"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?