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

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

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.

They already know based on information sent in and added to your W2 or
your 1099.

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.

Although that is the only deduction or exception to it. .....currently.
There is no tax program that Congress can't **** up over time.

And you'd still
have to declare income to know if you qualified for the "prebates".
never mind the sliding scale bull****.

No, it isn't based on income. It is based on number of adults, one or
two, in the home (think parents) and the number of dependents (think kids
or grandparents, etc..)

If i had to choose I would go with the flat tax as being more honest
and open.

As would I. None of it is hidden from view whereas with the Fair Tax,
you really have no way of knowing just what is in it.

With no real deductions the tax preparer leechs would have
to get productive work, the IRS could be reduced considerably

Field offices and all those folks could simply go away and find
meaningful work somewhere.

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.

Yep.

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

Then that would be the next problem to work on.......over spending.


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

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

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

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

Gray Ghost wrote in
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?


That'd work and if he or she didn't pay attention, there is always
November.

--
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, 11:40*am, Gray Ghost
wrote:
RD Sandman wrote :

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?
 

On May 28, 11:40*am, Gray Ghost
wrote:
RD Sandman wrote :

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.


Let me try that again, this time with an actual reply. :-(

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..


They need that information anyway for Social Security benefit
calculations.

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****.


I think the Fair Tax proposal that is in this debate bases its
"prebates" on family size.

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.


It would certainly simplify tax returns ... until Congress starts to
mess with it. Which it will.

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


Nailed 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?

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

"gfn" wrote in message
...
On May 28, 10:15 am, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

...









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

Sorry, but show me in Fairtax.org

In wiki anyone can claim anything about anyone. If your claims have merit
then the organization itself will have said it.

The fairtax site references the study (http://www.fairtax.org/site/
Search?q=jorgenson
+22%25&btnG=Search&output=xml_no_dtd&client=convio _frontend&num=10&proxystylesheet=convio_frontend&o e=ISO-8859-1&ie=ISO-8859-1&sort=date
%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&entqr=3&ud=1&site=afft)

The wiki site cites the study with a link to the paper. just link to
it.

And you consider the above mess to be a useable link?

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

"Scout" wrote in
:



"gfn" wrote in message
..
.
On May 28, 10:15 am, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message


m...









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

"gfn" wrote in message

.com..
.
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 tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax. Specifically, the
section headed "Theories of retail pricing".

Sorry, but show me in Fairtax.org

In wiki anyone can claim anything about anyone. If your claims have
merit then the organization itself will have said it.

The fairtax site references the study (http://www.fairtax.org/site/
Search?q=jorgenson
+22%25&btnG=Search&output=xml_no_dtd&client=convio _frontend&num=10&pro
xystylesheet=convio_frontend&oe=ISO-8859-1&ie=ISO-8859-1&sort=date
%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&entqr=3&ud=1&site=afft)

The wiki site cites the study with a link to the paper. just link to
it.

And you consider the above mess to be a useable link?




I don't think he is aware of or knows how to use TinyUrl. There is a
plug-in for it on FireFox and, I would assume, one for Explorer.

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

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

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

"Gray Ghost" wrote in message
. 97.142...
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.

Further, let's assume for a moment that there is a net "savings" for people
under the new tax structure.....wouldn't that seem to be a justification for
the government to simply raise the tax rate so as to maintain current
spending levels with smaller deficits, thus negating anything that his plan
might gain?

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

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

"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.

Hmmmmm...

So why aren't you sending more of your money in?

I mean according to your assertions you're not paying enough in taxes, so
why don't you make a check out to the IRS for the extra that you think you
deserve to pay?

Are you telling us you're a hypocrite who refuses to pay as much in taxes as
he says he should?

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

wrote in message
...
On May 27, 2:53 pm, "Scout"
wrote:
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.

Yeah, sorry about the redundancy; I should have read through the rest
of the thread before responding.

Not worried about the redundancy, but simply suggesting to John when that
many people independently tell him the same thing....he might want to buy a
clue about how people view him.

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

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

"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.

So let's see. You're unhappy when a larger portion of the wealth class
income is taxed than the working individual, and you're unhappy when it's a
sales tax. So what sort of tax would you consider fair? Something that
sticks it to the rich guy because he's rich and you're not?

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

"Scout" wrote in
:



"Gray Ghost" wrote in message
. 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


m...









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.

Further, let's assume for a moment that there is a net "savings" for
people under the new tax structure.....wouldn't that seem to be a
justification for the government to simply raise the tax rate so as to
maintain current spending levels with smaller deficits, thus negating
anything that his plan might gain?




One reason why simply adding taxes doesn't fix anything. It really never
gets applied to current programs and their overruns.

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

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

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

"Scout" wrote in
:



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

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



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

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











"gfn" wrote in message

s.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.

I ride the tax gravy train same as you do.

Hmmmmm...

So why aren't you sending more of your money in?

I mean according to your assertions you're not paying enough in taxes,
so why don't you make a check out to the IRS for the extra that you
think you deserve to pay?

Are you telling us you're a hypocrite who refuses to pay as much in
taxes as he says he should?

Seems most of them are. ;)

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

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

Flat-Tax+Plus2© : Figuring Just Who Should Pay For All of This -hint- Everyone !
 

On May 28, 9:47*am, "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote:

The Flat-Tax+Plus2© Tax Equality System : Balanced 'Equal' Taxes Across-the-Board
 

On May 28, 2:14*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in message

...











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

"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 tohttp://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.

Ensuring Tax Equality For All : The Flat-Tax+Plus2© Tax Equality System
 

On May 27, 2:13*pm, gfn wrote:
- Yes it does.
-*The 23% is the embedded compliance "costs".
-*I'll try this one last time.
-*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.
- But, those costs go away and are replaced
- by the FairTax.
-*In it's simplest terms it removes 23% of
- embedded compliance costs, then turns
- right around and adds 23% tax.
-*Thus, the cost if the item is the same.
-*I can't make it any more simple then that.
-*If you can't figure that out then maybe you
- need to stay with the current tax system.

1st - The So Called Fair-Tax By Itself Ain't Fair
-that's-the-honest-truth- -that's-the-honest-truth-

2nd - The So Called Fair-Tax By Itself Ain't Fair
-that's-the-honest-truth- -that's-the-honest-truth-

3rd - The So Called Fair-Tax By Itself Ain't Fair
-that's-the-honest-truth- -that's-the-honest-truth-

Ensuring Tax Equality For All : TheFlat-Tax+Plus2© Tax Equalit...
 

Missouriah River will be flooding purt soon.Snow melt water and rain
water.
http://www.rense.com
cuhulin

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

On May 28, 2:10*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
wrote in message

...









On May 27, 2:53 pm, "Scout"
wrote:
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.

Yeah, sorry about the redundancy; I should have read through the rest
of the thread before responding.

Not worried about the redundancy, but simply suggesting to John when that
many people independently tell him the same thing....he might want to buy a
clue about how people view him.

Mr. Smith appears to be the sort who cannot admit a mistake. While
this appears to be a common trait on UseNet, he took it to an
interesting level: when it was pointed out that his variable sales
tax proposal (7% for the common smuck, 47% for rich folks) was
unworkable outside of a totalitarian state, he questioned the
intelligence of those that questioned his assertions, and wondered why
they didn't know he was talking about a flat tax. What?

In other words, unless you look good in blue, don't hold your breath
waiting for Mr. Smith to become clued in.

The Flat-Tax+Plus2© Tax Equality System : Balanced 'Equal' Taxes Across-the-Board
 

On May 28, 8:01 pm, "Scout"
wrote: