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

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


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











On May 27, 12:49 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:a3818cb8-5698-4e24-8be3-
:

On May 27, 12:35 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:9cf9a67a-cb3c-4cd1-a678-
4e47e0379641
@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

On May 26, 6:19 pm, Gray Ghost


wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:f287e735-90d5-42c1-a14d-
55a606092fd9
@
28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:

wholesale = $50
compliance costs = - $23
FairTax = $23
sales and other taxes = $27

Unless they changed the rules of math by Congressionl
decree
that's
$123.

You can refer to my math, in return I will refer to your
reading
comprehension. Was there something about "- $23" (read
minus $
23)
that you didn't get? I guess the example wasn't simple
enough
for
you.

Didn't see any minuses in there. You think compliance costs
are
jus
t
goin
g
to away?

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

--
Herman Cain for President! http://herman
cai
n.c
om/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that
Obama had
as
muc
h
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have
THAT
muc
h
competence?

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

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

--
Herman Cain for President! http://hermancai
n.c
om/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that Obama
had as
muc
h
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have
THAT much
competence?

Exactly my point.

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

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

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


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

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

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

--
Herman Cain for President! http://hermancain.com/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that Obama had
as much
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have THAT much
competence?


The "Fair" tax is inherently unfair.

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


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

..
..
The poor are another subject.

The middle class earner who just gets by and cannot save is taxed more
heavily than a person making millions, who cannot possible spend all he/she
earns.

The unspent portion is untaxed in your inherently unfair sales
tax...Cleverly labeled a "Fair" tax it is UNFAIR.

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

RD Sandman wrote in
:

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

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

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


...









On May 27, 12:49 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:a3818cb8-5698-4e24-8be3-
:

On May 27, 12:35 pm, Gray Ghost grey_ghost471-newsgro...
@yahoo.com
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:9cf9a67a-cb3c-4cd1-a678-
4e47e0379641
@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

On May 26, 6:19 pm, Gray Ghost grey_ghost471-newsgro...
@yahoo.co
m
wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:f287e735-90d5-42c1-a14d-
55a606092fd9
@
28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:

wholesale = $50
compliance costs = - $23
FairTax = $23
sales and other taxes = $27

Unless they changed the rules of math by Congressionl
decree
that's
$123.

You can refer to my math, in return I will refer to your
readi
ng
comprehension. *Was there something about "- $23" (read
minu
s
$23)
that you didn't get? *I guess the example wasn't simple
enou
gh
for
you.

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

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

--
Herman Cain for President! * * * * * * *http://her
mancai
n.c
om/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that
Obama
h
ad
as
muc
h
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have
THAT much
competence?

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

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

--
Herman Cain for President! * * * * * * *http://herman
cain.c
om/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that Obama
had
as
muc
h
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have
THAT
muc
h
competence?

Exactly my point.

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

Given the tax and spend attitude, NO amount of taxation will feed
the
bea
st.
Even under Clinton will tax increases and a massive increase in
revenue
d
ue
to a booming economy, the federal government still managed to invent
new
and
wonderful ways to spend absolutely everything it got and still
needed to borrow even more.

The problem is a lack of control on spending, not on the level of
taxatio
n.

Exactly. That's why something like the FT is revenue neutral. It's
a mechanism to maintain current levels of tax revenue. Controlling
spending is a completely different issue.


And it's pointless going through the exercise of changing the
collection method if spending doesn't change.


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


And while it is a different issue, it is arguably the more important one.

--
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?
 

"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in :


"gfn" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 12:49 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:a3818cb8-5698-4e24-8be3-
:











On May 27, 12:35 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:9cf9a67a-cb3c-4cd1-a678-
4e47e0379641
@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

On May 26, 6:19 pm, Gray Ghost grey_ghost471-newsgro...
@yahoo.com
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:f287e735-90d5-42c1-a14d-
55a606092fd9
@
28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:

wholesale = $50
compliance costs = - $23
FairTax = $23
sales and other taxes = $27

Unless they changed the rules of math by Congressionl decree
that's
$123.

You can refer to my math, in return I will refer to your
reading
comprehension. Was there something about "- $23" (read minus
$23)
that you didn't get? I guess the example wasn't simple enough
for
you.

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

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

--
Herman Cain for President! http://hermancai
n.c
om/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that Obama
had
as
muc
h
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have THAT
much
competence?

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

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

--
Herman Cain for President! http://hermancain.c
om/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that Obama had
as
muc
h
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have THAT much
competence?

Exactly my point.


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

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

--
Herman Cain for President! http://hermancain.com/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that Obama had as
much
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have THAT much
competence?


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



So are Democrats but we tolerate them. For now.

--
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?
 

"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in :


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


"gfn" wrote in message

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











"gfn" wrote in message
.
co m..
.
On May 26, 6:52 pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
Gray Ghost wrote
6.97.142:

gfn wrote in
news:f287e735-90d5-42c1-a14d-55a606092fd9@
28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:

wholesale = $50
compliance costs = - $23
FairTax = $23
sales and other taxes = $27

Unless they changed the rules of math by Congressionl
decree that's
$123.

You can refer to my math, in return I will refer to your
reading comprehension. Was there something about "- $23"
(read minus $23) that you didn't get? I guess the example
wasn't simple enough for you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/6sdrrr

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

If a wealthy person makes $20 million dollars only that small portion
he/she spends is taxed.

Not with my tax proposal but under the Fair Tax, yes.

The unspent portion remains untaxed.
People who work at jobs are not granted such privileges
The "Fair" tax is inherently UNFAIR...it's a sales tax and is
inherently regressive.

There is a method in that Fair Tax for taking the regression out of it
just like there is in my flat income proposal. You need to read a little
further than just the first sentence.

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

We have a system that contains knee jerks, adjustments, social
engineering, project financing, political party programs and all sorts of
other things. It requires thousands of pages of rules and even the IRS
can't keep coming up with the same answer to the same questions.

The income to works.

It needs to have much of its giveaways removed.

Oh, Sid, it doesn't address one of your hot buttons either......wealth.
;)



--
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
...
"Scout" wrote in
:



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

"gfn" wrote in message
news:700a7013-bbee-4ef0-96dd-5124301ed8d1
@k16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
...
On May 27, 7:28 pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
"Scout" wrote
:











"gfn" wrote in message
news:528566bb-783a-4ea4-bf4b-51a534035346
@c1g2000yqe.googlegroups.c
om..
.
On May 26, 6:52 pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
Gray Ghost wrote
6.97.142:

gfn wrote in
news:f287e735-90d5-42c1-a14d-55a606092fd9@
28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:

wholesale = $50
compliance costs = - $23
FairTax = $23
sales and other taxes = $27

Unless they changed the rules of math by Congressionl
decree that's
$123.

You can refer to my math, in return I will refer to your
reading comprehension. Was there something about "- $23"
(read minus $23) that you didn't get? I guess the example
wasn't simple enough for you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/6sdrrr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Begorra, methinks you figgered it out.


.
.
I'm not poor.

OK.....depends a lot on your definition but OK.

I ride the tax gravy train same as you do.

Hmmmm, what gravy train. I worked and earned all my dollars. However, I
didn't whine about the dollars other people earned.

10% tax on interest?

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

Care to show your work?

Have you people no clue?

Or, just possibly, you don't.

I suspect none of your have ever done a 1040.

Interesting......I do mine every year and have done them since 1951.


--
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 28, 7:28*am, gfn wrote:
On May 28, 10:19*am, "Scout"









wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

....

On May 27, 6:11 pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

...

On May 27, 3:35 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
:

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

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


m.
..

On May 26, 4:04 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:cd664af5-c0a8-4200-a50e-2cdb60b5a
031
@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

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

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

You are obviously a Democrat.

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

--
Herman Cain for President! * * * * * * *http://her
man
cain.c
om/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that
Obama had
as
muc
h
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have
THAT muc
h
competence?

I refer to your math.

wholesale = $50
compliance costs = - $23
FairTax = $23
sales and other taxes = $27

Unless they changed the rules of math by Congressionl decree
that's $1
23.

You can refer to my math, in return I will refer to your
reading
comprehension. *Was there something about "- $23" (read minus
$23) that you didn't get? *I guess the example wasn't simple
enough for you.

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

You need to understand what compliance costs actually are. *They
are the costs associated with complying with the federal income
tax
on wages, regressive payroll taxes , the federal income tax on
wages, i.e. measuring, tracking, sheltering, documenting, and
filing our annual income.. *If those taxes are gone then just
what
exactly is there left to comply with and how does that cost any
money?

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

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

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

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

EPA isn't going to be there anymore?

OSHA isn't going to be there anymore?

Workman's Comp isn't going to be there anymore?

Unemployment Benefits aren't going to be there anymore?

The need to comply with state/local tax requirements aren't going to be
there anymore?

You just can't wave your magic wand and claim all these things are going
away when they aren't.

With all due respect, what the hell are you talking about? *I never
claimed these things would go away. *Go read the fairtax site so you
can come in to this discussion with at least a tacit understanding of
it.

Sorry, but it's your job to support your claims and to present any specific
information needed to that end. It's not my job to good read up on a topic
you wish to discuss simply because you can't be bothered to present and
support your views.

Look, I said repeatedly that the fairtax replaces federal income taxes
including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum,
Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes and
the compliance costs associated with them. *You come out of left field
with this EPA and OSHA nonsense. *It has no connection. *It's like
trying to prove a negative.

I agree to a point, but not all compliance costs will be eliminated.

Take Social Security, for example. While the tax collection aspect
will be eliminated for employers, the requirement to report income to
the Federal Government will not, since SS benefits are dependent on
that information.

State income taxes have been mentioned in this thread, and before you
say it, I know the Fair Tax deals with Federal taxes only. However,
State income taxes rely on the Federal income tax framework, so
there's bound to be some slop-over in compliance costs there. Perhaps
this has been taken into consideration.

Also, as has been mentioned, administration (collection, reporting,
and so on) of sales tax by business entities constitute a compliance
cost. (If you have ever had to administer sales tax for a State,
you'll know what I mean.) Perhaps this also has been taken into
consideration.

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
:


"gfn" wrote in message

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











On May 27, 12:49 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:a3818cb8-5698-4e24-8be3-
:

On May 27, 12:35 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:9cf9a67a-cb3c-4cd1-a678-
4e47e0379641
@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

On May 26, 6:19 pm, Gray Ghost


wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:f287e735-90d5-42c1-a14d-
55a606092fd9
@
28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:

wholesale = $50
compliance costs = - $23
FairTax = $23
sales and other taxes = $27

Unless they changed the rules of math by Congressionl
decree
that's
$123.

You can refer to my math, in return I will refer to
your reading
comprehension. Was there something about "- $23" (read
minus $
23)
that you didn't get? I guess the example wasn't simple
enough
for
you.

Didn't see any minuses in there. You think compliance
costs are
jus
t
goin
g
to away?

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

--
Herman Cain for President! http://herman
cai
n.c
om/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like
cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that
Obama had
as
muc
h
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't
have THAT
muc
h
competence?

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

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

--
Herman Cain for President! http://hermancai
n.c
om/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that
Obama had as
muc
h
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have
THAT much
competence?

Exactly my point.

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

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

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


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

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

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

--
Herman Cain for President! http://hermancain.com/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that Obama had
as much
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have THAT
much competence?


The "Fair" tax is inherently unfair.

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


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

.
.
The poor are another subject.

No, they really aren't. After all, if it wasn't for the poor, how on
earth would you define the rich?

The middle class earner who just gets by and cannot save is taxed more
heavily than a person making millions, who cannot possible spend all
he/she earns.

Care to show your work.......Yes, he pays a bigger share of his earnings
in taxes, but that is not due to tax rates.

The unspent portion is untaxed in your inherently unfair sales
tax..

Excuse me, but I am not proposing a sales tax nor am I supporting one.

Cleverly labeled a "Fair" tax it is UNFAIR.

That is the name that those who propose it put on 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?
 

RD Sandman wrote in
:

There is a method in that Fair Tax for taking the regression out of it
just like there is in my flat income proposal. You need to read a little
further than just the first sentence.


FWIW at least the flat tax could be adminstratively simpl, still to much
personal information turned over to the fed, face it they will still
"have" to know what you made so they can tell if youlied on your postcard.

But the cluster**** involved in the VAT, adminstering it with the
exceptions and "prebates" for low earners is just another giant government
program waiting to spin out of control. And you'd still have to declare
income to know if you qualified for the "prebates". never mind the sliding
scale bull****.

If i had to choose I would go with the flat tax as being more honest and
open. With no real deductions the tax preparer leechs would have to get
productive work, the IRS could be reduced considerably and then we vould
really debate how much the government "needs" and why. Now everyone
scrambles for and whines about deductions, perfect for the politicians as
an evasion for the real question.

We're to busy arguing about HOW we're being bled then 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?
 

Gray Ghost wrote in
7.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

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

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

news:f8953f5a-0de2-4b9c-96d7-135587d983c5@
16g2000yqy.googlegroups.com
...









On May 27, 12:49 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:a3818cb8-5698-4e24-8be3-
:

On May 27, 12:35 pm, Gray Ghost grey_ghost471-newsgro...
@yahoo.com
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:9cf9a67a-cb3c-4cd1-a678-
4e47e0379641
@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

On May 26, 6:19 pm, Gray Ghost grey_ghost471-newsgro...
@yahoo.co
m
wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:f287e735-90d5-42c1-a14d-
55a606092fd9
@
28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:

wholesale = $50
compliance costs = - $23
FairTax = $23
sales and other taxes = $27

Unless they changed the rules of math by Congressionl
decree
that's
$123.

You can refer to my math, in return I will refer to your
readi
ng
comprehension. *Was there something about "- $23" (read
minu
s
$23)
that you didn't get? *I guess the example wasn't simple
enou
gh
for
you.

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

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

--
Herman Cain for President! * * * * * * *http://her
mancai
n.c
om/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that
Obama
h
ad
as
muc
h
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have
THAT much
competence?

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

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

--
Herman Cain for President! * * * * * * *http://herman
cain.c
om/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that
Obama
had
as
muc
h
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have
THAT
muc
h
competence?

Exactly my point.

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

Given the tax and spend attitude, NO amount of taxation will feed
the
bea
st.
Even under Clinton will tax increases and a massive increase in
revenue
d
ue
to a booming economy, the federal government still managed to
invent
new
and
wonderful ways to spend absolutely everything it got and still
needed to borrow even more.

The problem is a lack of control on spending, not on the level of
taxatio
n.

Exactly. That's why something like the FT is revenue neutral. It's
a mechanism to maintain current levels of tax revenue. Controlling
spending is a completely different issue.


And it's pointless going through the exercise of changing the
collection method if spending doesn't change.


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


And while it is a different issue, it is arguably the more important
one.


Yep, but both need to be addressed. One cannot simply wave a magic wand
and have all the perceived ills magically disappear.

--
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
:

Gray Ghost wrote in
7.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

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

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

news:f8953f5a-0de2-4b9c-96d7-135587d983c5@
16g2000yqy.googlegroups.com
...









On May 27, 12:49 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:a3818cb8-5698-4e24-8be3-
:

On May 27, 12:35 pm, Gray Ghost grey_ghost471-newsgro...
@yahoo.com
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:9cf9a67a-cb3c-4cd1-a678-
4e47e0379641
@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

On May 26, 6:19 pm, Gray Ghost grey_ghost471-newsgro...
@yahoo.co
m
wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:f287e735-90d5-42c1-a14d-
55a606092fd9
@
28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:

wholesale = $50
compliance costs = - $23
FairTax = $23
sales and other taxes = $27

Unless they changed the rules of math by Congressionl
decree
that's
$123.

You can refer to my math, in return I will refer to your
readi
ng
comprehension. *Was there something about "- $23" (read
minu
s
$23)
that you didn't get? *I guess the example wasn't simple
enou
gh
for
you.

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

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

--
Herman Cain for President! * * * * * * *http://her
mancai
n.c
om/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that
Obama
h
ad
as
muc
h
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have
THAT much
competence?

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

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

--
Herman Cain for President! * * * * * * *http://herman
cain.c
om/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that
Obama
had
as
muc
h
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have
THAT
muc
h
competence?

Exactly my point.

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

Given the tax and spend attitude, NO amount of taxation will feed
the
bea
st.
Even under Clinton will tax increases and a massive increase in
revenue
d
ue
to a booming economy, the federal government still managed to
invent
new
and
wonderful ways to spend absolutely everything it got and still
needed to borrow even more.

The problem is a lack of control on spending, not on the level of
taxatio
n.

Exactly. That's why something like the FT is revenue neutral. It's
a mechanism to maintain current levels of tax revenue. Controlling
spending is a completely different issue.


And it's pointless going through the exercise of changing the
collection method if spending doesn't change.


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


And while it is a different issue, it is arguably the more important
one.


Yep, but both need to be addressed. One cannot simply wave a magic wand
and have all the perceived ills magically disappear.


Er, um, mumble, no I won't say it.

OK, how about if we beat the politicians with it rather than wave it?

--
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?