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

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Shortwave (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/)

- - Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS? (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/166394-re-financial-wealth-just-who-should-pay-all.html)

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

On May 24, 8:26*pm, First Post wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2011 12:40:15 -0700 (PDT), gfn
wrote:

On May 24, 3:00*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote :

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. 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.

* 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.

*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.

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.

Got news for you Einstein. *You have to bring in over $5800 for any of
your income to be taxed. *The deductibles are as follows:

* * $5,800 for unmarried taxpayers or married taxpayers filing
separately,
* * $11,600 for married taxpayers filing jointly, and
* * $8,500 for taxpayers filing as head of household.
The additional standard deduction allowed for blind taxpayers and
senior citizens will be $1,150 if married filing jointly and $1,450 if
single.

And just how do you expect those in retail to determine how much to
tax any individual? *Are you suggesting that everyone carry some
special "rich guy" card around to show so they can get raped at the
cashier? *Or maybe create a grand database and require everyone in
retail to subscribe to it thus allowing them to know more about you
than most people care to share?
How about you just make everyone with over a $250,000 income sew a big
gold dollar sign on their clothing so they'll be easier to spot and
round up to put on the trains to the camps?

Furthermore, your insane notion that I should pay over 42 cents on the
dollar for any and all purchases I make simply because I am skilled
and lucky enough to get a considerably larger paycheck than you do
sounds more like typical class envy crap than anyhing that can be
called "fair".

Where did you come up with 42.7% *as being "fair"?
Are you simply figuring on that percentage leveling the playing field
to the point that no one will make anymore than the lowest paid in the
country? *That might make you feel all warm and fuzzy but at the same
time it would dramatically decrease any drive or desire for anyone to
actually be successful in any field. *Who the hell wants to go to
college and spend all that it takes to get a degree and go out and get
a $100,000 or $200,000 a year paycheck when they could save their
tuition and go get a job making tires and be able to keep the same
$50,000 or so a year without worrying about giving half or more to the
government?

Tell you what hotshot. *I'll put up how much in income, sales, excise,
property et al in taxes that I pay in a given year against what you
pay in total and just see how "fair" it comes out to be in reality.

Uncle Sam is already getting a quarter of my taxable income on top of
the state, city and county getting another 10 to 15 percent in
property, sales and other taxes.

Yours is the typical "I know how much anyone really needs to live on"
better than anyone else bull****.

But go ahead. *Place a ridiculous sales tax on the items that the
people you perceive as being wealthy purchase and watch your neighbors
and friends and family suddenly wondering why they're getting laid off
due to slow downs in sales of big ticket items that a lot of them get
paid to make.
Sure, the wealthy will continue to purchase the items that they really
really want, but a lot of us aren't going to be jumping on a $10,000
item that will end up costing over $14,000 after sales tax alone.
That's not how we managed to have anything in the bank in the first
place.
If your scheme were in place now then GM would have lost one sale that
I know of as I will not pay no $57,000 for the truck that has a
$40,000 price tag on it just so you don't have to pay a dime. *They
likely would have lost a ****load of sales as a result of such a tax
scheme.

You only see how such a scheme will benefit yourself and not how it
would affect anyone or anything else.
Such tunnelvision typically results in more harm than good in any
circumstance.

BTW, since your scheme is supposed to be an exercise in perfection,
can you tell us just what nations in the world have anything similar
that has been a boost to their economies or improved the quality of
life of the lowest income earners as a result?
Since you see the plan as an example of pure genius then it should be
no problem at all for you to show us where in the world it has worked.

Lastly, your "fair tax" would not eliminate the federal income tax nor
would it eliminate state income taxes or any of the other municipal,
county and state taxes. *
So your so called "fair tax" would simply be just another big money
grab and all of the horse**** predictions about it increasing
consumption and GDP etc is a load of pure crap.

FP, you may want to go back and clarify just who and what you are
responding to. I never suggested any 42% tax on anyone, John Smith
did. I did suggest the FairTax, which is significantly different than
what John Smith has been writing about. When you are ready to debate
the merits of the FairTax, which assumes you understand what it is,
then let's talk. First, you need to distinguish between what I
propose and what Smith propose.

--
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"
....
Much like a man might claim that a mirage is real,
even though in reality it's just an illusion created by other forces.

DEBT is no illusion,
it is created by Politico's who
are factually not held accountable.

Such consequence is NOT inconsequential.

http://www.libertylive.org/Uploads/T...ebt%20Star.jpg
DEBTSTAR:: This is NOT the Hope you have been searching for.

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

"MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE" wrote in message
5.250...
"Scout"
...
Much like a man might claim that a mirage is real,
even though in reality it's just an illusion created by other forces.

DEBT is no illusion,
it is created by Politico's who
are factually not held accountable.

And so you snip the context, and return to your original argument.

I acknowledge your inability to support your primis concerning taxation.

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

"Scout"
"MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE"
"Scout"
...
Much like a man might claim that a mirage is real,
even though in reality it's just an illusion created by other forces.

DEBT is no illusion,
it is created by Politico's who
are factually not held accountable.

And so you snip the context, and return to your original argument.

I acknowledge your inability to support your primis concerning taxation.

MANFRED acknowledges your inability grasp the magnitude of the situation,
regardless of how it came about (although, that-too is abundantly clear)...

IOW. it is too late to change the situation with dreams and talk,
the two choices are to enact a consumption tax which will hurt
the lower-tiers, and businesses far-more, with longer lasting
detrimental effects, than taking the view that like-space
which is seemingly flat, but actually curves near
large masses, SO-TOO must the flat tax take into
consideration what is obstensively the least
harm that can be done within the
present circumstance.

The Goal-Being to educate, and, if necessary,
inflame, otherwise Good Men from their sonambulence,
to a state of concern, if not out right action towards a resolution.

DESERVE PEACE.
DESERVE FREEDOM.
DEMAND COMPETANCE.
DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY.
DEFEAT LIB STRATEGIC INSANITY.

There is a causal link among all of these,
it behooves good men to understand this, and
to act in their own interests, to rebuild from the rubble,
or forever allow gov't and their lesser Minions to reign over the ruins!

LIBs. What Prices their VISION?
---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...2934894494.htm
l
The president's peace proposal is a formula for war.

http://www.libertylive.org/Uploads/T...ebt%20Star.jpg
This is NOT the HOPE you have been searching for.

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

"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in :

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

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
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.

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

gfn wrote in
:

On May 24, 3:00*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:fafaebf4-7788-4906-a699-839c2c5dac6b@
s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

On May 24, 2:34*pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:5111f00d-80ed-4513-9bae-c9a63b5cdb40@
x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

On May 24, 1:23*pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:75946acf-fb50-4a71-9677-e0b1afec14b0
@w19g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

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

* ...

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

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

Regards,
JS

I already said the tax data is at irs.gov

Now, as for a flat tax I agree with you 100%. *The one I
advocate is the FairTax.

That is not a flat tax, it is a sales tax.

It's a sales tax but it is flat. *It's a flat 23%.

You had better spend some time learning what a flat tax is.

I'm perfectly familiar with a flat tax.

Not sure about that since it has nothing to do with sales.

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

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

The FairTax is related because it is a flat sales
tax that generates revenue from sales. It replaces the income tax as
the method of funding government. If you fully understand the FairTax
you will see exactly where I am coming from.

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

* The FairTax is a replacement

for the income tax.

Yes....and a flat tax is another method of figuring income tax.

Yeah....and they both accomplish the same thing. The FairTax is
better because a flat tax still involves taxing income which then
leads to exemptions, deductions, and keeps the 16th amendment in place
as well as the IRS, and I can go on and on about the pitfalls of our
current tax system.

A flat tax on income replaces the current tax system. If properly
administered it only has ONE deduction and that is poverty level wages
for a family of four. Everyone gets that ONE deduction, or exemption if
you prefer, and no other. You can do your tax on a postcard.

*It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator.

Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner.

You may think so. *I don't. *I think it needs too many adjustments so
that it does not become regressive.

I don't think so, I know so. Tell me how this is regressive?

Current tax system:

Taxpayer earns $1000 a year.
IRS takes 25%: $250.
Taxpayer has $750 left to spend.
Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130.
Taxpayer has $620 left.

Fairtax system:

Taxpayer earns $1000 a year.
IRS takes 0%: $0
Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend
Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130.
Taxpayer has $870 left.

I'll go one better under the fairtax system.

Taxpayer earns $1000 a year.
IRS takes 0%: $0
Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend
Taxpayer buys a USED toaster for a total of $100.
Taxpayer pays NO fairtax sales tax.
Taxpayer has $900 left.

So, again, how is that regressive.

Same taxpayer......buys $100 worth of groceries.....pays $123 for them.
Rich guy, he eats the same, so he buys a $100 worth of groceries...pays
$123 for them. Which one spent the bigger percentage of their income on
a necessity? OK, let's fix it....we will not pay that tax on
groceries....oooops, you just generated an exception.

Three suggestions for you to find out why as well as any other
questions you might have:

1) go visit fairtax.org and read it from front to back. Pay
particular attention to the FAQ.
2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz.
3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics"

It will all become crystal clear.

I am familiar with sales tax schemes, they have been around for years.
With exemptions, they become just as convoluted as the current system.
Excise luxury taxes were another attempt to soak the rich as poor poeple
would never buy luxury taxed items. How did that work out?

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

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

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

John Smith wrote in
:

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

Now, as for a flat tax I agree with you 100%. The one I
advocate
is
the FairTax.
Let me put this more bluntly. If I buy and item and pay 7%
sales
tax,
the top one percent should buy an item and pay a 42.7% sales
tax,
that
way they will be contributing their fair share to run government
...
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html
And how do you know that at the time of purchase?
You set up a system which handles it ... where they pay their fair
share
of the cost of government.
IOW, when buying a pack of gum at a Stop-N-Rob, you have to go
through
a
check on your income so they know how much tax to charge?

C'mon, even you can't be that stupid.

The flat tax, the flat tax, I thought you would be able to catch on
... I was wrong.
A flat tax is on income. It replaces the current method of
calculating income tax by applying the same tax rate to all income
not just wages and salaries. I gave an example of it here in this
thread. Did you take the time to read it? It is really quite simply
and quite short so you should have no problem understanding it. ;)

What you proposed above is a sales tax and it sure as hell isn't
flat. A flat sales tax would be the same percentage on whatever was
purchased and no matter who purchased it.

You need to learn a bit more before you venture out into the real
world.

Everyone paying their fair share, this is how the discussion began,
or, basically, everyone being equally taxed.

Of course, even with a flat tax certain safeguards would have to be in
place from preventing criminals from crimes which would allow them to
ignore the taxes.

See Al Capone.

For example, a case where they made their dollars
here and bought only foreign goods in mexico or canada ... it is a
given, as soon as any fix, situation, solution, etc. is enacted, the
criminals will come crawling out from under their rocks attempting to
avoid it ... some of these safeguards to prevent this will have to be
worked out as we catch the criminals ...

Unfortunately, every discussion must begin on the premise that
everyone is capable of realizing "common sense."

At the bottom of the fair tax or fair tax is the real intent and sole
purpose that all contribute equally and in direct relationship to how
much they profit from business here.

Just how is your fair tax different from your scenarios above. After
all, you said folks would by only foreign goods from outside the US which
avoids your fair tax.

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

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

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

"Scout" wrote in
:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/24/2011 12:05 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......

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

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

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

John Smith wrote in
:

On 5/24/2011 11:57 AM, gfn wrote:
On May 24, 2:51 pm, John wrote:
On 5/24/2011 11:46 AM, gfn wrote:

On May 24, 2:16 pm, John wrote:
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.
I did that yesterday in my very first post to you.
Thanks in advance,
JS
I don't see any data posted, but then, I didn't expect to see any
... we both knew that.

Regards,
JS
You don't see data posted? What part aren't you grasping? From line
1, page 1:

Percentiles Ranked by AGI: Top 1%
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid: 38.02

John, this isn't rocket science.

Yeah, I can tell, you missed the whole point of the discussion, went
full circle and are back on the limited range of tax -- income tax.

This ignores all other taxes including fines, fees, licenses, property
tax, sales taxes, excise taxes, fuel taxes, cell phone taxes,
electricity/water/sewer taxes, etc., etc., etc.

Those are sales or use taxes and are paid regardless of income, ergo,
they are regressive in nature and do not fall on the rich as much as they
do on the poor. However, there is really no way to fix that based on
income which is what you are trying to do.

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

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