "fair" tax and "flat" tax nonsense Fix it. They did....how do you think they made such a mess of it? |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Scout" wrote in : "John Smith" wrote in message ... On 5/24/2011 12:05 PM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in news:irgufi$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...er/wealth.html 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...... Yep, you either put sales tax EVERYTHING equally, or the system is automatically no longer fair. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com