RD Sandman wrote in
:

"Scout" wrote in
:



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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

What's more fair than that?

Same product, same taxes paid.

Fair.

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

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



The real problem is...

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

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

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

I 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.

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.

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.

The truth of this must be recognized and those that ignore the question
should in turn be ignored. They are greedy, twisted people that want to
punish the successful, get thier government cheese and then ignore the
calamity for our children and grand children. And us. They imagine somehow
the beast will continue feeding enough to support them, in spite of what
the vampirism does to the country as a whole.



--
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?

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

"Scout" wrote in
:



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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

What's more fair than that?

Same product, same taxes paid.

Fair.

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

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



The real problem is...

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

That is true under any taxing scheme.

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

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

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

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

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

However, one does get things from having a government.

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

True.

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

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

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

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

The truth of this must be recognized and those that ignore the
question should in turn be ignored. They are greedy, twisted people
that want to punish the successful, get thier government cheese and
then ignore the calamity for our children and grand children. And us.
They imagine somehow the beast will continue feeding enough to support
them, in spite of what the vampirism does to the country as a whole.






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

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

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

RD Sandman wrote in
:

"Scout" wrote in
:



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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

What's more fair than that?

Same product, same taxes paid.

Fair.

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

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



The real problem is...

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

That is true under any taxing scheme.

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

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

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

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

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

However, one does get things from having a government.

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

True.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Scout" wrote in
:



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

RD Sandman wrote in
:

"Scout" wrote in
:



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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

What's more fair than that?

Same product, same taxes paid.

Fair.

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

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



The real problem is...

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

That is true under any taxing scheme.

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

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

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

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

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

However, one does get things from having a government.

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

True.

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

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

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

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

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

As would I.

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

That's why we have elections.


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

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

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



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

RD Sandman wrote in
:

"Scout" wrote in
:



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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

What's more fair than that?

Same product, same taxes paid.

Fair.

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

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



The real problem is...

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

That is true under any taxing scheme.

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

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

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

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

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

However, one does get things from having a government.

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

True.

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

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

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

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

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

As would I.

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

That's why we have elections.

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

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

"Scout" wrote in
:



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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

What's more fair than that?

Same product, same taxes paid.

Fair.

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

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



The real problem is...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Bingo.

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

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

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


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


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

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

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