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

On 5/25/2011 2:12 PM, Dave LaRue wrote:

...
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.


Already taken care of. If the poor guy buys a $400 dollar TV he has
already paid the tax on the $400. If the rich guy buy a $4000 TV, he
has already paid the taxes on the $4000.

It is only important that each of the dollars in the $400 has been taxed
at a rate equal to those in the $4000.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." --
Albert Einstein

Regards,
JS

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

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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 ...

So much for sales tax then.

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

On 5/25/2011 3:59 PM, Scout wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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 ...

So much for sales tax then.



Once again, I really don't care how it is implemented, it just has to
work out to a final flat tax on all the money earned ... make a dollar,
pay the tax on the dollar, make a hundred, pay the tax time a hundred,
make a thousand pay the tax times a thousand ... scalable in either
direction.

And, has been mentioned, no matter what system is finally chosen, crooks
will ALWAYS attempt to escape paying their fair share ... as is
happening with the rich elite today ...

Regards,
JS

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

John Smith wrote:

On 5/25/2011 2:12 PM, Dave LaRue wrote:

...

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.


Already taken care of.

No it hasn't, you retard!

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

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/25/2011 3:59 PM, Scout wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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 ...

So much for sales tax then.



Once again, I really don't care how it is implemented, it just has to work
out to a final flat tax on all the money earned ... make a dollar, pay the
tax on the dollar, make a hundred, pay the tax time a hundred, make a
thousand pay the tax times a thousand ... scalable in either direction.

And, has been mentioned, no matter what system is finally chosen, crooks
will ALWAYS attempt to escape paying their fair share ... as is happening
with the rich elite today ...

Regards,
JS


A simple solution for a complicated problem...and it's wrong.

You need to equalize the BURDEN....You need to equalize the effect the tax
has on the taxpayers life

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

On 5/25/2011 4:12 PM, Sid9 wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/25/2011 3:59 PM, Scout wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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 ...

So much for sales tax then.



Once again, I really don't care how it is implemented, it just has to
work out to a final flat tax on all the money earned ... make a
dollar, pay the tax on the dollar, make a hundred, pay the tax time a
hundred, make a thousand pay the tax times a thousand ... scalable in
either direction.

And, has been mentioned, no matter what system is finally chosen,
crooks will ALWAYS attempt to escape paying their fair share ... as is
happening with the rich elite today ...

Regards,
JS


A simple solution for a complicated problem...and it's wrong.

You need to equalize the BURDEN....You need to equalize the effect the
tax has on the taxpayers life

Anything which is better than what we have now will be better ... end of
story.

Regards,
JS

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

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

"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!

With an in-depth and well reasoned rebuttal like that which picks his
statements apart and shows the flaws within them certainly can't be
questioned...........NOT.

I acknowledge your knee jerk denial and inability to refute even a single
particular of what he states.

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

"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in :


"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

"Scout" wrote in
:



"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/24/2011 12:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
:

On 5/24/2011 11:40 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
:

On 5/24/2011 10:47 AM, gfn wrote:
...
Sure it is. It gives a clear, concise and true picture of
who
pays the federal income tax burden in this country. If you
want to talk about all taxes and all revenue that goes to the
government then your right. I know of no place that compiles
that data. ...
OK. Then, please cut and paste the relevant parts here, I
need
them pointed out to me.
If you can't understand the date presented at that site, you
have no hope of understanding any data presented to you. Which
explains some of your ideas.....
If it is so simple, as you pretend, it would be no problem ...
you are attempting a circular argument ...

Just post something which proves your point ... if you can, from
the site you are claiming explains it openly ... DUH!
I didn't make that claim, however, here is the data:

2008

Top 1% AGI$380,354 Percentage 38.02
Top 5% AGI$159,619 Percentage 58.72
Top 10% AGI$113,799 Percentage 69.94
Top 25% AGI$ 67,280 Percentage 86.34
Top 50% AGI$ 33,048 Percentage 97.30
Bottom 50% AGI$ 33,048 Percentage 2.70

2007

Top 1% AGI$410,096 Percentage 40.42
Top 5% AGI$160,041 Percentage 60.63
Top 10% AGI$113,018 Percentage 71.22
Top 25% AGI$ 66,532 Percentage 86.59
Top 50% AGI$ 32,879 Percentage 97.11
Bottom 50% AGI$ 32,879 Percentage 2.89

Here is the site:

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

The Virginian-Pilot
© May 15, 2011
By Don Tabor

Who really pays the baker's taxes? The baker may write the check,
but he does not bear the cost, and in that paradox lies the cause
of much of the bitter partisanship and polarization that poisons
our political process. But to understand that problem, we must
consider how taxes are applied to the production of goods and
services.

So, how does the loaf of bread the baker sells come to market?

A farmer grew and harvested wheat for sale to the miller to be
made into flour for the baker. The farmer paid income taxes based
on his profit from the sale and property tax on his farm and
equipment. Those taxes were, from his point of view, just another
cost of doing business in the course of earning his living, no
different from fuel for his tractor or wages and taxes for
employees.

Since every other farmer had roughly the same expenses and taxes,
the price they charge the miller must cover their expenses and
taxes, plus their after-tax disposable income and savings.
Otherwise, there would be no point in growing wheat. All of these
costs and taxes were passed on to the miller, embedded in the
price of wheat.

Likewise, when the miller sold the flour ground from the wheat to
the baker, his taxes, plus the income and Social Security taxes
he
withheld from his employees, plus the farmer's taxes, were all
passed on to the baker.

The baker then sold his bread made from the flour, carrying with
it his own taxes plus those of his employees, plus all those
previous taxes from the farmer, miller and their employees,
hidden
in the price of that loaf of bread. The buyer and his family ate
the bread, and, having done so, could not sell it to anyone else
and pass the taxes along, as the baker and everyone else before
had done.

So, it is the consumer who paid the baker's taxes, along with the
farmer's taxes, the miller's taxes and the taxes they withheld
from all of their employees. From bread to automobiles to brain
surgery, the price of everything we buy carries in it the hidden
taxes of everyone who contributed to the production of that
product or service to the tune of, on average, 23 cents of every
dollar we spend for federal taxes alone.

Our complex, pervasive and expensive tax code is, in reality, a
scheme to draft businesses and individuals as unpaid and
unknowing
tax collectors to gather a hidden sales tax and to keep voters
from realizing who really bears the burden of those high taxes.

There is no way around this central reality that all income and
business taxes are a deception and that all taxes are eventually
paid by the consumer, hidden in the price of goods and services.
It doesn't matter what tax rate is applied to which tax bracket,
or what deductions you receive. These devices change only the
degree to which you are a tax collector, but the burden taxes
place on your life depends solely on what you spend.

Paying this hidden consumption tax is unavoidable, but the
illusion of income-based taxing does a great deal of harm. First,
it distorts our economic decisions. Goods and services that are
provided by highly taxed individuals and companies, like health
care, are artificially more expensive than necessary, while raw
materials and natural resources are underpriced, leading to
overconsumption and waste.

But even worse, these hidden taxes distort the political process,
encouraging government overspending by politicians who exploit
the
mistaken belief of many voters that government spending can be
paid for solely by taxing corporations or the "rich." All of the
exploitation of envy and demagoguery - which brings so much ill
will to our politics and drives wedges between Americans who
would
be better served by mutual respect and compassion - is ultimately
the meaningless exploitation of a lie.

Our income tax system, with its escalating marginal rates,
appears
progressive, but the reality is extremely regressive. Currently,
the lower income 45 percent of wage earners may pay no income tax
directly, but in reality, with their FICA taxes added to the
hidden embedded tax, their true federal tax burden is almost 30
percent of their meager income.

Voters might well choose differently were they aware that
government spending is ultimately paid for by everyone, through
an
invisible sales tax disguised as a high cost of living.

Guest columnist Don Tabor of Chesapeake is a grandfather,
Libertarian activist and proprietor of TidewaterLiberty.com. He
is
a dentist in Norfolk and Hampton.

A flat tax, and NO OTHER TAXES! PERIOD!

Agreed. A flat tax. Mr A buys a product he pays the same tax as Mr.
B.

Mr. A pays the same rate of taxes on his income that Mr. B does.

No exceptions, no exclusions, except those which apply to ALL.

If you're going to exempt Mr. A housing, food, medical, then Mr B
gets the exact same exemptions.

Otherwise, it's not a flat tax.




And it won't fix the problem he is whining about....which is the
rich
not paying a hundred times what the poor do.


And truthfully you never will. It is childish whining to think so.
The
best you can hope for is that everyone pays the same percentage
without a plethora of deductions and weasel outs.

Which is what my flat tax proposal does.

AFter, of course, you tell me exactly how much the guv needs and why.

GG, somehow I doubt that decision is up to you.


Paying the "same percentage" is not fair.

The BURDEN is much less on the wealthy.

The wealthy are paying most of the income tax burden. You wouldn't be
happy with any tax scheme that didn't penalize the wealthy and not charge
you a dime.


...and why ...radio.shortwave...? more obsolete thinking!





--
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
:



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.

Yoorghis isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. One reason he is in my
killfile.

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.






--
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 message
. 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.

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 agree the level would need to be established, but changing how we fleece
the taxpayer is certainly a worthy objective independent of anything else.

Indeed, I've come to the mind that allowing the government to impose taxes
and to raise taxes was a mistake. The government should never have such a
power, and any taxation or increase in taxation should only occur via public
referendum. The only power the government should have is to eliminate taxes
and/or lower rates.

We should be the ones telling the government what they have to spend, not
the other way around.


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.

True, and I would like to see a means by which government could earn what it
needs, but off hand don't see a way to impose that today.


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.

Bingo.

Of course that would require a complete ovrehaul of most federal policies
and the expulsion of Marxists and enviromentalists.

Something that IMO needs to be done on a regular basis anyway.

Indeed, I'm of the mind that most, if not all laws, should include an
expiration date.


One would have to stop viewing tax policy as a method of molding people's
behavior and relegate to the neccessary evil it is.


Yep, taxation as a means of social control is just plain wrong. Taxes are to
raise revenue. Period. Not to control what people do, buy, use, etc.

Indeed, I've always thought the settlement against tobacco companies was
wrong. Governments complained that tobacco use caused them extra medical
expenses....but isn't that what the tax on tobacco they've been collecting
was for?

Why did the tobacco companies get NO credit for all the taxes paid as a
result of these product specific taxes?

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 12:05 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.

Agreed, but until I see some serious spending cuts and a clear, firm (and
preferably Constitutionally mandated) path to control spending and reduce
the debt, I would be most reluctant to accept the need for any increase in
taxation.

We've been promised spending cuts before in exchange for a tax hike. We got
the hike....we didn't get the cuts.

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

John Smith wrote in news:irk1i9$9kn$5@dont-
email.me:

On 5/25/2011 2:12 PM, Dave LaRue wrote:

...
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.


Already taken care of. If the poor guy buys a $400 dollar TV he has
already paid the tax on the $400. If the rich guy buy a $4000 TV, he
has already paid the taxes on the $4000.

And if he buys a $400 TV? He is now paying the same as your poor guy.

It is only important that each of the dollars in the $400 has been
taxed
at a rate equal to those in the $4000.

Then why are you and others whining about the rich not paying their
share?

What happened to your dream of the rich guy paying a hundred times more
tax than the little guy?


"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." --
Albert Einstein

Do you understand what Albert just said?


--
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 3:59 PM, Scout wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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
...

So much for sales tax then.



Once again, I really don't care how it is implemented, it just has to
work out to a final flat tax on all the money earned ... make a
dollar, pay the tax on the dollar, make a hundred, pay the tax time a
hundred, make a thousand pay the tax times a thousand ... scalable in
either direction.

That is, basically, what my flat proposal is. You, however, have been
ranting about making the rich pay a hundred times more than the poor guy
or schemes which know whether you are in the top 1% or top 20% at the
time you buy something.

And, has been mentioned, no matter what system is finally chosen,
crooks will ALWAYS attempt to escape paying their fair share ... as is
happening with the rich elite today ...

Nothing you have mentioned will change any of 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.

Actually, I think if we fixed the income the federal government had to work
with by eliminating their power to impose or increase taxes, I bet the rest
would, over time, resolve itself. As law makers have to live within their
means then priorities would be required and those items which were luxuries
or not required would keep getting pushed further and further towards the
short end of the stick. If we, as a people, decide that the government
simply doesn't have the funds to provide the necessary services, then we, as
a people, can decide to raise our taxes to provide more funding so such
necessary services can exist at a level we desire.

We are, after all, the ones paying for it all, so we should have a direct
say in how much we will pay.

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

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

"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.

Why?


The BURDEN is much less on the wealthy.

How?

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
...
"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.

Yep, and he neglicted to consider how the incomes would increase to cause
that extra tax to be imposed.

Wage earner - 13% increase in net income
Wealth class - 0.3% increase in net income.

Sure the tax seems higher to the lower paid individual, but so does the
increase in income.

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

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/25/2011 3:59 PM, Scout wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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 ...

So much for sales tax then.



Once again, I really don't care how it is implemented,

On the contrary, how it is implemented is vital if your notion is to have
any merit. If you don't know, specifically, what it is you want, then how
can anyone support it?

it just has to work out to a final flat tax on all the money earned ...
make a dollar, pay the tax on the dollar, make a hundred, pay the tax time
a hundred, make a thousand pay the tax times a thousand ... scalable in
either direction.

And, has been mentioned, no matter what system is finally chosen, crooks
will ALWAYS attempt to escape paying their fair share ... as is happening
with the rich elite today ...

Please list for me the laws broken by all the rich elite today.

----

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

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

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/25/2011 3:59 PM, Scout wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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 ...

So much for sales tax then.



Once again, I really don't care how it is implemented, it just has to
work out to a final flat tax on all the money earned ... make a dollar,
pay the tax on the dollar, make a hundred, pay the tax time a hundred,
make a thousand pay the tax times a thousand ... scalable in either
direction.

And, has been mentioned, no matter what system is finally chosen, crooks
will ALWAYS attempt to escape paying their fair share ... as is happening
with the rich elite today ...

Regards,
JS


A simple solution for a complicated problem...and it's wrong.

You need to equalize the BURDEN....You need to equalize the effect the tax
has on the taxpayers life

Seems to me that the flat tax proposed would do that better than any other
suggestion.

What do you propose?

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

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/25/2011 4:12 PM, Sid9 wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/25/2011 3:59 PM, Scout wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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
...

So much for sales tax then.



Once again, I really don't care how it is implemented, it just has to
work out to a final flat tax on all the money earned ... make a
dollar, pay the tax on the dollar, make a hundred, pay the tax time a
hundred, make a thousand pay the tax times a thousand ... scalable in
either direction.

And, has been mentioned, no matter what system is finally chosen,
crooks will ALWAYS attempt to escape paying their fair share ... as is
happening with the rich elite today ...

Regards,
JS


A simple solution for a complicated problem...and it's wrong.

You need to equalize the BURDEN....You need to equalize the effect the
tax has on the taxpayers life

Anything which is better than what we have now will be better ... end of
story.

Not true, things could be a lot worse, but they could also be better.

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

"Gray Ghost" wrote in message
. 97.142...
RD Sandman wrote in
:

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?


Indeed.

Yep, and goes to show how a prohibitive taxation rate reduces revenue.
Before he probably would have moored it at home and paid some taxes on it.
Now he moors it elsewhere and we get NO tax revenue from him for it.

Then, of course, there is all the fallout lose of tax revenue. Makers who
don't pay taxes because they are out of business. Workers who don't pay
taxes because they lost their jobs. People who would have provided goods and
services to those workers who didn't because those workers aren't buying
stuff because they lost their jobs, and so on and so forth.

In one quick swoop in an attempt to "stick it to the rich" we all but wiped
out one whole segment of the economy and sent it abroad.

And you can't simply reverse the taxation and get it all back, because the
expertise and experience has been dissipated and you can't just put the egg
back together again.

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

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

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 still not gettng it

Compared to what they have, and/or make, it's nothing

The "burden" to the lowest income is significant compared to what they
make.

Really? I've seen no data that shows the relative burden is any less for the
wealthy.

Maybe you can show that to me?

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

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


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

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

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

Let's see about that shall we...

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

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

Of which he pays $900 in taxes

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

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



$146,000 to an Income on $1 million has virtually no affect on their
ability to survive.

Depends on their expenses doesn't it? Certainly I've heard of millionaires
going bankrupt and as such it would seem these taxes could certainly play a
part in that just like anyone else living beyond their means.



So the tax is clearly affecting the wealth class far more than it would
the
burger flipper, so your objection has no merit.

Only in dollar amount--not what burden it has on the earner.

Really? How exactly do you determine the burden if not by the dollar amount?

One person is effectively paying 3% of his income in taxes, the other is
paying 14.6%. Seems to me the burden on the rich is higher, assuming his
lifestyle is also proportional to his income.

Oh, but that's right, you don't want people who busted their ass to get
ahead to have any benefits for doing so.

If there is no benefit for getting ahead, why would you bust your ass to do
so?

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

On May 25, 12:38*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
" wrote :









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.

Hence my remark that such a system would require a totalitarian state.


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

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

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

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 May 2011 13:10:54 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

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 ...


Well, aside from you "saying it", there is no validity in your
nonsense

Anyone who believes that a poor single mother should be taxed the same
rate as a Billionaire or CEO raking in $200 Million is a ****ing
idiot.

So what is your proposal for a fair tax?

Stick it to the rich guy because well, he's rich and worked to get where he
is?

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

On May 25, 5:08*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message

...









On 5/25/2011 4:12 PM, Sid9 wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/25/2011 3:59 PM, Scout wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/25/2011 12:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote innews: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
...

So much for sales tax then.

Once again, I really don't care how it is implemented, it just has to
work out to a final flat tax on all the money earned ... make a
dollar, pay the tax on the dollar, make a hundred, pay the tax time a
hundred, make a thousand pay the tax times a thousand ... scalable in
either direction.

And, has been mentioned, no matter what system is finally chosen,
crooks will ALWAYS attempt to escape paying their fair share ... as is
happening with the rich elite today ...

Regards,
JS

A simple solution for a complicated problem...and it's wrong.

You need to equalize the BURDEN....You need to equalize the effect the
tax has on the taxpayers life

Anything which is better than what we have now will be better ... end of
story.

Not true, things could be a lot worse, but they could also be better.

No, read what he wrote: "Anything which is better than what we have
now will be better".

Admittedly, this could go for the Obvious Statement of the Decade
Award and blow away the competition.

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

On May 25, 5:51*pm, "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote:
"RD Sandman" wrote in message

... "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth..net wrote :

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
. ..
Gray Ghost wrote in
96.97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
1:

"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.

The wealthy are paying most of the income tax burden. *You wouldn't be
happy with any tax scheme that didn't penalize the wealthy and not charge
you a dime.

.
.
They pay the aggregate of most of the money and it has far less impact on
their lives than the ordinary working American.
To that extent it's unfair.

The progressive income tax, restored by removing the inequities that have
been put there by the wealthy, would fix it.

Serious question: restored to what point in time? Please keep in
mind that the income tax has been tinkered with on a regular basis
since it came into existence.

Restoring the inheritance tax to eliminate the loop holes that have neutered
it would help, too.

Neither the Bushes, the Harrimans, the Kennedys, nor the Rockefellers heirs
got poor because of this tax.

Then remove the caps from the SS tax and the Medicare tax.....


The cap for Medicare was removed in the mid 1990's.

The cap (wage base) for Social Security is used to limit both the
income that is taxed, and the benefit derived. Would you also remove
the cap from the benefit?

Voila! No more fiscal problems!

Then cut the **** out of the military budget.

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

On 5/25/2011 8:00 PM, wrote:

...
Hence my remark that such a system would require a totalitarian state.


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

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


Don't forget, we plonk fools here ...

.... plonk ...

Regards,
JS

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

On May 25, 10:29*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 5/25/2011 8:00 PM, wrote:

...
Hence my remark that such a system would require a totalitarian state.

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

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

Don't forget, we plonk fools here ...

... * plonk * ...

Regards,
JS

Plonkers Don't Let Plonkers Post BS !
-friends-don't-let-friends-drive-drunk-

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

gfn wrote in
:

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

Sure I do. *The "flat tax" has the government deriving its
revenue from the income tax.

Yep....at a flat rate for everybody.

As does the FairTax. *Best part is the consumer pays it only when
the
y
buy something. *They decide when to pay it, not when the government
decides you owe it on payday.

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


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

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

The luxury
tax would have been a tax on top of that.

And to cover the loss of revenue from the income tax being removed, it is
also added into that Fair Tax number.

The FairTax is related because it is a flat sales

tax that generates revenue from sales. *It replaces the income
tax as the method of funding government. *If you fully
understand the FairTax
you will see exactly where I am coming from.

Then to keep it from becoming regressive you must drop that sales
tax from certain items, like food, housing, public transportation,
gasoline, etc.. or you end up with the poor paying a much larger
percentage of their income on those taxes than the wealthy.

Nope, There are two reasons why it's not regressive. *First, people
pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level.

Which means that someone, somewhere needs to know your income.

*Every household


No, they just need to know how many people are in your household.
That determines the prebate, not one's income.

How do you you receive that prebate? Do you get a check every month?

receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential
goods and services.

I looked at the prebate schedule. *Where in there does income come
into it for that poverty level? *

It doesn't. Nor does it need to. It only needs to figure what the
cost of essential goods and services are for a family of X number of
people. A family of four that makes $100,000 requires the same
essential goods and services as a family of four that makes $50,000.

And how is that prebate received?

From what I see, it is based on number of
adults and number of dependents.


Correct, that's all that is needed.

*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.


Not sure I follow. If taxpayer A makes less than taxpayer B, assuming
both buy the exact same thing then taxpayer A is always going to pay
more of a percentage of their income for buying something.

My flat income tax proposal is on income not goods.

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. *

Correct. Again as it should. That's how the prebate is determined.

And how is that prebate handled? There is really nothing in the proposal
that indicates that.

There is also nothing there that prevents it
from becoming another convoluted mess. *Congress can **** up a
bowling ball.


Yes, congress can **** up a bowling ball. In fact, the first
implementation of our current tax system was just a handful of
progressive tax brackets (several flat taxes if you will),

Prograssive tax brackets do not a flat tax make.

with no
exemptions, no deductions, etc. And look what happened. There is no
reason to believe a flat tax would wind up going back to the
convoluted mess we have now.

I think you meant to say "wouldn't". Anyway, there is no reason to
believe that a Fair Tax wouldn't either.

Plus, you would still have a tax code,
the IRS, the 16th Amendment, compliance costs, and on and on and on.
Under the FairTax the tax code – gone, IRS – gone, 16th Amendment –
gone, compliance costs – gone.

That said, congress can raise the FairTax rate just as it could raise
the flat tax rate or can and does raise the income tax rate. The
current income tax is effectively hidden.

So are the costs contained in the Fair Tax. I saw no provision for
showing them.

It's just taken every
paycheck and I bet 99% of workers don't even know how much is being
taken out every week. Out of sight out of mind.

That would effectively be the same with the Fair Tax. You would have it
taken out on every purchase but no indication of what all was in it in
what amounts.

They just accept
that government takes it.

Same with your sales tax.

Purposely designed that way by government.
The FairTax is highly visible (displayed on your receipt) and there is
only one tax rate.

That isn't the problem. Taxpayers DO know what is in their income tax.
They do not know what portion of that Fair Tax is the replacement for
income tax, what portion is corporate taxes, what portion is government
taxes for whatever purpose when Congress changes the percentage of the
Fair Tax.

Changing that will be harder for congress to do.
Why? Because the FairTax affects EVERYBODY. The income tax does
not. Right now, almost 50% of workers pay no federal income tax.

The only folks who would pay no federal income tax under my proposal
would be those who income was below the federally declared poverty line
for a family of four and EVERYBODY gets that one and only deduction.

It's easy for them to say raise taxes on the top 50% that actually
pay.

No, it isn't or Obama would have done it in lieu of extending the Bush
taxcuts.

Raising the FairTax means raising it on them too. Good luck to
any politician trying that.

As does raising the income tax percentages or do you think politicians
make less than the poverty level? ;)

*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****.


Not could be…would be. There would be no federal filing.

Which isn't done with state and local taxes anyway. They currently get
used as a deduction on federal income tax, but even though there is no
federal income tax, they still need to do state taxes. All they have
saved is entering a number.

But, to
your larger point, the FairTax is a replacement to the federal income
tax, not state income taxes.

Which is what I said.

Federal taxes are what is at issue
here. So, what would you rather do on 4/15? File federal, state and
local tax forms; or just a state and local?

When I do my federal taxes, TurboTax, for example, also does my state
taxes. The extra time for the state tax is about 5 minutes.

*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.


And once the FairTax is implemented none of that is withheld from your
paycheck.

My point was that it was still there. You just don't see it or really
know how much it is.

With the exception of state and/or local withholding you
keep 100% of your check. So, the payroll tax that is now effectively
incorporated into the FairTax is paid by you only when you buy a new
good or service. It's not automatically withheld from your pay. YOU
decide when to pay it. Not the government. So, where's the downside
to that?

Knwing what is in it and how much each entity is. For example, assume
your percentage of 23%. Now, certain corporate taxes get changed. Your
Fair Tax rate has to change to cover that. So now, this year it is 24.5%.
How does the consumer know which changed.....the income tax portion, the
corporate portion, the FICA portion, the whatever portion?

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.


You are not accounting for the removal of the 23% built in costs that
YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING on every good and service that you buy (that
government doesn't even get, by the way – just wasted dollars).

Yes, I am and it isn't 23% or the Fair Tax could not be 23% and cover all
those costs plus the amount currently from income taxes or FICA.

FWIW, all costs of doing business are placed in the price of the product
or service that is produced. Anyone who doesn't understand that won't
understand either your Fair Tax or my flat income tax proposal.

When
those built in costs go away you are back to the same price.

Not really. You have added additional taxes to that proposal in the form
on income tax replacement and FICA and federal sales taxes which were
part of certain purchases.

See my
previous example.



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.


Nope. The item that costs $100 today will still cost $100. Here's
why. The built in compliance costs are, on average, 23%.

Then where did you put the replacement for the income tax? It has to be
there or the feds are missing a major, major part of their revenue.

Take that
away and your $100 now costs $77 (which already include the state and
city taxes you mention). Replace those compliance costs with the
FairTax and you are back to $100.

See above.

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
incom
e
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.


mmmmmmm okay....

2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz.

Why? *If they can't explain it on their website..........


Boortz and Linder didn't create the web site. They are advocates of
the FairTax and have their own writing on this. You can fit a whole
lot more into a book than you can a website. You really need to read
the book. You will not regret it.

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.


Not all of it then because many of the questions you asked that I'm
replying to come right from the web site.

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
ta
x
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.


That's exactly what I'm saying and I explained why above.

LOL!!

--
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
:

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

gfn wrote in
news:1394cfb3-097e-43d7-aadb-

:

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 rdsandman@comcast
[remove].net
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?


Indeed.


Oh, plus registration in other than his home state.

--
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
:



"Gray Ghost" wrote in message
. 97.142...
RD Sandman wrote in
:

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

gfn wrote in
.
com
:

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?


Indeed.

Yep, and goes to show how a prohibitive taxation rate reduces revenue.
Before he probably would have moored it at home and paid some taxes on
it. Now he moors it elsewhere and we get NO tax revenue from him for
it.

We get less, but his home state gets none. Same thing you are saying,
just a difference of degree.

Then, of course, there is all the fallout lose of tax revenue. Makers
who don't pay taxes because they are out of business. Workers who
don't pay taxes because they lost their jobs. People who would have
provided goods and services to those workers who didn't because those
workers aren't buying stuff because they lost their jobs, and so on
and so forth.

We saw the same thing when they passed some taxes on luxury boats in the
80s. I was in Florida at the time and the boat manufactuing business
took a big hit as did the Carolinas.

In one quick swoop in an attempt to "stick it to the rich" we all but
wiped out one whole segment of the economy and sent it abroad.

Bingo!. The French sold a lot of yachts for that reason.

And you can't simply reverse the taxation and get it all back, because
the expertise and experience has been dissipated and you can't just
put the egg back together again.

Well, not all at once.


--
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
:



"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

"Scout" wrote in
:



"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/24/2011 12:05 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
news:irgufi$l7$7@dont- email.me:

On 5/24/2011 11:36 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
news:irgsdu$b0g$2@dont- email.me:

On 5/24/2011 10:24 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
:

On 5/24/2011 9:02 AM, gfn wrote:
On May 24, 11:24 am, John
wrote:
On 5/24/2011 8:20 AM, gfn wrote:

...

Where are some credible souces to back up any of that
innuendo
you
keep attempting to push?

Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not
paying 42% of all of governments costs, and sure looks
like the top 19% are not paying half of governments
costs, until that happens they are NOT paying their fair
share ... a flat tax can fix that ...

Regards,
JS
I already said the tax data is at irs.gov

Now, as for a flat tax I agree with you 100%. The one I
advocate
is
the FairTax.
Let me put this more bluntly. If I buy and item and pay 7%
sales
tax,
the top one percent should buy an item and pay a 42.7%
sales tax,
that
way they will be contributing their fair share to run
government
...
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...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.

Agreed, but until I see some serious spending cuts and a clear, firm
(and preferably Constitutionally mandated) path to control spending
and reduce the debt, I would be most reluctant to accept the need for
any increase in taxation.

As would I.

We've been promised spending cuts before in exchange for a tax hike.
We got the hike....we didn't get the cuts.

That's why we have elections.


--
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
:

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.

Well, I disagree on this. The leech class has been feasting on the
middle calss for a long time. I think it's time the middle class got a
break and the leeches were starved.

Given the amount of debt that we are discussing the only things that
will work are reducing spending, reducing taxes and regulation so the
economy can come back and then the expanding economy will pay it down.
Provided the leech class doesn't restart spending.

I don't think we can cut enough and get the folks reelected we want in
there. Too many people are stuck to too many entitlements for those to
be drastically cut.....nibbled at and cut over time, yes.....but not all
at once. Medicare, for example, is forecast by the Medicare Trust folks
to hit a cost of $931B in the next 10 years. Medicaid will double, and
SS will go up by 70%.


--
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
:



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

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


"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

"Scout" wrote in
:



"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/24/2011 12:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
:

On 5/24/2011 11:40 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
:

On 5/24/2011 10:47 AM, gfn wrote:
...
Sure it is. It gives a clear, concise and true picture
of
who
pays the federal income tax burden in this country. If
you want to talk about all taxes and all revenue that
goes to the government then your right. I know of no
place that compiles that data. ...
OK. Then, please cut and paste the relevant parts here, I
need
them pointed out to me.
If you can't understand the date presented at that site,
you have no hope of understanding any data presented to
you. Which explains some of your ideas.....
If it is so simple, as you pretend, it would be no problem
... you are attempting a circular argument ...

Just post something which proves your point ... if you can,
from the site you are claiming explains it openly ... DUH!
I didn't make that claim, however, here is the data:

2008

Top 1% AGI$380,354 Percentage 38.02
Top 5% AGI$159,619 Percentage 58.72
Top 10% AGI$113,799 Percentage 69.94
Top 25% AGI$ 67,280 Percentage 86.34
Top 50% AGI$ 33,048 Percentage 97.30
Bottom 50% AGI$ 33,048 Percentage 2.70

2007

Top 1% AGI$410,096 Percentage 40.42
Top 5% AGI$160,041 Percentage 60.63
Top 10% AGI$113,018 Percentage 71.22
Top 25% AGI$ 66,532 Percentage 86.59
Top 50% AGI$ 32,879 Percentage 97.11
Bottom 50% AGI$ 32,879 Percentage 2.89

Here is the site:

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

The Virginian-Pilot
© May 15, 2011
By Don Tabor

Who really pays the baker's taxes? The baker may write the
check, but he does not bear the cost, and in that paradox
lies the cause of much of the bitter partisanship and
polarization that poisons our political process. But to
understand that problem, we must consider how taxes are
applied to the production of goods and services.

So, how does the loaf of bread the baker sells come to
market?

A farmer grew and harvested wheat for sale to the miller to
be made into flour for the baker. The farmer paid income
taxes based on his profit from the sale and property tax on
his farm and equipment. Those taxes were, from his point of
view, just another cost of doing business in the course of
earning his living, no different from fuel for his tractor or
wages and taxes for employees.

Since every other farmer had roughly the same expenses and
taxes, the price they charge the miller must cover their
expenses and taxes, plus their after-tax disposable income
and savings. Otherwise, there would be no point in growing
wheat. All of these costs and taxes were passed on to the
miller, embedded in the price of wheat.

Likewise, when the miller sold the flour ground from the
wheat to the baker, his taxes, plus the income and Social
Security taxes
he
withheld from his employees, plus the farmer's taxes, were
all passed on to the baker.

The baker then sold his bread made from the flour, carrying
with it his own taxes plus those of his employees, plus all
those previous taxes from the farmer, miller and their
employees,
hidden
in the price of that loaf of bread. The buyer and his family
ate the bread, and, having done so, could not sell it to
anyone else and pass the taxes along, as the baker and
everyone else before had done.

So, it is the consumer who paid the baker's taxes, along with
the farmer's taxes, the miller's taxes and the taxes they
withheld from all of their employees. From bread to
automobiles to brain surgery, the price of everything we buy
carries in it the hidden taxes of everyone who contributed to
the production of that product or service to the tune of, on
average, 23 cents of every dollar we spend for federal taxes
alone.

Our complex, pervasive and expensive tax code is, in reality,
a scheme to draft businesses and individuals as unpaid and
unknowing
tax collectors to gather a hidden sales tax and to keep
voters from realizing who really bears the burden of those
high taxes.

There is no way around this central reality that all income
and business taxes are a deception and that all taxes are
eventually paid by the consumer, hidden in the price of goods
and services. It doesn't matter what tax rate is applied to
which tax bracket, or what deductions you receive. These
devices change only the degree to which you are a tax
collector, but the burden taxes place on your life depends
solely on what you spend.

Paying this hidden consumption tax is unavoidable, but the
illusion of income-based taxing does a great deal of harm.
First, it distorts our economic decisions. Goods and services
that are provided by highly taxed individuals and companies,
like health care, are artificially more expensive than
necessary, while raw materials and natural resources are
underpriced, leading to overconsumption and waste.

But even worse, these hidden taxes distort the political
process, encouraging government overspending by politicians
who exploit
the
mistaken belief of many voters that government spending can
be paid for solely by taxing corporations or the "rich." All
of the exploitation of envy and demagoguery - which brings so
much ill will to our politics and drives wedges between
Americans who
would
be better served by mutual respect and compassion - is
ultimately the meaningless exploitation of a lie.

Our income tax system, with its escalating marginal rates,
appears
progressive, but the reality is extremely regressive.
Currently, the lower income 45 percent of wage earners may
pay no income tax directly, but in reality, with their FICA
taxes added to the hidden embedded tax, their true federal
tax burden is almost 30 percent of their meager income.

Voters might well choose differently were they aware that
government spending is ultimately paid for by everyone,
through
an
invisible sales tax disguised as a high cost of living.

Guest columnist Don Tabor of Chesapeake is a grandfather,
Libertarian activist and proprietor of TidewaterLiberty.com.
He
is
a dentist in Norfolk and Hampton.

A flat tax, and NO OTHER TAXES! PERIOD!

Agreed. A flat tax. Mr A buys a product he pays the same tax as
Mr. B.

Mr. A pays the same rate of taxes on his income that Mr. B
does.

No exceptions, no exclusions, except those which apply to ALL.

If you're going to exempt Mr. A housing, food, medical, then Mr
B gets the exact same exemptions.

Otherwise, it's not a flat tax.




And it won't fix the problem he is whining about....which is the
rich
not paying a hundred times what the poor do.


And truthfully you never will. It is childish whining to think
so.
The
best you can hope for is that everyone pays the same percentage
without a plethora of deductions and weasel outs.

Which is what my flat tax proposal does.

AFter, of course, you tell me exactly how much the guv needs and
why.

GG, somehow I doubt that decision is up to you.


Paying the "same percentage" is not fair.

The BURDEN is much less on the wealthy.

The wealthy are paying most of the income tax burden. You wouldn't
be happy with any tax scheme that didn't penalize the wealthy and
not charge you a dime.

.
.
They pay the aggregate of most of the money and it has far less
impact on their lives than the ordinary working American.
To that extent it's unfair.

Well, SOB, you mean there's actually an advantage to getting ahead?

If there wasn't, then why would people work their asses off to do so?

Looks to me like you're simply ****ed because you're poor and they're
not.




Exactomundo!! Him and his butt buddy, John.

--
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:irk824$d8u$9@dont-
email.me:

On 5/25/2011 4:50 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
:

On 5/25/2011 3:59 PM, Scout wrote:


"John wrote in message
...
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
...

So much for sales tax then.



Once again, I really don't care how it is implemented, it just has to
work out to a final flat tax on all the money earned ... make a
dollar, pay the tax on the dollar, make a hundred, pay the tax time a
hundred, make a thousand pay the tax times a thousand ... scalable in
either direction.

That is, basically, what my flat proposal is. You, however, have been
ranting about making the rich pay a hundred times more than the poor
guy
or schemes which know whether you are in the top 1% or top 20% at the
time you buy something.

And, has been mentioned, no matter what system is finally chosen,
crooks will ALWAYS attempt to escape paying their fair share ... as
is
happening with the rich elite today ...

Nothing you have mentioned will change any of that.



You are entitled to your personal opinions and rants, since we both
accept that, and since you have offered nothing to back them up ...
again, plonk ...


Yep, I did....you didn't understand them and thanks for plonking me.
Saved me the trouble.

--
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
:



"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

"Scout" wrote in
:



"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/24/2011 12:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
:

On 5/24/2011 11:40 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
:

On 5/24/2011 10:47 AM, gfn wrote:
...
Sure it is. It gives a clear, concise and true picture of
who pays the federal income tax burden in this country. If
you want to talk about all taxes and all revenue that goes
to the government then your right. I know of no place that
compiles that data. ...
OK. Then, please cut and paste the relevant parts here, I
need them pointed out to me.
If you can't understand the date presented at that site, you
have no hope of understanding any data presented to you.
Which explains some of your ideas.....
If it is so simple, as you pretend, it would be no problem ...
you are attempting a circular argument ...

Just post something which proves your point ... if you can,
from the site you are claiming explains it openly ... DUH!
I didn't make that claim, however, here is the data:

2008

Top 1% AGI$380,354 Percentage 38.02
Top 5% AGI$159,619 Percentage 58.72
Top 10% AGI$113,799 Percentage 69.94
Top 25% AGI$ 67,280 Percentage 86.34
Top 50% AGI$ 33,048 Percentage 97.30
Bottom 50% AGI$ 33,048 Percentage 2.70

2007

Top 1% AGI$410,096 Percentage 40.42
Top 5% AGI$160,041 Percentage 60.63
Top 10% AGI$113,018 Percentage 71.22
Top 25% AGI$ 66,532 Percentage 86.59
Top 50% AGI$ 32,879 Percentage 97.11
Bottom 50% AGI$ 32,879 Percentage 2.89

Here is the site:

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

The Virginian-Pilot
© May 15, 2011
By Don Tabor

Who really pays the baker's taxes? The baker may write the
check, but he does not bear the cost, and in that paradox lies
the cause of much of the bitter partisanship and polarization
that poisons our political process. But to understand that
problem, we must consider how taxes are applied to the
production of goods and services.

So, how does the loaf of bread the baker sells come to market?

A farmer grew and harvested wheat for sale to the miller to be
made into flour for the baker. The farmer paid income taxes
based on his profit from the sale and property tax on his farm
and equipment. Those taxes were, from his point of view, just
another cost of doing business in the course of earning his
living, no different from fuel for his tractor or wages and
taxes for employees.

Since every other farmer had roughly the same expenses and
taxes, the price they charge the miller must cover their
expenses and taxes, plus their after-tax disposable income and
savings. Otherwise, there would be no point in growing wheat.
All of these costs and taxes were passed on to the miller,
embedded in the price of wheat.

Likewise, when the miller sold the flour ground from the wheat
to the baker, his taxes, plus the income and Social Security
taxes he withheld from his employees, plus the farmer's taxes,
were all passed on to the baker.

The baker then sold his bread made from the flour, carrying with
it his own taxes plus those of his employees, plus all those
previous taxes from the farmer, miller and their employees,
hidden in the price of that loaf of bread. The buyer and his
family ate the bread, and, having done so, could not sell it to
anyone else and pass the taxes along, as the baker and everyone
else before had done.

So, it is the consumer who paid the baker's taxes, along with
the farmer's taxes, the miller's taxes and the taxes they
withheld from all of their employees. From bread to automobiles
to brain surgery, the price of everything we buy carries in it
the hidden taxes of everyone who contributed to the production
of that product or service to the tune of, on average, 23 cents
of every dollar we spend for federal taxes alone.

Our complex, pervasive and expensive tax code is, in reality, a
scheme to draft businesses and individuals as unpaid and
unknowing tax collectors to gather a hidden sales tax and to
keep voters from realizing who really bears the burden of those
high taxes.

There is no way around this central reality that all income and
business taxes are a deception and that all taxes are eventually
paid by the consumer, hidden in the price of goods and services.
It doesn't matter what tax rate is applied to which tax bracket,
or what deductions you receive. These devices change only the
degree to which you are a tax collector, but the burden taxes
place on your life depends solely on what you spend.

Paying this hidden consumption tax is unavoidable, but the
illusion of income-based taxing does a great deal of harm.
First, it distorts our economic decisions. Goods and services
that are provided by highly taxed individuals and companies,
like health care, are artificially more expensive than
necessary, while raw materials and natural resources are
underpriced, leading to overconsumption and waste.

But even worse, these hidden taxes distort the political
process, encouraging government overspending by politicians who
exploit the mistaken belief of many voters that government
spending can be paid for solely by taxing corporations or the
"rich." All of the exploitation of envy and demagoguery - which
brings so much ill will to our politics and drives wedges
between Americans who would be better served by mutual respect
and compassion - is ultimately the meaningless exploitation of a
lie.

Our income tax system, with its escalating marginal rates,
appears progressive, but the reality is extremely regressive.
Currently, the lower income 45 percent of wage earners may pay
no income tax directly, but in reality, with their FICA taxes
added to the hidden embedded tax, their true federal tax burden
is almost 30 percent of their meager income.

Voters might well choose differently were they aware that
government spending is ultimately paid for by everyone, through
an invisible sales tax disguised as a high cost of living.

Guest columnist Don Tabor of Chesapeake is a grandfather,
Libertarian activist and proprietor of TidewaterLiberty.com. He
is a dentist in Norfolk and Hampton.

A flat tax, and NO OTHER TAXES! PERIOD!

Agreed. A flat tax. Mr A buys a product he pays the same tax as
Mr. B.

Mr. A pays the same rate of taxes on his income that Mr. B does.

No exceptions, no exclusions, except those which apply to ALL.

If you're going to exempt Mr. A housing, food, medical, then Mr B
gets the exact same exemptions.

Otherwise, it's not a flat tax.




And it won't fix the problem he is whining about....which is the
rich not paying a hundred times what the poor do.


And truthfully you never will. It is childish whining to think so.
The best you can hope for is that everyone pays the same percentage
without a plethora of deductions and weasel outs.

Which is what my flat tax proposal does.

AFter, of course, you tell me exactly how much the guv needs and
why.

GG, somehow I doubt that decision is up to you.

Actually, I think if we fixed the income the federal government had to
work with by eliminating their power to impose or increase taxes, I
bet the rest would, over time, resolve itself.

Somebody has to be able to adjust tax rates... If not Congress then who?

As law makers have to
live within their means then priorities would be required and those
items which were luxuries or not required would keep getting pushed
further and further towards the short end of the stick.

In a dream world. Unfortunately, in this one, what one set sees and
luxuries, the other side sees as entitlements.

If we, as a
people, decide that the government simply doesn't have the funds to
provide the necessary services, then we, as a people, can decide to
raise our taxes to provide more funding so such necessary services can
exist at a level we desire.

Look at the hullabaloo over modifying SS and Medicare and tell me with a
straight face that the people will vote for money to provide necessary
services and will not vote for money that aren't. Particularly when that
opinion of what is on what side of the line is all over the place.

We are, after all, the ones paying for it all, so we should have a
direct say in how much we will pay.

Yep, but look at the above and you can see why a direct democracy won't
work.



--
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 message
...
On Wed, 25 May 2011 22:52:12 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:

The "burden" to the lowest income is significant compared to what they
make.

Really? I've seen no data that shows the relative burden is any less for
the
wealthy.


ya ****ing fool

any tax table would show you even if you were too stupid to figure out
that someone with just a $1 million pays a pittance in (all) taxes
compared to their income than a burger flipper has left over from what
it takes to survive.

Well, SOB, maybe there is an advantage to getting ahead and busting ass to
do so. You might no longer have to live paycheck to paycheck on a substance
living condition.

Still doesn't establish that the burden is any less for the wealthy
individual. Unless you think everyone would be living like a burger flipper.
Do you?

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

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



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


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

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

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

Let's see about that shall we...

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

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

Of which he pays $900 in taxes

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

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

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

Ok, then what number would you like to use?

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


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

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

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

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

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.

Indeed and I like it.


AFter, of course, you tell me exactly how much the guv needs and
why.

GG, somehow I doubt that decision is up to you.

Yes, but if that question is not answered we will never solve the
problem.


The problem is that it IS an ongoing problem and always will be.
Therfore we need to keep solving it as we go along. There is no magic
one shot elixer to fix 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?
 

" wrote in
:

On May 25, 12:38*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
" wrote
innews:c3320493-5
:









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
advocat
e
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.

Hence my remark that such a system would require a totalitarian state.

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

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