On 5/25/2011 2:12 PM, Dave LaRue wrote:

...
I said everyone needs taxed at an equal rate on every dollar earned ...

I said crooks will always attempt to avoid this.

I have no real problem with a "luxury" tax, too.
Cell Phones for instance? Noop
Cell phones with camera's all the "apps?" Yup.
Basic 19" TV's? Noop.
Large screen LED/LCD things that cover an entire wall? Yup.
Chevy's? Noop. They are already sorry for buying them.
Cadillac's, BMW's, Mercedes' and the like? Yup.


Already taken care of. If the poor guy buys a $400 dollar TV he has
already paid the tax on the $400. If the rich guy buy a $4000 TV, he
has already paid the taxes on the $4000.

It is only important that each of the dollars in the $400 has been taxed
at a rate equal to those in the $4000.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." --
Albert Einstein

Regards,
JS

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/25/2011 12:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in news:irh49m$id0$3@dont-
email.me:

On 5/24/2011 1:18 PM, wrote:
...
You chose the easy point of my post to reply to.

The point you ignored is that your suggested system - "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 ..." - is
either impossible to implement, or requires a dictatorship.
...

Yes, that is a fair system, you simply want to take it literally and
say
it doesn't work. I am not stuck on any particular system to implement
it with. Any system which can demonstrate that it can successfully
accomplish the goal, and costing the least, would be great.

THINK for a change, John. How would a system like that have to work?
How would a merchant know whether to charge 7% sales tax or 42% sales tax
or some amount in between?

Any system only needs to manage that 1% of those with control of 42.7%
of the financial money pay 42.7% of the sales taxes. And that 20% at
the top pay 50.3% of the taxes.

And just how do you think it knows which one you are? Or who is in those
brackets? You are looking at Big Brother from 1984 big time.

I simply gave a simplified version of what is to be accomplished.

No, you showed that you really don't understand what is involved in that
scheme.
Those
with any common sense would have realized it was over simplified ...

REally, really oversimplified....so much so that you don't seem to have
any grasp of the basics.

I don't give a rats arse how you get the water from the well, just that
the water comes from the well ...

If you are whining about the costs and fairness of things, you really
should care. In this case you are pushing the costs would completely
overwhelm the result.



I said everyone needs taxed at an equal rate on every dollar earned ...

So much for sales tax then.

On 5/25/2011 3:59 PM, Scout wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/25/2011 12:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in news:irh49m$id0$3@dont-
email.me:

On 5/24/2011 1:18 PM, wrote:
...
You chose the easy point of my post to reply to.

The point you ignored is that your suggested system - "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 ..." - is
either impossible to implement, or requires a dictatorship.
...

Yes, that is a fair system, you simply want to take it literally and
say
it doesn't work. I am not stuck on any particular system to implement
it with. Any system which can demonstrate that it can successfully
accomplish the goal, and costing the least, would be great.

THINK for a change, John. How would a system like that have to work?
How would a merchant know whether to charge 7% sales tax or 42% sales
tax
or some amount in between?

Any system only needs to manage that 1% of those with control of 42.7%
of the financial money pay 42.7% of the sales taxes. And that 20% at
the top pay 50.3% of the taxes.

And just how do you think it knows which one you are? Or who is in those
brackets? You are looking at Big Brother from 1984 big time.

I simply gave a simplified version of what is to be accomplished.

No, you showed that you really don't understand what is involved in that
scheme.
Those
with any common sense would have realized it was over simplified ...

REally, really oversimplified....so much so that you don't seem to have
any grasp of the basics.

I don't give a rats arse how you get the water from the well, just that
the water comes from the well ...

If you are whining about the costs and fairness of things, you really
should care. In this case you are pushing the costs would completely
overwhelm the result.



I said everyone needs taxed at an equal rate on every dollar earned ...

So much for sales tax then.



Once again, I really don't care how it is implemented, it just has to
work out to a final flat tax on all the money earned ... make a dollar,
pay the tax on the dollar, make a hundred, pay the tax time a hundred,
make a thousand pay the tax times a thousand ... scalable in either
direction.

And, has been mentioned, no matter what system is finally chosen, crooks
will ALWAYS attempt to escape paying their fair share ... as is
happening with the rich elite today ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:

On 5/25/2011 2:12 PM, Dave LaRue wrote:

...

I said everyone needs taxed at an equal rate on every dollar earned ...

I said crooks will always attempt to avoid this.


I have no real problem with a "luxury" tax, too.
Cell Phones for instance? Noop
Cell phones with camera's all the "apps?" Yup.
Basic 19" TV's? Noop.
Large screen LED/LCD things that cover an entire wall? Yup.
Chevy's? Noop. They are already sorry for buying them.
Cadillac's, BMW's, Mercedes' and the like? Yup.


Already taken care of.

No it hasn't, you retard!

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/25/2011 3:59 PM, Scout wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/25/2011 12:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in news:irh49m$id0$3@dont-
email.me:

On 5/24/2011 1:18 PM, wrote:
...
You chose the easy point of my post to reply to.

The point you ignored is that your suggested system - "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 ..." - is
either impossible to implement, or requires a dictatorship.
...

Yes, that is a fair system, you simply want to take it literally and
say
it doesn't work. I am not stuck on any particular system to implement
it with. Any system which can demonstrate that it can successfully
accomplish the goal, and costing the least, would be great.

THINK for a change, John. How would a system like that have to work?
How would a merchant know whether to charge 7% sales tax or 42% sales
tax
or some amount in between?

Any system only needs to manage that 1% of those with control of 42.7%
of the financial money pay 42.7% of the sales taxes. And that 20% at
the top pay 50.3% of the taxes.

And just how do you think it knows which one you are? Or who is in
those
brackets? You are looking at Big Brother from 1984 big time.

I simply gave a simplified version of what is to be accomplished.

No, you showed that you really don't understand what is involved in
that
scheme.
Those
with any common sense would have realized it was over simplified ...

REally, really oversimplified....so much so that you don't seem to have
any grasp of the basics.

I don't give a rats arse how you get the water from the well, just
that
the water comes from the well ...

If you are whining about the costs and fairness of things, you really
should care. In this case you are pushing the costs would completely
overwhelm the result.



I said everyone needs taxed at an equal rate on every dollar earned ...

So much for sales tax then.



Once again, I really don't care how it is implemented, it just has to work
out to a final flat tax on all the money earned ... make a dollar, pay the
tax on the dollar, make a hundred, pay the tax time a hundred, make a
thousand pay the tax times a thousand ... scalable in either direction.

And, has been mentioned, no matter what system is finally chosen, crooks
will ALWAYS attempt to escape paying their fair share ... as is happening
with the rich elite today ...

Regards,
JS


A simple solution for a complicated problem...and it's wrong.

You need to equalize the BURDEN....You need to equalize the effect the tax
has on the taxpayers life

On 5/25/2011 4:12 PM, Sid9 wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/25/2011 3:59 PM, Scout wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/25/2011 12:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in news:irh49m$id0$3@dont-
email.me:

On 5/24/2011 1:18 PM, wrote:
...
You chose the easy point of my post to reply to.

The point you ignored is that your suggested system - "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 ..." - is
either impossible to implement, or requires a dictatorship.
...

Yes, that is a fair system, you simply want to take it literally and
say
it doesn't work. I am not stuck on any particular system to implement
it with. Any system which can demonstrate that it can successfully
accomplish the goal, and costing the least, would be great.

THINK for a change, John. How would a system like that have to work?
How would a merchant know whether to charge 7% sales tax or 42% sales
tax
or some amount in between?

Any system only needs to manage that 1% of those with control of
42.7%
of the financial money pay 42.7% of the sales taxes. And that 20% at
the top pay 50.3% of the taxes.

And just how do you think it knows which one you are? Or who is in
those
brackets? You are looking at Big Brother from 1984 big time.

I simply gave a simplified version of what is to be accomplished.

No, you showed that you really don't understand what is involved in
that
scheme.
Those
with any common sense would have realized it was over simplified ...

REally, really oversimplified....so much so that you don't seem to
have
any grasp of the basics.

I don't give a rats arse how you get the water from the well, just
that
the water comes from the well ...

If you are whining about the costs and fairness of things, you really
should care. In this case you are pushing the costs would completely
overwhelm the result.



I said everyone needs taxed at an equal rate on every dollar earned ...

So much for sales tax then.



Once again, I really don't care how it is implemented, it just has to
work out to a final flat tax on all the money earned ... make a
dollar, pay the tax on the dollar, make a hundred, pay the tax time a
hundred, make a thousand pay the tax times a thousand ... scalable in
either direction.

And, has been mentioned, no matter what system is finally chosen,
crooks will ALWAYS attempt to escape paying their fair share ... as is
happening with the rich elite today ...

Regards,
JS


A simple solution for a complicated problem...and it's wrong.

You need to equalize the BURDEN....You need to equalize the effect the
tax has on the taxpayers life

Anything which is better than what we have now will be better ... end of
story.

Regards,
JS

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

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

The poor are always going to pay a larger percentage of their income
on everything. No tax system is going to change that. Isn't that
what the bulk of this thread is about?

The FairTax is a replacement

for the income tax.

Yes....and a flat tax is another method of figuring income tax.

Yeah....and they both accomplish the same thing. The FairTax is
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 properly
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. 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.
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! Under
the flat tax, the payroll tax would be retained and income tax
withholding would still be with us. 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. Under the FairTax, what
you earn is what you keep. No more withholding taxes; no more income
tax.









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?

Current tax system:

Taxpayer earns $1000 a year.
IRS takes 25%: $250.
Taxpayer has $750 left to spend.
Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130.
Taxpayer has $620 left.

Fairtax system:

Taxpayer earns $1000 a year.
IRS takes 0%: $0
Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend
Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130.
Taxpayer has $870 left.

I'll go one better under the fairtax system.

Taxpayer earns $1000 a year.
IRS takes 0%: $0
Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend
Taxpayer buys a USED toaster for a total of $100.
Taxpayer pays NO fairtax sales tax.
Taxpayer has $900 left.

So, again, how is that regressive.

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.

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 income on
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.
2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz.
3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics"

It will all become crystal clear.

I am familiar with sales tax schemes, they have been around for years.
With exemptions, they become just as convoluted as the current system.
Excise luxury taxes were another attempt to soak the rich as poor poeple
would never buy luxury taxed items. How did that work out?


You may be familiar with sales tax schemes, but it's clear you aren't
familiar with the FairTax. Instead of speculating as you have done
above why not go visit the site and base your criticisms on the plan
itself? You will find that many of the things you raised above are
answered there.

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 tax
code itself is evidence of just that.

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

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


Nonsense. Stupid nonsense!

With an in-depth and well reasoned rebuttal like that which picks his
statements apart and shows the flaws within them certainly can't be
questioned...........NOT.

I acknowledge your knee jerk denial and inability to refute even a single
particular of what he states.

"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net 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.


Paying the "same percentage" is not fair.

The BURDEN is much less on the wealthy.

The wealthy are paying most of the income tax burden. You wouldn't be
happy with any tax scheme that didn't penalize the wealthy and not charge
you a dime.


...and why ...radio.shortwave...? more obsolete thinking!





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

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

"Scout" wrote in
:



wrote in message
news
On Wed, 25 May 2011 14:07:09 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Besides if the low earner is really a low earner like the 45% who
don't pay tax in the first place

A low earner pays as much tax on goods and services as a ****ing
billionaire you dip**** asshole, and is a bigger burden on their
existence that anyone else.

No, actually a billionaire tends to spend much more since they
purchase considerably more goods and services, and thus pay more tax
as a result.

Yoorghis isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. One reason he is in my
killfile.

You're talking about tax on income, which the wealth class can affect
more than a burger flipper

Actually the wealthy would be affected more since the poverty level
deduction is negligible for their income, but a significant part of
the income of your burger flipper.

Let's say your burger flipper makes $30,000 and your "wealth class"
makes $1,000,000

The burger flipper (given the numbers above, the ones you snipped)
would be paying all of $900 in taxes. Your "wealth class on the other
hand would be paying $146,400. The effective tax rate, and you love
talking about effective rates, would have the effective tax rate on
the burger flipper be 3%, your wealth class, on the other hand, would
have an effective tax rate of 14.6%

So the tax is clearly affecting the wealth class far more than it
would the burger flipper, so your objection has no merit.

In fact none of your objections have had any merit since your
complaint seems to be that unless we stick to the wealthy then it's
impossible.






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

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

"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?