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

John Smith wrote in :

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 ...

Not all of them.....you are still here.


--
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 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?




That is the green eyed monster named Envy.

--
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 26, 1:05*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:6b95e91a-138f-49b0-a7bd-e8e44a57e311@
e35g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:

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
governmen
t
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.


No it doesn’t need to be added.

Of course it does. It is NOT part of that 23% you keep saying is already
paid in product cost or the product taxes, etc. were actually less than
23%. What you have is this:

Product selling price
Product cost
Corporate taxes
Inventory taxes
Excise taxes

Now subtract the bottom three from the product selling price.

Now you have:

Product selling price
Product cost
- Corporate taxes
- Inventory taxes
- Excise taxes

Now add those to a Fair Tax

Corporate taxes
Inventory taxes
Excise taxes

Now you need to add in the tax portion that was covered by federal income
taxes. You now have:

Corporate taxes
Inventory taxes
Excise taxes
The revenue from income taxes
Revenue from FICA

You can't subract 23% from a product, add more stuff to it and add it
back and still have 23%.

It’s already part of what you are
paying anyway. Here’s a very simplified example:

Product costs $100, broken down as follows:

Under current system
- wholesale = $50
- compliance costs = $23
- sales and other taxes = $27
- Grand total = $100

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

Ooops, forgot the revenue to make up for no income tax and FICA.

* 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.


No, not added to the FairTax number. The FairTax IS the replacement
to the income tax.

Not if the other taxes were already 23%. You can't put ten pounds of
crap in a five pound bag.

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,
peopl
e
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?


That, or direct deposit to your bank account. The infrastructure is
already set to do this for any number of government programs so
implementation is not difficult. Well, we are talking government here
so….

OK

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?


See above.


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,
assumin
g
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.


And under that system you are taxed on what you earn AND what you
spend. Under the FairTax you are taxed ONLY on what you spend.

Wrong. Under the flat tax system, you are taxed separately on what you
earn and what you spend. With Fair Tax, you are taxed on what everyone
earns and the product costs but it is all in one tax in lieu of being
separate.

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
i
s
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
properl
y
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
propos
al
that indicates that.


From the FAQ: All valid Social Security cardholders who are U.S.
residents receive a monthly prebate equivalent to the FairTax paid on
essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level
expenditures. The prebate is paid in advance, in equal installments
each month.

Read that. I was asking how and you seem to have answered that earlier
when you said it could be in the form of a check or a deposit to one's
account.

The size of the prebate is determined by the Department of
Health & Human Services’ poverty level guideline multiplied by the tax
rate. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation
that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care,
etc.

Yes, I know what is in it.

Sent via check or direct deposit.

You answered that earlier. My point was that the FAQ doesn't say that.
It says you get it but not how.

Oh, and with regard to the first paragraph if you aren’t legal you
don’t get the prebate, but you still pay the tax. Think illegals.

I already figured that out.

Or, how about the drug dealer who pays no income tax at all on his
“earnings”. The government currently get no, zero, nada, zilch,
income tax from him. But, does Joe Criminal buy nice cars, clothes,
electronics, houses, etc? Guess what? Now he’s paying the FairTax on
that. How about the tourist who comes to the US for a pleasure trip?
Does the government get any income tax from them? Nope. Do they buy
a lot of goodies while here? Yup. Get the picture now?

I already had the picture. I was asking details.

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.


No they don’t, but my point still stands. Look what has happened to
those brackets since 1913.

And with Congress, there is nothing stopping that from happening again in
one form or another with the Fair Tax.

*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.


Yes, you are correct. Agreed, but the reasons I laid out make it far
harder to do than the current tax code or even the flat tax which
still would have all the nonsense that goes along with our current
code.

Why would it be harder? All Congress has to do is to modify the code.

* 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.


The costs contained in the FariTax are just a replacement for income
taxes. That’s the whole point.

I don't think you get the whole point. At least not in your examples.
You cannot subract a percentage from a cost, add things to it and put it
back in place at the same percentage.


* 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 hav
e it
taken out on every purchase but no indication of what all was in it
in what amounts.


The receipt would have a line item that states “FairTax: 23%” with the
applicable dollar amount. Better yet, you only have to look at that
line item when you make a purchase. And, you only have to look at
that line item when you purchase a new item. Buy a used car? No
FairTax. Used bike? No FairTax.

One reason is that most used stuff is purchased directly from the seller.
There is no one who in the middle to act as a collection point for that
tax. Not a lot of used stuff is taxed on sale in the current market.

* They just accept

that government takes it.

Same with your sales tax.


Sure, we’re all hostage to what the government shovels on us. But,
again, you pay income tax no matter what. You have no choice. With
the FairTax you have a choice.

Not if you wish to purchase anything in other than the used market.

And, to the extent that you need to
buy necessities of life you get the prebate.

But still pay the tax on those items at time of purchase.

* 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.
*

I couldn’t disagree more. Go ahead and ask the next person you see
that you know how much was withheld from their last paycheck. Bet
they don’t know.

Bet they do when they fill out their taxes. Those who use CPAs are smart
enough to have a good idea what is in the taxes and those who don't,
wouldn't know anyway.


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.


So what? What they do know is that the FairTax replaces the income
tax. They no longer have to file. They no longer have to keep
records, see accountants, worry about deductions, exemptions, audits
and so on. Instead, all they do is buy a product and that’s it.

*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.


Fine. You still have in place the 16th Amendment, the IRS,
compliance, record keeping, accountants, fear of audits. Then you
have people that pay no income taxes, as I already mentioned, such as
criminals, tourists, illegals, those paid in cash.

And with the fair tax, you have the used market, the under the table
market and swapping.

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.

Have you seen the most recent tax stats?

Are you insane? Who do you think has been posting the numbers in here?

Nearly 50% of wage earners
pay nothing in federal income taxes. That’s the highest it has ever
been since the implementation of the income tax.

The actual percentage, just for your input, is 45%. The bottom 50% pays
just under 3%.

This class warfare
thing is in all out mode…and it’s working.

Yep......but you will always have that with Democrats. When they get
into power, they will mess around with your Fair Tax also.

* 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? *;)


No, but I say again, you still have in place the 16th Amendment, the
IRS, compliance, record keeping, accountants, fear of audits. Then
you have people that pay no income taxes, as I already mentioned, such
as criminals, tourists, illegals, those paid in cash.


*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, they are still filing federal forms and worrying about
deductions. Why bother doing that when all you have to do is…
well….nothing! Well, except buy a good or service. And even then you
don’t have to file anything and no concerns about deductions.


*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 a
nd
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.


Thanks for making another case for the FairTax. You said "When you do
your federal taxes". How about implement the FairTax and not do them
at all? I know I'd rather just have to worry about doing my state
and local taxes.

I wish to control my taxes as much as I can. Don't you?

How much did TurboTax cost you? $50, $60 maybe? Wouldn’t it have
been nice to spend that $$$ on something else rather than complying
with the federal tax code?

I wasn't worried about complying with the federal tax code. I was simply
interested in paying my share of the tax burden, but no more than that.

*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.


It is still there because the FairTax replaces it. We’re not talking
about doing away with government collecting revenue. We’re talking
about the mechanism for how it is collected. This is so much simpler
than the current system or even a one size fits all flat tax.

Yep, but you need to take a closer look at how you present the figures or
learn more about them. You cannot subtract x from y, add z to x and have
x be the same amount as it was before.

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. *Y
OU
decide when to pay it. *Not the government. *So, where's the downsi
de
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. *Y
our
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?


I’ve already talked about changing the rate and how easy (or not so)
that would be. Do you really think people care what has changed?

Many will.

What they care is that an item that costs $100 under the current
system still costs $100 under the new system.

No, it won't. Stop and think about why.

And if they buy it
used, they don’t even care.


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.


The 23% does account for it. This tax plan is the most widely
researched tax plan in the history of the planet.

The 23% may account for it, but then it couldn't have been 23% when it
was first deducted.

Economists and
businessmen smarter than me have examined it inside and out. The 23%
figure is the figure arrived at the make current government receipts
revenue neutral.


* 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
fo
rm
on income tax replacement and FICA and federal sales taxes which were
part of certain purchases.


Yeah, really. What has been added replaces the compliance costs that
go away. On average, it’s a wash.

Are you trying to tell us that the compliance costs are the same as the
entire income tax revenue? That would be interesting since about 45% of
that federal revenue is individual income tax, 36% is payroll taxes, 12%
is corporate taxes (which you did put into your Fair Tax number), 3%
excise taxes and 4% from other.

*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
b
e
there or the feds are missing a major, major part of their revenue.


As I said, the income tax replaces the compliance costs that go away.
If you don’t have an income tax there is no income tax code to comply
with.

And I say your number is wrong. Compliance costs are NOT equal to 45% of
the entire federal budget. Now, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid
are about 40% and both are expected to increase in cost over the next ten
years. Social Security by 70%. Medicare by 77% and Medicaid by 99%.

Are you trying to say that compliance costs with our current system is
equal to SS, Medicare and Medicaid? ;)

*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!!

Laugh if you will. I see that you won't be convinced.

I simply don't feel that you can subtract product costs with taxes, add
income tax revenue to that, put the product costs back in and have the
same number. If you know how to do it, let me know.



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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

gfn wrote in
:

On May 26, 4:04*pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:cd664af5-c0a8-4200-a50e-2cdb60b5a031
@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:











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

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

You are obviously a Democrat.

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

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

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

I refer to your math.

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

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


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

Let's try it this way using YOUR figures above.

Originally

Wholesale - $50
Compliance costs - $23
Sales and other taxes - $27

Total product cost $100

Federal income tax revenue is a separate item.

****

Wholesale - %50
Compliance Costs - $23
Sales and other taxes - $27

Total product cost now - $50

Federal income tax revenue still a separate item.

****

Wholesale - $50
Add sales and other taxes -$27
Add Fair Tax - $23
Add money for loss of income tax revenue - $whatever

Oooops, it now comes to more than the original $100 since that revenue is
not a separate item anymore.




--
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
:

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...wer/wealth.htm
l
And how do you know that at the time of purchase?
You set up a system which handles it ... where they pay
their fair
share
of the cost of government.
IOW, when buying a pack of gum at a Stop-N-Rob, you have to
go through
a
check on your income so they know how much tax to charge?

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


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

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

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

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


Let's see person A buys product Z and pays 7% in taxes. Person B
buys product Z and pays 7% in taxes

What's more fair than that?

Same product, same taxes paid.

Fair.

Or a person earns $50K and is taxed 15% on amount over federal
poverty level. Another person earns $500K and is taxed 15% on
amount over federal poverty level. Same percentage on taxable
income paid. Fair.

The big problem with sales taxes is what is taxed. How about
food or necessities? Food stamps? Now you begin to list
exemptions....and the list goes on......Thanks, Sonny and
Cher......



The real problem is...

First you have to decide how much the government needs to funtion.

That is true under any taxing scheme.

To do that you have to decide what the government should be doing.

Same here and that is most of the discussion and difference between
liberals and conservatives.

I think rather than discussing camoflaging how the feds fleece the
taxpayer those questions really need to be answered.

Yep, but, good luck. Those discussions have been going on for two
hundred years. ;)

I am of the opinion that taxes overall hurt the economy by taking
people's hard earned money. I don't care if you are the bus boy or
the owner of the chain. You earened it, it's yours.

However, one does get things from having a government.

Overall if the bite is reasonably low than whatever negative
effects it has are mitigated. But the only really effective way to
increase government revenues is to have a going, expanding
economy. That way whatever "protection" money the government
extorts from the people can increase without increasing the
percentage that it takes.

True.

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

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

Frankly I have yet to hear anyone explain to me how we can tax out
way out of the current crisis wherein the debt equals the GDP and
is likely to double in 8 years. There is simply no possible way to
do it without removing so much wealth from the private sector as
to thorougly tank the economy, which will in turn make the problem
immeasurably worse.

To get out of this will require BOTH taxes and spending cuts.
Doing just one or the other won't do it.

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%.



But I maintain that further taxation takes money out of the hands of
the producer class and further injures the economy so that higher
rates will return lower revenues.

I agree with that but is that injury more or less than what we already
have. It is like putting a bandage on a wound. It works, it does good,
helps healing but it often hurts when removed.


There is simply no rational way to tax us out of this problem!

Nor is there a rational way to cut spending far enough to get us out of
this problem. Ergo, the solution needs to combine both.....more taxes
for certain areas and pretty damn heavy cost cutting in certain areas.

Seriously how much more can we afford to take out of the private
economy? $1 trillion, $2 trillion? $4 trillion?

Our debt is now equal to our GNP. They both stand at about $14.3T and we
are borrowing $0.40 on the dollar. We can't keep doing that and maintain
our status on borrowing percentages.

The only way to do it is DRASTIC spending reductions and DRASTIC tax
cuts so as to allow the producer class to keep it's money and be able
to spend it.

Excuse me, but with DRASTIC tax cuts, how do you intend to keep programs
alive AND pay down the debt. That is like maxing out your credit cards
and then leaving your job as an engineer to flip burgers for miminum
wage. The revenue needs to keep coming. In fact the more revenue, the
faster we can pay down that debt.

Unless people are buying things and generating demand it
just can't happen. And more and more people will become dependent on
the government. More people will be living off of fewer people. There
is no possible way that that is a return to prosperity, no matter what
the Marxists beleive.

And there is really no way to simply cut, cut, cut and cut like many
others believe.

Clearly there are other issues. Offshoring jobs in particular is very
toxic. If you move the jobs overseas, then people here don't work.

Then the laws need to be changed to fix that. We need to find a way to
tax offshore income rather than just leave it float in the wind. We need
to find ways to make our labor more viable here than in France or China.

People not working means they can't buy what they need or want. No
growth. I know what I'm talking about I'm a developer and the number
of jobs going to India and the foreigners being brought in to work
cheaper in essentially captive jobs is killing domestic programmers
and developers.

And I have been in hardware development and quite familiar with
outsourcing on both materials and labor. It is a practice that became
paramount due to competition and our laws.

And it isn't that we are overpriced. Some of the
offers I've seen recently have been downright insulting for someone
with as much experience as I have.

Sorry....

Also, over regulation takes it's toll. A couple out in Missouri fined
10s of thousands for selling rabbits without a license, Amish being
attacked like Waco for selling milk (for God's sake!) to people who
apparently know the "risks" and are more than happy to balance that
with the benefits, Boeing being told they can't build a plant in North
Carolina becuase the UNIONS don't like it? **** me! What has this
country come to?

Regulation needs to make sense.....nuch of what you stated above doesn't.
Yes, I know it is there, but we need to change that however deregulating
everything is not the answer either.

Drastic spending cuts aren't just about stopping the hemorrhaging of
debt but to kill the federal behemoth which is (delibertately in my
opinion) stifling every bit of creativity and entrepreneurship.

Don't worry, it won't. Without a viable private sector, the public one
cannot survive.

Good God, I tried to start a business back in teh 90s, just me and my
computer doing development on the side, in my home office. Not only
did the fed and state want thier cut the ****ing county had thier
greedy paws out for a piece of the action. I think I ended up owing
more in taxes than I got to keep. What the **** sense does that make?

Interesting. I owned a computor consulting business and had no problems
like that. I had costs for a business license and they made me a taxing
point for state sales taxes....but that was about 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?
 

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

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


Why? Why should the government need any more than say 10% of the
private sector, except in case of war maybe, and probably not even
then?

Why should the government be entitled to any more than 10% of the
private sector?


Who said it should be? I said somebody has to be able to adjust the tax
rates. What the if the rate needed dropped to 5%?

--
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
:

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.


Which is why we need high capacity magazines.

I'd much rather work within the ballot box than the ammo box.

Look the future will have to take of itself. All we can do is fix what
is wrong now. The problem is to many people will not even publicly
acknowledge there is a problem, which in my mind calls into question
thier sanity.

So your solution is to go shoot them?


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

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

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

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

gfn wrote in news:ee4c4601-f8a6-4127-bb9d-
:

The Department of Health & Human Services' poverty level guidelines
tel us that. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level
calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation,
medical care, etc.

And isn't it just remarkable that "poverty level" in the US would be
considered middle class in most of the world?


If not the rich.

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

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

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

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

RD Sandman wrote in
:

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

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.


Which is why we need high capacity magazines.

I'd much rather work within the ballot box than the ammo box.

Look the future will have to take of itself. All we can do is fix what
is wrong now. The problem is to many people will not even publicly
acknowledge there is a problem, which in my mind calls into question
thier sanity.

So your solution is to go shoot them?



Couldn't hurt. That or commit them.

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

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

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

RD Sandman wrote in
:

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

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


Why? Why should the government need any more than say 10% of the
private sector, except in case of war maybe, and probably not even
then?

Why should the government be entitled to any more than 10% of the
private sector?


Who said it should be? I said somebody has to be able to adjust the tax
rates. What the if the rate needed dropped to 5%?


Fine, Congress can lower the rate but not raise it. Cough-cough. Yeah

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

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

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

RD Sandman wrote in
:


But I maintain that further taxation takes money out of the hands of
the producer class and further injures the economy so that higher
rates will return lower revenues.

I agree with that but is that injury more or less than what we already
have. It is like putting a bandage on a wound. It works, it does good,
helps healing but it often hurts when removed.

What if the wound never heals because of the treatment?



There is simply no rational way to tax us out of this problem!

Nor is there a rational way to cut spending far enough to get us out of
this problem. Ergo, the solution needs to combine both.....more taxes
for certain areas and pretty damn heavy cost cutting in certain areas.

Really? Do you honestly think even 1/3 or spending could stand honest
Constitutional scrutiny. Maybe it's time we stop acting like children and
started acting like there was more to life than government grants.


Seriously how much more can we afford to take out of the private
economy? $1 trillion, $2 trillion? $4 trillion?

Our debt is now equal to our GNP. They both stand at about $14.3T and we
are borrowing $0.40 on the dollar. We can't keep doing that and maintain
our status on borrowing percentages.

No, but unless the bleeding stops or slows significantly... Look, I no
longer beleive the bull**** about raising taxes/cutting spending. I became
poltically aware in the 80s with the line of **** the Democrats fed Reagan
and then they reneged. It just is no longer credible. You give them more
money, they'll spend twiec as much on things that hurt the economy.


The only way to do it is DRASTIC spending reductions and DRASTIC tax
cuts so as to allow the producer class to keep it's money and be able
to spend it.

Excuse me, but with DRASTIC tax cuts, how do you intend to keep programs
alive AND pay down the debt. That is like maxing out your credit cards
and then leaving your job as an engineer to flip burgers for miminum
wage. The revenue needs to keep coming. In fact the more revenue, the
faster we can pay down that debt.

What makes you think I want to keep programs alive? I want dependency on
the fed stamped out, exterminated, destroyed, plowed under and the earth
salted


Unless people are buying things and generating demand it
just can't happen. And more and more people will become dependent on
the government. More people will be living off of fewer people. There
is no possible way that that is a return to prosperity, no matter what
the Marxists beleive.

And there is really no way to simply cut, cut, cut and cut like many
others believe.

Yeah, there is. All it takes is balls and a conscience.


Clearly there are other issues. Offshoring jobs in particular is very
toxic. If you move the jobs overseas, then people here don't work.

Then the laws need to be changed to fix that. We need to find a way to
tax offshore income rather than just leave it float in the wind. We need
to find ways to make our labor more viable here than in France or China.

Um, by getting rid of all the government programs, taxes, regulations and
special interest bull**** that is currently choling the life of the
economy?


People not working means they can't buy what they need or want. No
growth. I know what I'm talking about I'm a developer and the number
of jobs going to India and the foreigners being brought in to work
cheaper in essentially captive jobs is killing domestic programmers
and developers.

And I have been in hardware development and quite familiar with
outsourcing on both materials and labor. It is a practice that became
paramount due to competition and our laws.

"our laws"? Not mine. Marxists that want to control the economy maybe.


And it isn't that we are overpriced. Some of the
offers I've seen recently have been downright insulting for someone
with as much experience as I have.

Sorry....

Also, over regulation takes it's toll. A couple out in Missouri fined
10s of thousands for selling rabbits without a license, Amish being
attacked like Waco for selling milk (for God's sake!) to people who
apparently know the "risks" and are more than happy to balance that
with the benefits, Boeing being told they can't build a plant in North
Carolina becuase the UNIONS don't like it? **** me! What has this
country come to?

Regulation needs to make sense.....nuch of what you stated above doesn't.
Yes, I know it is there, but we need to change that however deregulating
everything is not the answer either.

OK, let's dump everything and start over. With the caveat that any
regulation MUST conform with the limits imposed by the Constitution.


Drastic spending cuts aren't just about stopping the hemorrhaging of
debt but to kill the federal behemoth which is (delibertately in my
opinion) stifling every bit of creativity and entrepreneurship.

Don't worry, it won't. Without a viable private sector, the public one
cannot survive.

While I don't mind seeing the public sector die...

Unfortuneately I think the parasite may kill the host.


Good God, I tried to start a business back in teh 90s, just me and my
computer doing development on the side, in my home office. Not only
did the fed and state want thier cut the ****ing county had thier
greedy paws out for a piece of the action. I think I ended up owing
more in taxes than I got to keep. What the **** sense does that make?

Interesting. I owned a computor consulting business and had no problems
like that. I had costs for a business license and they made me a taxing
point for state sales taxes....but that was about it.

Yeah the county wanted a license fee and piece of the action. I figured
after the feds, state and they got through with me it simply wasn't worth
it. I wasn't busting my ass to keep less than half of what I earned to make
the leechs fat, too.


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

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

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

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:


But I maintain that further taxation takes money out of the hands of
the producer class and further injures the economy so that higher
rates will return lower revenues.

I agree with that but is that injury more or less than what we
already have. It is like putting a bandage on a wound. It works, it
does good, helps healing but it often hurts when removed.

What if the wound never heals because of the treatment?

While true, it doesn't matter if the patient is dead.

There is simply no rational way to tax us out of this problem!

Nor is there a rational way to cut spending far enough to get us out
of this problem. Ergo, the solution needs to combine both.....more
taxes for certain areas and pretty damn heavy cost cutting in certain
areas.

Really? Do you honestly think even 1/3 or spending could stand honest
Constitutional scrutiny. Maybe it's time we stop acting like children
and started acting like there was more to life than government grants.

Where do you come up with 1/3? SS is 20%, Medicare/Medicaid and other
safety net programs are another 35%, Defense is 20% and the current debt
in 2010 was 6%. That consumes 81% of the budget. That only leaves 19%
for EVERYTHING else and all those costs are climbing.

Of course we can cut back on Defense (which includes Homeland Security)
by taking the National Guard off the border (they are coming off anyway
by next year) and closing down many of our bases overseas, not buying any
more warships, dropping the F-35 and bringing our boys home from Iraq and
Afghanistan.

Obama's minions think they can get $500B out Medicare/Medicaid over the
next 10 years by elminating fraud and waste, but no one is really stating
where that waste and fraud is much less how to remove it. The Dems
aren't going to go for Ryan's plan although they haven't produced one of
their own......and won't until after the 2012 election. They'd rather
use Ryan's plan to badmouth the GOP to the voters.

Seriously how much more can we afford to take out of the private
economy? $1 trillion, $2 trillion? $4 trillion?

Our debt is now equal to our GNP. They both stand at about $14.3T
and we are borrowing $0.40 on the dollar. We can't keep doing that
and maintain our status on borrowing percentages.

No, but unless the bleeding stops or slows significantly... Look, I no
longer beleive the bull**** about raising taxes/cutting spending. I
became poltically aware in the 80s with the line of **** the Democrats
fed Reagan and then they reneged. It just is no longer credible. You
give them more money, they'll spend twiec as much on things that hurt
the economy.

True, but for now, the Republicans control the House where all spending
bills originate. Do you think we can wait until Republicans control all
three again? Look what happened last time. It is never really good when
the same party controls both Houses and the presidency.

The only way to do it is DRASTIC spending reductions and DRASTIC tax
cuts so as to allow the producer class to keep it's money and be
able to spend it.

Excuse me, but with DRASTIC tax cuts, how do you intend to keep
programs alive AND pay down the debt. That is like maxing out your
credit cards and then leaving your job as an engineer to flip burgers
for miminum wage. The revenue needs to keep coming. In fact the
more revenue, the faster we can pay down that debt.

What makes you think I want to keep programs alive? I want dependency
on the fed stamped out, exterminated, destroyed, plowed under and the
earth salted

You have to keep some of them going. You simply can't put grannie on an
ice floe and send her out to sea, no matter how much you'd like to. Yes,
there is a lot of folks receiving Medicaid and unemployment and welfare
that shouldn't. But shooting everyone on those programs isn't the answer
either. I'd love to say that as a people we need to assume
responsibility for those who are less fortunate than us, but if that had
occurred earlier in our history, we wouldn't have the programs (and their
attendant problems) that we do today.

Unless people are buying things and generating demand it
just can't happen. And more and more people will become dependent on
the government. More people will be living off of fewer people.
There is no possible way that that is a return to prosperity, no
matter what the Marxists beleive.

And there is really no way to simply cut, cut, cut and cut like many
others believe.

Yeah, there is. All it takes is balls and a conscience.

Sorry, but when cutting many of the things going on, balls and conscience
don't play well together. That human nature. We tend to say, hell, yes,
let's cut those programs those worthless assholes are on, but don't you
dare touch anything I may need, want or use.

Clearly there are other issues. Offshoring jobs in particular is
very toxic. If you move the jobs overseas, then people here don't
work.

Then the laws need to be changed to fix that. We need to find a way
to tax offshore income rather than just leave it float in the wind.
We need to find ways to make our labor more viable here than in
France or China.

Um, by getting rid of all the government programs, taxes, regulations
and special interest bull**** that is currently choling the life of
the economy?

That 'special interest bull****' is part of capitalism. Not in theory
but in actuality. As are taxes and regulations.

People not working means they can't buy what they need or want. No
growth. I know what I'm talking about I'm a developer and the number
of jobs going to India and the foreigners being brought in to work
cheaper in essentially captive jobs is killing domestic programmers
and developers.

And I have been in hardware development and quite familiar with
outsourcing on both materials and labor. It is a practice that
became paramount due to competition and our laws.

"our laws"? Not mine. Marxists that want to control the economy maybe.

Our laws. Get your head out of your ass, Ghost. If everone took that
approach we would all be shooting each other at dawn. Our problems have
come from BOTH sides of the argument and it will take BOTH sides to fix
them.

And it isn't that we are overpriced. Some of the
offers I've seen recently have been downright insulting for someone
with as much experience as I have.

Sorry....

Also, over regulation takes it's toll. A couple out in Missouri
fined 10s of thousands for selling rabbits without a license, Amish
being attacked like Waco for selling milk (for God's sake!) to
people who apparently know the "risks" and are more than happy to
balance that with the benefits, Boeing being told they can't build a
plant in North Carolina becuase the UNIONS don't like it? **** me!
What has this country come to?

Regulation needs to make sense.....nuch of what you stated above
doesn't. Yes, I know it is there, but we need to change that however
deregulating everything is not the answer either.

OK, let's dump everything and start over. With the caveat that any
regulation MUST conform with the limits imposed by the Constitution.

How do you intend to do that? Have Congree declare this to be 1791?

Drastic spending cuts aren't just about stopping the hemorrhaging of
debt but to kill the federal behemoth which is (delibertately in my
opinion) stifling every bit of creativity and entrepreneurship.

Don't worry, it won't. Without a viable private sector, the public
one cannot survive.

While I don't mind seeing the public sector die...

Unfortuneately I think the parasite may kill the host.

And when that happens the parasite no longer survives because it needs
the host.

Good God, I tried to start a business back in teh 90s, just me and
my computer doing development on the side, in my home office. Not
only did the fed and state want thier cut the ****ing county had
thier greedy paws out for a piece of the action. I think I ended up
owing more in taxes than I got to keep. What the **** sense does
that make?

Interesting. I owned a computor consulting business and had no
problems like that. I had costs for a business license and they made
me a taxing point for state sales taxes....but that was about it.

Yeah the county wanted a license fee and piece of the action. I
figured after the feds, state and they got through with me it simply
wasn't worth it. I wasn't busting my ass to keep less than half of
what I earned to make the leechs fat, too.

Not like that everywhere. When things get overregulated, businesses
move...to other cities, states or countries.



--
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
:

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


Why? Why should the government need any more than say 10% of the
private sector, except in case of war maybe, and probably not even
then?

Why should the government be entitled to any more than 10% of the
private sector?


Who said it should be? I said somebody has to be able to adjust the
tax rates. What the if the rate needed dropped to 5%?


Fine, Congress can lower the rate but not raise it. Cough-cough. Yeah


In either case, someone or some entity needs to be able to adjust those
rates.

--
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
:

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.


Which is why we need high capacity magazines.

I'd much rather work within the ballot box than the ammo box.

Look the future will have to take of itself. All we can do is fix
what
is wrong now. The problem is to many people will not even publicly
acknowledge there is a problem, which in my mind calls into question
thier sanity.

So your solution is to go shoot them?



Couldn't hurt. That or commit them.


Let's look at it this way for a moment.

I wouldn't trust you with our government and making all the laws and
decisions. Would you trust me with it? Didn't think so. So here we are
at an impasse or having to work together when it is just two of us.
There are over 300 million here. And out of that 300 million would come
millions of ideas.....some good, some bad. None of them quickly settled.

--
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 message
...
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 ...

Then why haven't you plonked yourself?

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.

Then feel free to cite any legitimate tax table you think will support your
claim.

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

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 May 2011 23:13:44 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:

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?

Not one millionaire ever went broke prior to 1980,

Henry Ford - bankrupt 1903

Strike ONE!

Walt Disney - bankrupt 1921

Strike TWO!

H. J. Heinz - bankrupt 1875

Strike THREE!

Claernce Saunders - bankrupt 1922

Strike FOUR!

Milton Hershy - bankrupt 1880

Strike FIVE!

Ulysses S. Grant - bankrupt 1881

Strike SIX!

I think that's pretty much an out even in Tee Ball.

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

"gfn" wrote in message
...
On May 25, 5:42 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
:

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

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

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

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


The FairTax is effectively a replacement of the compliance costs that
are already built in to every product and service you buy. The luxury
tax would have been a tax on top of that.

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.

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.

False assumption.

Any number of variables factor in to what goods and services would be
essential and what it would cost for those goods and services.

All you are doing is picking an "average" which would reward some family by
paying them for non-essential goods and services and punishing others by
failing to reimburse them valid and legitimated costs for essential goods
and services.

IOW, overall most people wouldn't balance out, only the small minority right
at and around the "average".

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

"gfn" wrote in message
...
On May 26, 1:05 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
:

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.


No it doesn’t need to be added. It’s already part of what you are
paying anyway. Here’s a very simplified example:

Product costs $100, broken down as follows:

Under current system
- wholesale = $50
- compliance costs = $23
- sales and other taxes = $27
- Grand total = $100

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

Sorry, but how can you totally eliminate compliance costs, since there would
still be costs to complying with the FairTax as well as the sales and other
taxes.

As such simply saying it's not going to cost anything to comply with the tax
laws is an utterly false assumption.

Indeed since NOTHING else has changed the compliance costs would, at
minimum, stay the same, and given that the need to comply with the FairTax
would require some expense, the compliance cost would likely increase.

So in reality, what would happen would be more like:

Under the FairTax
- wholesale = $50
- compliance costs = $26
- FairTax = $23
- sales and other taxes = $27
- Grand total = $126

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

"Gray Ghost" wrote in message
. 97.142...
gfn wrote in news:5e36036b-9c38-4449-8578-
:


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


You are obviously a Democrat.

Yep, notice nothing else has changed, but according to him, suddenly it will
cost NOTHING to comply with the still existing conditions, and will cost
nothing additional to comply with the new tax imposed.

As such his numbers are BS.

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

"gfn" wrote in message
...
On May 26, 4:04 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:cd664af5-c0a8-4200-a50e-2cdb60b5a031
@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:











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

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

You are obviously a Democrat.

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

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

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

I refer to your math.

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

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


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

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

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

"Gray Ghost" wrote in message
. 97.142...
gfn wrote in news:f287e735-90d5-42c1-a14d-55a606092fd9@
28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:

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

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


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


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

That seems to be his, utterly unrealistic, assertion.

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

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/26/2011 9:43 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On 5/25/2011 10:39 PM, John Smith wrote:


You can't do the homework for me, because what I say is true.

So, just because you say it (with no proof), it's true? We are supposed
to trust the likes of YOU??? Bwahahahahahahaha...

How megalomaniacal of you.

Because of the complete failure, of you, to produce any valid, credible
and meaning data ... you earn the golden plonk award ...

... plonk ...

So where is your valid, credible and meaning(ful) data?

Are you going to plonk yourself as well?

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

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



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

RD Sandman wrote in
:

"Scout" wrote in
:



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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

Which, even at best, is closing the barn door after the horse has run off.

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

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



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

RD Sandman wrote in
:

"Scout" wrote in
:



"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/24/2011 12:21 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?

Decrease, by Congress.

Increase, by vote during a general election.


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.

Yep, I never said they would be eliminated, but priorities BOTH sides can
agree on would slowly get the bulk of the available resources.

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.

Some would. A lot would not.

Would you vote to raise taxes for unneeded services?

Particularly when that
opinion of what is on what side of the line is all over the place.

There is that.

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.

Oh, I don't know. If you could earmark your check for the specific programs
you felt the money should go to.....and undecided funds would be allocated
by Congress to plug any holes.....Hmmm... possible.

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
:

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


Why? Why should the government need any more than say 10% of the
private sector, except in case of war maybe, and probably not even
then?

Why should the government be entitled to any more than 10% of the
private sector?


Who said it should be? I said somebody has to be able to adjust the tax
rates. What the if the rate needed dropped to 5%?

Congress could drop it, or it could be brought up before the people as a
referendum during a general election.

Congress can only, but only the People can vote to increase it.




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

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

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

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
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.

Which is why we need to get the Congress' power to arbitrarily increase
taxes and/or borrow money under control.

Spending control will tend to come from that, and if we can tighten the
noose until spending, programs, and how it is allocated become if not
acceptable at least bearable then we will have made great strides. The first
step, IMO, is cutting down the flow of money to them so that the rest MUST
be addressed.

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

"gfn" wrote in message
...
On May 25, 6:54 pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

...









On May 25, 3:18 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
:

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

Regards,
JS

I already said the tax data is at irs.gov

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

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

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

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

I'm perfectly familiar with a flat tax.

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

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

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

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

The FairTax is related because it is a flat sales

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

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

Nope, There are two reasons why it's not regressive. First, people
pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level. Every household
receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods
and services.

How exactly do you determine what are "essential goods and services"
never
mind how much such "essential goods and services" a particular household
requires?


The Department of Health & Human Services’ poverty level guidelines
tel us that. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level
calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation,
medical care, etc.

Keyword "GUIDELINES"

You do know what a guideline is, right?

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 ...

Clearly, then, you should go plonk yourself.


... * plonk * ...

Regards,
JS

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

On May 26, 11:51*am, RD Sandman wrote:
"Scout" wrote :











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?

WOW, I though he was smarter than that, but.......

Mr. Roselles is the only person on UseNet to successfully argue
himself *into* a paper bag.


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

On May 26, 6:52*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
Gray Ghost wrote 6.97.142:









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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

On May 26, 8:06*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"Gray Ghost" wrote in message

. 97.142...









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

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

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

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

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

That seems to be his, utterly unrealistic, assertion.

Economist that I trust more than you say otherwise. I know who I put
more stock in.

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

On May 26, 6:23*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote :









On May 26, 4:04*pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:cd664af5-c0a8-4200-a50e-2cdb60b5a031
@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

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

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

You are obviously a Democrat.

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

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

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

I refer to your math.

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

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

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

Let's try it this way using YOUR figures above.

Originally

Wholesale - $50
Compliance costs - $23
Sales and other taxes - $27

Total product cost $100

Federal income tax revenue is a separate item.

* *****

Wholesale - %50
Compliance Costs - $23
Sales and other taxes - $27

Total product cost now - $50

Federal income tax revenue still a separate item.

* *****

Wholesale - $50
Add sales and other taxes -$27
Add Fair Tax - $23
Add money for loss of income tax revenue - $whatever

Oooops, it now comes to more than the original $100 since that revenue is
not a separate item anymore.


Oops, you are figuring it out incorrectly. Why are you removing sales
and other taxes? By those I am talking about state and local taxes.
So, let's try this again.

Current
- Wholesale: $50
- Add sales and other (local/city) taxes: $27
- Compliance costs: $23
- Total: $100

FairTax
- Wholesale: $50
- Add sales and other (local/city) taxes: $27
- FairTax: $23
- Total: $100

You can review my other posts to account for all the other benefits.

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

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

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

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

...









On May 26, 4:04 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:cd664af5-c0a8-4200-a50e-2cdb60b5a031
@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

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

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

You are obviously a Democrat.

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

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

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

I refer to your math.

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

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

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

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

You need to understand what compliance costs actually are. They are
the costs associated with complying with the federal income tax on
wages, regressive payroll taxes , the federal income tax on wages,
i.e. measuring, tracking, sheltering, documenting, and filing our
annual income.. If those taxes are gone then just what exactly is
there left to comply with and how does that cost any money?
Compliance costs of the income and payroll tax are like an anchor
holding back economic growth. We have nothing to show for the billions
spent each year on compliance. Hey, if you like having to spend money
on accountant, buy tax programs, spend countless hours figuring out
what you owe, have your income withheld and being taxed on what you
earn rather than what you spend, then there's nothing I can say that
will change your mind. I prefer a better way.

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

On May 26, 8:04*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"Gray Ghost" wrote in message

. 97.142...

gfn wrote in news:5e36036b-9c38-4449-8578-
:

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

You are obviously a Democrat.

Yep, notice nothing else has changed, but according to him, suddenly it will
cost NOTHING to comply with the still existing conditions, and will cost
nothing additional to comply with the new tax imposed.

As such his numbers are BS.

What's to comply with on a sales tax? Really, make your case? As for
the numbers, as I said, economists have looked at this. The research
is out there. I don't care if you summarily dismiss it. But, at
least take an objective look at the plan rather than gut reactions to
it. Of course, if you like the current tax system then god bless you.

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

On May 26, 7:58*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

...









On May 25, 5:42 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
:

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

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

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

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

The FairTax is effectively a replacement of the compliance costs that
are already built in to every product and service you buy. *The luxury
tax would have been a tax on top of that.

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.

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.

False assumption.

Any number of variables factor in to what goods and services would be
essential and what it would cost for those goods and services.

All you are doing is picking an "average" which would reward some family by
paying them for non-essential goods and services and punishing others by
failing to reimburse them valid and legitimated costs for essential goods
and services.

IOW, overall most people wouldn't balance out, only the small minority right
at and around the "average".

It's an assumption that is made by the DHH. It applies to
everyobody. No winners or losers (as our current tax code does).

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

On May 26, 8:03*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

...









On May 26, 1:05 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
:

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.

No it doesn’t need to be added. *It’s already part of what you are
paying anyway. *Here’s a very simplified example:

Product costs $100, broken down as follows:

Under current system
- wholesale = $50
- compliance costs = $23
- sales and other taxes = $27
- Grand total = $100

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

Sorry, but how can you totally eliminate compliance costs, since there would
still be costs to complying with the FairTax as well as the sales and other
taxes.

As such simply saying it's not going to cost anything to comply with the tax
laws is an utterly false assumption.

Indeed since NOTHING else has changed the compliance costs would, at
minimum, stay the same, and given that the need to comply with the FairTax
would require some expense, the compliance cost would likely increase.

So in reality, what would happen would be more like:

*Under the FairTax
*- wholesale = $50
*- compliance costs = $26
*- FairTax = $23
*- sales and other taxes = $27
*- Grand total = $126

Let me ask you a real simple question. What cost do you incur to pay
a sales tax at the point of purchase?