"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?

Let's take an example.

A poor family is an old but well insulated house. High effeciency heating
system. Pays $200 for heating.

Another poor family in a old, uninsulated and drafty house with an old
heating system. Pays $450 for heating.

Do you effectively impose a tax on one poor family and/or pay the other for
non-essential goods and services?

Because what would be essential for one family might be nothing more than a
luxury for the other.

So, please define for me exactly how you determine the EXACT nature of
essential goods and services for each household and exactly how much they
spent on such goods and services.

Second, per my example an item that costs $100 today
still costs $100 under the FairTax. If that's regressive then sign me
up.

Hmmm... you impose a tax, and then state you're going to collect nothing in
taxes....


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 necessarily. Look at some of the living expenses of the wealthy, or
better yet those who were wealthy that no longer are.