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

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

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

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

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

On May 26, 8:32*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"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?

and your point is????

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

"gfn" wrote in message
...
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?

The buyer ?
The buyer is paying for the cost which is built into the sale price
The seller ?
The seller has the cost of managing and reporting the taxes that were
captured at the point of sale.
The government ?
The government has the cost of processing and verifying the reports from
the sellers. As well as running investigations/prosecutions where it's
suspected that the sellers are not reporting/paying all the captured taxes.

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

On May 27, 10:09*am, "SaPeIsMa" wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

...
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?

The buyer ?
* * The buyer is paying for the cost which is built into the sale price

There's no compliance cost to him with paying the sales tax. They
just pay it. Unlike the fed income tax compliance means CPAs,
TurboTax, manuals, etc.

The seller ?
* * The seller has the cost of managing and reporting the taxes that were

Oh, you mean like they already do with state sales taxes? By the way,
merchants and sellers are reimbursed for those costs. But, you knew
that already, didn't you?

captured at the point of sale.
The government ?
* * The government has the cost of processing and verifying the reports from
the sellers. As well as running investigations/prosecutions where it's
suspected that the sellers are not reporting/paying *all the captured taxes.

Which they already do.

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

"gfn" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 10:09 am, "SaPeIsMa" wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

...
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?

The buyer ?
The buyer is paying for the cost which is built into the sale price
#
# There's no compliance cost to him with paying the sales tax. They
# just pay it. Unlike the fed income tax compliance means CPAs,
# TurboTax, manuals, etc.

Since the seller has to pass on his costs to the buyer through his pricing,
it's always the buyer/end user who pays for all the costs...

The seller ?
The seller has the cost of managing and reporting the taxes that were
captured at the point of sale.

#
# Oh, you mean like they already do with state sales taxes? By the way,
# merchants and sellers are reimbursed for those costs. But, you knew
# that already, didn't you?

There is still the cost of pushing all that paper around

It's a REAL cost. And it's passed on to the customer through the pricing of
the products sold.

The government ?
The government has the cost of processing and verifying the reports from
the sellers. As well as running investigations/prosecutions where it's
suspected that the sellers are not reporting/paying all the captured
taxes.

Which they already do.
Agreed.
The only real benefit of a VAT is that it shifts the taxation process to a
different venue.
Unfortunately governments have a tendency not to give up existing revenue
streams even when an "alternate" one is put in place.

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

Damn WETBACKS! EFFIN MEXICANS! Stealing Railroad Tracks/Rails and
stuff.(California, they ought to Bury those WETBACKS! UNDER the Railroad
Tracks)

More Global Warming out West.
http://www.drudgereport.com

Long ago, people moving West in Wagon Trains, when somebody died, they
would bury them under the Wagon Train Tracks.
cuhulin, Wagons HOOOO,,,,

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

gfn wrote in
:

On May 26, 6:09*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:5e36036b-9c38-4449-8578-93cd47cf929f@
v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

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
alrea
dy
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 FairTax replaces federal income taxes including personal, estate,
gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare,
self-employment, and corporate taxes. The proper tax rate has been
carefully worked out; 23 percent does the job of: (1) raising the same
amount of federal funds as are raised by the current system, (2)
paying the universal rebate. I can't make it any more simple than
this.

And I already know that. Tell me something new like how you subtract 23%
from product costs, add it back in and then add personal income taxes,
estate taxes, gift taxes, capital gains taxes, althernative minimum
taxes, FICA, Medicare Taxes, self employment taxes, corporate taxes and
compliance costs. So how can you end up with the same number?

Either the original 23% you take out is wrong or the 23% you put back in
is wrong.

Economists and businesspeople have spent $22M researching
this. There is nothing more I can tell you to convince you. You need
to read the book and the web site.

Me reading the book or the website won't change that what you are saying
doesn't compute.

* 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.

See above.

Not an explanation, not was your previous comment.

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
full
y
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
her
e
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
com
e
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
cost
s
$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.

Uh… okay. Mince words if you want. The reality is under a flat tax
you are still paying twice. And, you are paying 23% in embedded
wasted costs. Under the FairTax you are paying once. What I'm
hearing you say is that you would still rather be taxed two separate
times as well as having your income taken from you when the government
wants it as opposed to when you want to give it to them, continue to
comply with a messy tax code and on and on and on. If that's what you
want then there will never be any convincing you otherwise.

No, what you are really hearing me say is that you cannot remove 23% from
a product cost, add it back in, add a bunch of stuff and end up with the
same number. Either you take out a different percentage than 23% or you
add in a different percentage than 23%. Which is it? All you have
really removed from the cost of the product is compliance costs for the
old system. You also added compliance costs for the new Fair Tax and all
those other taxes aforementioned. You cannot convine me that all those
taxes are the same value as the old compliance costs.

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
FairTa
x
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 determi
ned
.

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
ta
x
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.

The web site doesn't, the law does.

YOu already told me. Why waste time repeating it?

The Fair Tax Act of 2005, Part XIX

`SEC. 304. REBATE MECHANISM.
...

`(c) When Rebates Mailed- Rebates shall be mailed on or before the
first business day of the month for which the rebate is being
provided.

`(d) Smartcards and Direct Electronic Deposit Permissible- The Social
Security Administration may provide rebates in the form of smartcards
that carry cash balances in their memory for use in making purchases
at retail establishments or by direct electronic deposit.

So each registered family (or family of one perhaps) will get their
rebate checks in the mail, via direct deposit, or via a smartcard/
debit card account arrangement. I would probably use direct deposit
myself. Paper checks are slow, and I think a separate debit card from
my regular check card is not very convenient (just another card to
have to safeguard and another account to watch).

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 FairT
ax 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 b
uy
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 t
o
those brackets since 1913.

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

I agree, but as I described it's much harder to do than with an income
tax.

Only because you are relying on congressional folks greed. Not a good
thing to count on.

*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.

Really? That's all they have to do? You make it sound so easy. As I
already said everybody…I repeat…everybody pays this tax. No
exemptions, no deductions. Everyone pays it. Now, you tell me what
politician in his right mind is going to risk election or re-election
by raising the rate.

Same ones that are going to have to address entitlements before we go
broke.

If they do they are a one term rep or senator.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is much harder.

Not really......just a bit more open....maybe.

Take the current state of affairs. Obama and the leftwing
redistributionists are all in favor of raising taxes on the so called
rich. They are at no real risk of trying to do that because a) the
"rich" are a small percentage of the voting base that actually pay fed
income taxes; and b) their (Obama and the rest of the left) voting
base is predominantly a group that pays little to no fed income tax.
So, if you are a voter asked to vote for someone who will raise taxes
on someone else who the hell are you going to vote for?!?!?
Conversely, if that same politician says they are going to raise taxes
on YOU who do you think they are going to vote for.

That's a good point, but in this case, those taxes will be going up or we
will be going broke.

* 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.

Used stuff is not taxed under the FairTax because it has already been
taxed once already. It's unfair to tax it again.

I would bet that it is simply that there is no real way to collect it
since it is not through a retailer.

The tax collector
for new stuff is the same entity that it is now, the seller.

No, it isn't. There is a difference between a seller (who can your
neighbor in a yard sale) and Sears who is a retailer.

* 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. *Wit
h
the FairTax you have a choice.

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

You have the choice to purchase. It's only then that you pay the
tax. Wouldn't you rather have that choice than no choice to be taxed
on your income? I mean, really, I just don't get the line of
reasoning otherwise.

The bottom line is that folks will purchase where they think they get the
best deal. Will the added tax make a difference? Most likely if it is
23%. Hell, people squawk now about a 10% sales tax and your Fair Tax
only replaces the federal portion of that tax....not all of it.

*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.

So? That's the purpose of the prebate. You effectively pay no sales
tax on necessities.

You effectively pay no *federal* tax on necessities. You still pay state
and local sales taxes. So now your product will cost:

Product cost
Compliance costs
Profits along the way
State and city taxes
Fair tax.

The first three remain about the same.

* 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
sma
rt
enough to have a good idea what is in the taxes and those who don't,
wouldn't know anyway.

You just described another reason for the FairTax. Actually two
reasons. First, under the current, or flat, tax you still have to
file. Not so with the FairTax.

I still have to file state taxes which if I am not doing federal taxes
will have to be done from scratch so state tax preparation will be more
costly and take longer. The IRS still needs to send out all the forms
like 1099s, W2s, etc.. The IRS still needs to track all state and local
taxes although not for federal tax purposes but to establish poverty
level wages, etc.

Then those who use CPA's have
to…well… use CPA's to figure out the tax burden. Wouldn't you rather
a) not have to file anything;

Fair Tax still only applies to federal taxes...not all taxes.

and b) spend the money you just spent on
a CPA on something else ore productive…like a good round of golf on
April 15 instead of working on your taxes :-)

And go to prison for tax evasion on your state income taxes because you
were in the clubhouse celebrating? ;)

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 doe
s
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.

And that's not happening now?

You don't think an open 23% sales tax on goods won't increase that?

How about the criminals who deal in
such underground markets? What are they paying in income taxes now?
But, do they still buy goods and services?

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?

Well, actually, I did in one of my responses to John Smith.

The tax burdens by AGI and percentage, who owns the wealth and who owns
the income came from me.

*Nearly 50% of wage earners

pay nothing in federal income taxes. *That’s the highest it has eve
r
been since the implementation of the income tax.

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

I know what the percentage is which is why I said "nearly". If you
want to get in a ****ing contest over 2.7% that's fine, but my point
still stands and is correct.

* 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.

As I repeatedly said, let them try it. I recall some dumbass who once
ran for president who said "if elected I will raise your taxes".
How'd that one work out for him?

If he was a dumbass, I doubt that one comment is what did him in.

* 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 the
y
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 the
n 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, stat
e 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
d
o
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?

Do you control the government taking money out of your check every
other week? Do you control the fact that you have to file on 4/15?

I control the amount I pay within the law.

As for me here's how I would utilize my control. If I don't want a
good or service I won't buy it. There's my control. That's all I
have to worry about. And, I can do what many people have done and
move to a no income tax state like FL and the like.

I lived in Florida for several years. No state income tax shows up in a
few areas and not always to the good.

How much did TurboTax cost you? *$50, $60 maybe? *Wouldn’t it hav
e
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.

Maybe you weren't but many companies are which is a big reason why
there is an embedded 23% cost in every item you buy.

Two problems.....one, that hidden cost probably isn't 23% (or if you
think it is post your cite) and companies pass on all costs that they
have to pay. They cannot do it any other way and still maintain as low a
product cost as they can and make a profit. Companies still pay taxes to
the letter of the law. What they do is the same thing I do, and, I
assume, you do....go through your taxes to ensure that you are complying
with the law and not paying anymore than you have to.

Still, the end
effect is still the same. You spent $X on a tax program or CPA. You
can pay your "fair share", whatever that means,

That means what the law requires me to pay.

when you buy goods and
services. If you aren't sure what fair share is and just want to be
sure then you can do more by buying more goods and services. Not only
do you fund the federal government, but you also help the economy.

Or I can simply send a check to the IRS. How often have you done 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 talki
ng
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 ha
ve *
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 dow
nsi
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.

I suspect many more will care that they no longer have to file federal
taxes and keep their entire check (save state and local) while still
paying the exact same for items they buy every day.

No, they won't be paying the exact same for items they buy every day.

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.

I have. That's why I (backed by $22M of research) like the FairTax.

Then explain it.

* 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% o
f
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.

I'm just telling you what the research says.

You haven't shown research that says you can deduct 23% in costs from a
product, add other costs in plus income tax, FICA, etc. and come up with
the same number.

You produced a comment that says research has shown that a 23% tax would
be revenue neutral, but I havent seen any comments that the costs would
remain neutral. That has only come from you in your examples.

*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
ar
e
business taxes, etc.. in there but one cannot generate a new
tax without adding to what is already there. *So a product
which toda
y
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. *Her
e's
why. *The built in compliance costs are, on average, 23%.

Then where did you put the replacement for the income tax? *It has
t
o
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? *;)

Okay, you say the numbers are wrong. Economic research says
otherwise.

Then post that research. The research you have mentioned is that the
revenue is neutral. That is NOT the same as product costs yet you keep
posting product cost examples to show your point. My point is that one
of the two numbers you use is wrong. Either the original 23% (that would
be the one I would suspect) or the 23% for the Tax. Since the tax number
came from the research by the Fair Tax group and is slated to be revenue
neutral, I would assume that that number is probably correct. It is your
example of subtracting out 23%, removing some costs from it, adding a lot
more cost into it and putting it back in as 23% that is suspect.

I can't convince you otherwise. You go for the flat tax
or stay with the current system. Hope April 15 treats you well as you
spend money trying to figure out your tax bill.

*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 nee
d
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 yo
u
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.

Fair enough. You're a skeptic and I appreciate that. But, the
research is on the website and in the book.

The research on the website addresses revenue neutrality. It does not
address product cost other than to say prices should fall and then wages
may rise. It even states that the change will be subject to market
forces.....however, in your example, you keep using a constant number
that suspiciously just happens to equal the Fair Tax. As I noted before,
it is not the 23% Fair Tax number I am questioning it is the number you
use to subtract from product cost and try to show the total product cost
to be the same as before. That is what I don't believe and have stated
several times why.

At least you are willing
to debate this reasonably. I really do hope you read the book and
learn about it because there are things there that the web site or I
can't do justice to. As for myself, I am not against a flat tax. I
think it would be better than our current convoluted system. I just
happen to think there is a better system.

There may be.

It will be tough going
because repealing the 16th would be the single most largest transfer
of power from government to the people in the history of this
country.

Excuse me, but if there is no income tax, then the 16th Amendment becomes
as useless as tits on a boar hog just like the 3rd Amendment.

The tax code is nothing but a social engineering and vote
buying tool. That power is not easily given up. Then again, a couple
hundred years ago no one really gave a democratic republic much of a
chance either.

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

Cremation......for those who think outside the box.

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

gfn wrote in
:

On May 26, 6:23*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:f287e735-90d5-42c1-a14d-55a606092fd9@
28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:

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

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

I didn't remove them. I simply listed them ands showed them back in
place in the next step.

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.

Are you trying to tell me that compliance costs today equal all personal
income tax and FICA?

--
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
:

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.

Kinda my point.

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.

I would love to see all of it up to serious Constitutional scrutiny. I
wonder how much of it Jeffereson and madison would approve of?

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.

That's about all they are good for.

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.

I think if we don't something sooner rather than later it won't matter,
events will overshadow politics.

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.

Well I wouldn't put grannie on asn ice flow out to see. I'd like to see
more people take responsibility for thier families.

Didn't want to make a big deal of it, but we're moving back to VA and
moving in with my mother-in-law. She's been having "issues" lately and my
wife wants to be the one to take care of her. Fortuneately she has a big
house, not as big as ours here, but in some ways better.

So I'm putting my money where my mouth is.

And it's not that people didn't do the right thing, it's that they let
themselvesd be hustled that they weren't needed and Uncle Sugar would do it
for them.

There is no reason to continue bad policy because it's been in place for a
long time if it appears that the policy is destructive.

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.

Well sinec the Democrats won't even acknowledge that there is a problem,
they are sorta begging for a more extreme answer doncha think?

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.

Doesn't have to be.

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.

Hey I'm as mad at the republicans for what they've done! Can't we thank
Nixon for ATF and the EPA? I have equal contempt for both parties.
Unfortuneately one has to choose one or the other if one wants to have any
influence, though maybe the TEA party will continue to expand.

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?

Yep, have a big party on the mall and burn all the laws and regs made since
then. Of course we may need aerial tankers to control the burn. And there
are certain parts of DC that you might let the fire spread to.

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.

Great and then they are both dead. Is that a victory? Or is a lingering
death, debilitated by the sapping of strength preferable?

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.

To who's benefit? It simply exacerbates the problem.

--
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 message
...
On May 27, 5:58 pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

...

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

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?

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.

Cite them.

fairtax.org. go read under the "research" link.

I see links for:

About us
Contact
My Account
Logoout
About the Fairtax
News & Commentary
Grassroots
Take Action
Fairtax Caculator - Try it Now
Facebook signup
News & Calender links
Backup - The Basics
Ways and Means Committee Testimony
Fairtax Gear
facebook
twittter
Youtube
Taxavist
Fairtax Nation!
Political Support
Economic Support
Fairtax Books
Search national network
Find local leaders
Home

Don't see any "research" link

So, next time you post a cite, I expect a workable link that take me
directly to the information you claim exists because clearly your claims
about what I will find and where is incomplete, inadequate, and/or
non-existent.

Nor should I have to hunt around looking for your data. Your link should
take me directly to it.

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

"gfn" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 5:44 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
:

On May 27, 3:02 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:a55df435-ec3a-4cbd-96bd-a6a7c5e8166a@
v10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:

On May 27, 12:23ÿpm, RD Sandman
wrote
:
gfn wrote
innews:bf37633e-1273-4515-a00a-0a9570f6b140@
l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

Let's get rid of a lot crap and get down to the chase and the point I
am trying to make.

You keep stating that there will be 23% of the product cost removed
when Fair Tax is implemented, therefore the 23% of the Fair Tax will
simply bring the product back to the same price. You say that
research has shown that.

Now, let's look at the FAQ. It says that the Fair Tax will be
*revenue
*
neutral. It does NOT say it will be *cost* neutral. That is YOUR cl
aim,
not theirs. Revenue neutral means that the amount of tax revenue
produced by the Fair Tax will be the same as current practice
provide. Cost neutral would indicate that cost of the product to the
public would not change. A statement that they do not make.

Here is what the FAIR Tax FAQ says:

"Does the FairTax rate need to be much higher to be revenue neutral?

The proper tax rate has been carefully worked out; 23 percent does
the job of: (1) raising the same amount of federal funds as are
raised by the current system, (2) paying the universal rebate, and
(3) paying the collection fees to retailers and state governments.
Unlike some other proposals, this rate has been independently
confirmed by several different, nonpartisan institutions across the
country. Detailed calculations are available from FairTax.org. "

Note that it says, "..revenue neutral."

Let's try another spot:

"How does the FairTax affect wages and prices?

Americans who produce goods and earn wages must pay significant tax
and compliance costs under the current federal income tax. These
taxes and costs both reduce after-tax wages and profits and are then
passed on to the consumers of those goods and services in the form of
price increases. When the FairTax removes income, capital gains,
payroll, and estate and gift taxes, the pre-FairTax prices of these
goods and services will fall. The removal of these hidden taxes may
also allow wages to rise. Exactly how much prices will fall and wages
will rise depends on market forces. For example, in a profession with
many jobs and too few to fill them, wages will likely increase more
than in fields where there are too many employees and not enough
jobs."

Note again that it does not name a percentage for any cost reduction.

It
says it will vary depending on market forces.

Here is another spot:

"
Since the FairTax plan is *revenue neutral*, the same amount of
resources is extracted from the economy as is extracted under current
law. These funds are, however, extracted in a less economically
damaging way. Every known economic projection shows the economy doing
better, often much better, under the FairTax.
Because the economy grows, is more efficient and more productive,
that means investment, wages, and consumption are higher than they
are under the income tax."

Again, it says "revenue neutral" not cost neutral. The research that
they claim the 23% number on is for revenue neutrality. That number
has nothing to do with product prices or costs.

Yes it does. The 23% is the embedded compliance "costs".

And where is this noted other than by you? It is NOT in the FAQ.

I'll try

this one last time.

Go for it.

23% of every item you buy is composed embedded

costs passed on in the price of the product associated with compliance
of paying federal income and payroll taxes, including personal, gift,
estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security/Medicare,
self-employment, and corporate taxes. Those are "costs". When the
FairTax is implemented those costs go away. I won't re-hash why.

I am not asking why. I am asking where are you pulling that number from?

See the two links that I already sent you in another post.

So where exactly in the information presented by either of those links would
he find that information?

Care to quote for me the relevant sections that you assertion would address
his question?

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

"Scout" wrote in
:

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

"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.

I think one can do the same thing with spending proposals as we would
like to see in regulatory proposals.

A. What problem is being fixed or addressed?
B. What measurement system is going to be used or put in place to
ensure that result is occurring?
C. How long will that measurement be given to show results.
D. If measurement shows no gain or the law doesn't work, law will
automatically sunset after stated period of time.

That should apply to all legislation.

Maybe, but nothing there would prevent overspending, even massive
overspending as long as they can show some sort of results.

True, results are good, but there is a limit to how much we can afford
no matter how much a lot of it might benefit people.

I agree but see that as a different problem. It is here and now that
what you want must occur. My thing above is for now on.

--
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 27, 5:46*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:8ce02ba4-e0fa-4501-94f1-87e144248f44@
e35g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:

On May 27, 3:35*pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:2bd8c587-d08d-465c-9e0a-ec529c2d92ba@
r20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

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

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

ups .co m.
..

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

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

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

You are obviously a Democrat.

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

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

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

I refer to your math.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are for state and local reasons. *The only thing that went away
wa
s
the federal requirement. *Some of those are also state costs and they
have to remain in place along with the compliance costs that they
incur.
*
That hasn't changed.

And once again, the fairtax replaces embedded costs of complying with
FEDERAL tax laws.

I know that....however the mechanism for complying with those federal
laws is also used in some cases for state laws. Since those are not
addressed by the Fair Tax, they need to remain in place. When that
occurs, that cost cannot be removed.

--
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
:

"gfn" wrote in message
.
..
On May 27, 5:46 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
.
com:

On May 27, 3:35 pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:2bd8c587-d08d-465c-9e0a-ec529c2d92ba@
r20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

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

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

oups .co m.
..

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

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

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

You are obviously a Democrat.

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

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

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

I refer to your math.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because that has to do with state taxes. The FairTax is about
federa
l
taxation.

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

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

They are for state and local reasons. The only thing that went away
was the federal requirement. Some of those are also state costs and
they have to remain in place along with the compliance costs that
they incur. That hasn't changed.

And once again, the fairtax replaces embedded costs of complying with
FEDERAL tax laws.

And where exactly does it say it will do exactly that?

That part I agree with that the Fair Tax only addresses federal concerns.
However, if that compliance mechanism for federal taxes and costs is also
used for state taxes and costs, it and its accompanying costs cannot be
removed.

--
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 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.

3 people who all said basically the same thing. Seems John should buy
a clue.

Someone may need to remind him that it is larger than a vowel.

--
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
:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/6sdrrr

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

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

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

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

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

gfn wrote in
:

On May 27, 5:58*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

...

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

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
fo
r
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.

Cite them.

fairtax.org. go read under the "research" link.

I went. Now which particular papers did you get that 23% of *product
cost* from? The only references I find to that 23% tax is for *revenue*
neutrality, which is the amount of taxes the federal government gets
through all those taxes.....not product cost. The closest cost to 23% I
see is the 22% cost for just tax compliances which are the costs of
collecting all those taxes including FICA and personal income tax, not
the product cost. Some of which will not be going away will not be going
away as the Fair Tax has its compliance costs also so that they have to
be included in the Fair Tax rate.

Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other. It seems we are addressing
two different things instead of being on the same page.

--
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
:

"gfn" wrote in message
.
..
On May 27, 5:58 pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

m...

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

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?

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.

Cite them.

fairtax.org. go read under the "research" link.

I see links for:

About us
Contact
My Account
Logoout
About the Fairtax
News & Commentary
Grassroots
Take Action
Fairtax Caculator - Try it Now
Facebook signup
News & Calender links
Backup - The Basics
Ways and Means Committee Testimony
Fairtax Gear
facebook
twittter
Youtube
Taxavist
Fairtax Nation!
Political Support
Economic Support
Fairtax Books
Search national network
Find local leaders
Home

Don't see any "research" link

So, next time you post a cite, I expect a workable link that take me
directly to the information you claim exists because clearly your
claims about what I will find and where is incomplete, inadequate,
and/or non-existent.

Nor should I have to hunt around looking for your data. Your link
should take me directly to it.

I found the papers by clicking on "About the Fair Tax". That takes you to
a page where research is listed on the left hand side. Clicking on
"Research Papers" takes you to a page where the there are headings
listed. Click on the heading marked, "Taxes and Tax Reform". That will
give you another page where the papers are listed by subject.

Yews, he should have given you a link to get there. Since he didn't, I
will. Here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/3nr4da6

That should be the link he should have given you. Then he should have
stated which of those papers he got his data from.

--
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
:

"gfn" wrote in message
..
.
On May 27, 3:02 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
.
com:

On May 27, 12:23ÿpm, RD Sandman
wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:bf37633e-1273-4515-a00a-0a9570f6b140@
l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

Let's get rid of a lot crap and get down to the chase and the point
I am trying to make.

You keep stating that there will be 23% of the product cost removed
when Fair Tax is implemented, therefore the 23% of the Fair Tax will
simply bring the product back to the same price. You say that
research has shown that.

Now, let's look at the FAQ. It says that the Fair Tax will be
*revenue* neutral. It does NOT say it will be *cost* neutral. That
is YOUR claim, not theirs. Revenue neutral means that the amount of
tax revenue produced by the Fair Tax will be the same as current
practice provide. Cost neutral would indicate that cost of the
product to the public would not change. A statement that they do
not make.

Here is what the FAIR Tax FAQ says:

"Does the FairTax rate need to be much higher to be revenue neutral?

The proper tax rate has been carefully worked out; 23 percent does
the job of: (1) raising the same amount of federal funds as are
raised by the current system, (2) paying the universal rebate, and
(3) paying the collection fees to retailers and state governments.
Unlike some other proposals, this rate has been independently
confirmed by several different, nonpartisan institutions across the
country. Detailed calculations are available from FairTax.org. "

Note that it says, "..revenue neutral."

Let's try another spot:

"How does the FairTax affect wages and prices?

Americans who produce goods and earn wages must pay significant tax
and compliance costs under the current federal income tax. These
taxes and costs both reduce after-tax wages and profits and are then
passed on to the consumers of those goods and services in the form
of price increases. When the FairTax removes income, capital gains,
payroll, and estate and gift taxes, the pre-FairTax prices of these
goods and services will fall. The removal of these hidden taxes may
also allow wages to rise. Exactly how much prices will fall and
wages will rise depends on market forces. For example, in a
profession with many jobs and too few to fill them, wages will
likely increase more than in fields where there are too many
employees and not enough jobs."

Note again that it does not name a percentage for any cost
reduction. It says it will vary depending on market forces.

Here is another spot:

"
Since the FairTax plan is *revenue neutral*, the same amount of
resources is extracted from the economy as is extracted under
current law. These funds are, however, extracted in a less
economically damaging way. Every known economic projection shows the
economy doing better, often much better, under the FairTax.
Because the economy grows, is more efficient and more productive,
that means investment, wages, and consumption are higher than they
are under the income tax."

Again, it says "revenue neutral" not cost neutral. The research that
they claim the 23% number on is for revenue neutrality. That number
has nothing to do with product prices or costs.

Yes it does. The 23% is the embedded compliance "costs".

Cite where they specifically state that.

That is the same thing I have been asking him for. I know how the 23%
figure for the Fair Tax got calculated, I just want to know where that
23% figure he claims is in the cost of all products is worked out. Where
did THAT number come from. Methinks he is misreading something..

--
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?

Goodbye, New York State residents are rushing for the exits
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=308249
cuhulin

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

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

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

"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...power/wealth.h
tm 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.

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.

That's true but it is often rather difficult to know how someone will
vote.....see Souter.

True, which is why I feel some of that authority should be withdrawn
from Congress and put back into our hands.

You mean other than November.

Yes.

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

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

"gfn" wrote in message
.
..
On May 27, 5:58 pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

m...

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

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?

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.

Cite them.

fairtax.org. go read under the "research" link.

I see links for:

About us
Contact
My Account
Logoout
About the Fairtax
News & Commentary
Grassroots
Take Action
Fairtax Caculator - Try it Now
Facebook signup
News & Calender links
Backup - The Basics
Ways and Means Committee Testimony
Fairtax Gear
facebook
twittter
Youtube
Taxavist
Fairtax Nation!
Political Support
Economic Support
Fairtax Books
Search national network
Find local leaders
Home

Don't see any "research" link

So, next time you post a cite, I expect a workable link that take me
directly to the information you claim exists because clearly your
claims about what I will find and where is incomplete, inadequate,
and/or non-existent.

Nor should I have to hunt around looking for your data. Your link
should take me directly to it.

I found the papers by clicking on "About the Fair Tax". That takes you to
a page where research is listed on the left hand side. Clicking on
"Research Papers" takes you to a page where the there are headings
listed. Click on the heading marked, "Taxes and Tax Reform". That will
give you another page where the papers are listed by subject.

Yews, he should have given you a link to get there. Since he didn't, I
will. Here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/3nr4da6

That should be the link he should have given you. Then he should have
stated which of those papers he got his data from.

Yep, and just because you pull some bit or piece someone said elsewhere
doesn't mean they agree and/or support your claims in the product you put
together using that bit or piece.

Nor am I going to dig around trying to find out whether this is the case or
not, it's up to him to show me that what he claims is true. It's not my job
to figure out if it is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/6sdrrr

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

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

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

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

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

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

On May 27, 6:58*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

...

On May 27, 5:46 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
:

On May 27, 3:35 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:2bd8c587-d08d-465c-9e0a-ec529c2d92ba@
r20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

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

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

.co m.
..

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

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

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

You are obviously a Democrat.

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

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

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

I refer to your math.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are for state and local reasons. *The only thing that went away was
the federal requirement. *Some of those are also state costs and they
have to remain in place along with the compliance costs that they incur.

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

"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly my point.

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

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

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

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

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

There is compensation for that, Sid.

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

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

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

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

"gfn" wrote in message
.
..
On May 27, 7:28 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
"Scout" wrote
:

"gfn" wrote in message

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/6sdrrr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If a wealthy person makes $20 million dollars only that small portion he/she
spends is taxed.
The unspent portion remains untaxed.
People who work at jobs are not granted such privileges
The "Fair" tax is inherently UNFAIR...it's a sales tax and is inherently
regressive.

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

The income to works.

It needs to have much of its giveaways removed.

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

"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in :

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

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

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

On May 26, 6:19 pm, Gray Ghost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly my point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "Fair" tax is inherently unfair.

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

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

--
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:c373b161-64c5-4059-8812-505c1c48b2f6@
16g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly my point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
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
...
"Scout" wrote in
:

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

"gfn" wrote in message

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

"gfn" wrote in message

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/6sdrrr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Begorra, methinks you figgered it out.

..
..
I'm not poor.

I ride the tax gravy train same as you do.

10% tax on interest?

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

Have you people no clue?

I suspect none of your have ever done a 1040.

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

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

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

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

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

On May 26, 6:19 pm, Gray Ghost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly my point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "Fair" tax is inherently unfair.

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

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

..
..
The poor are another subject.

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

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

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

RD Sandman wrote in
:

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly my point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly my point.

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

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

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

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

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

So are Democrats but we tolerate them. For now.

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

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

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

"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in :

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

"gfn" wrote in message

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/6sdrrr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The income to works.

It needs to have much of its giveaways removed.

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

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

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

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

"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/6sdrrr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Begorra, methinks you figgered it out.

.
.
I'm not poor.

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

I ride the tax gravy train same as you do.

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

10% tax on interest?

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

Care to show your work?

Have you people no clue?

Or, just possibly, you don't.

I suspect none of your have ever done a 1040.

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

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

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

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

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

wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

....

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

...

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

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

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

m.
..

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

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

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

You are obviously a Democrat.

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

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

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

I refer to your math.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA isn't going to be there anymore?

OSHA isn't going to be there anymore?

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

Unemployment Benefits aren't going to be there anymore?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in :

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

"gfn" wrote in message

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

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

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

On May 26, 6:19 pm, Gray Ghost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly my point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "Fair" tax is inherently unfair.

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

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

.
.
The poor are another subject.

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

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

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

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

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

Cleverly labeled a "Fair" tax it is UNFAIR.

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

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

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

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

RD Sandman wrote in
:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gray Ghost wrote in
7.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly my point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RD Sandman wrote in
:

Gray Ghost wrote in
7.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly my point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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