"gfn" wrote in message
...
On May 26, 1:05 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
:

On May 25, 5:42 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:7c91830c-c968-4f08-9c9e-77bc0350d428@
y19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

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
the
y
buy something. They decide when to pay it, not when the government
decides you owe it on payday.

It looks like they are trying to mix sales tax with the old luxury
tax.

The FairTax is effectively a replacement of the compliance costs that
are already built in to every product and service you buy.

Not quite since those compliance costs are not the same revenue source as
the income tax. For your Fair Tax to work, that revenue source from
income needs to be added.....so it isn't simply the 'before' costs added
to the price of purchase.


No it doesn’t need to be added. It’s already part of what you are
paying anyway. Here’s a very simplified example:

Product costs $100, broken down as follows:

Under current system
- wholesale = $50
- compliance costs = $23
- sales and other taxes = $27
- Grand total = $100

Under the FairTax
- wholesale = $50
- compliance costs = - $23
- FairTax = $23
- sales and other taxes = $27
- Grand total = $100

Sorry, but how can you totally eliminate compliance costs, since there would
still be costs to complying with the FairTax as well as the sales and other
taxes.

As such simply saying it's not going to cost anything to comply with the tax
laws is an utterly false assumption.

Indeed since NOTHING else has changed the compliance costs would, at
minimum, stay the same, and given that the need to comply with the FairTax
would require some expense, the compliance cost would likely increase.

So in reality, what would happen would be more like:

Under the FairTax
- wholesale = $50
- compliance costs = $26
- FairTax = $23
- sales and other taxes = $27
- Grand total = $126

"Gray Ghost" wrote in message
. 97.142...
gfn wrote in news:5e36036b-9c38-4449-8578-
:


Under the FairTax
- wholesale = $50
- compliance costs = - $23
- FairTax = $23
- sales and other taxes = $27
- Grand total = $100


You are obviously a Democrat.

Yep, notice nothing else has changed, but according to him, suddenly it will
cost NOTHING to comply with the still existing conditions, and will cost
nothing additional to comply with the new tax imposed.

As such his numbers are BS.

"gfn" wrote in message
...
On May 26, 4:04 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:cd664af5-c0a8-4200-a50e-2cdb60b5a031
@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:











On May 26, 3:20 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:5e36036b-9c38-4449-8578-
:

Under the FairTax
- wholesale = $50
- compliance costs = - $23
- FairTax = $23
- sales and other taxes = $27
- Grand total = $100

You are obviously a Democrat.

Then Herman Cain must be too because he supports the FairTax.

--
Herman Cain for President! http://hermancain.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 much
competence?

I refer to your math.

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.

Yep, and HOW exactly do you assume that compliance with sales and other
taxes will suddenly be reduced to zero, when they will still need to comply
and that it will cost absolutely NOTHING to comply with the additional
FairTax imposed?

"Gray Ghost" wrote in message
. 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?

That seems to be his, utterly unrealistic, assertion.

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/26/2011 9:43 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On 5/25/2011 10:39 PM, John Smith wrote:


You can't do the homework for me, because what I say is true.

So, just because you say it (with no proof), it's true? We are supposed
to trust the likes of YOU??? Bwahahahahahahaha...

How megalomaniacal of you.

Because of the complete failure, of you, to produce any valid, credible
and meaning data ... you earn the golden plonk award ...

... plonk ...

So where is your valid, credible and meaning(ful) data?

Are you going to plonk yourself as well?

"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.

"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 12:21 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.

Actually, I think if we fixed the income the federal government had to
work with by eliminating their power to impose or increase taxes, I
bet the rest would, over time, resolve itself.

Somebody has to be able to adjust tax rates... If not Congress then who?

Decrease, by Congress.

Increase, by vote during a general election.


As law makers have to
live within their means then priorities would be required and those
items which were luxuries or not required would keep getting pushed
further and further towards the short end of the stick.

In a dream world. Unfortunately, in this one, what one set sees and
luxuries, the other side sees as entitlements.

Yep, I never said they would be eliminated, but priorities BOTH sides can
agree on would slowly get the bulk of the available resources.

If we, as a
people, decide that the government simply doesn't have the funds to
provide the necessary services, then we, as a people, can decide to
raise our taxes to provide more funding so such necessary services can
exist at a level we desire.

Look at the hullabaloo over modifying SS and Medicare and tell me with a
straight face that the people will vote for money to provide necessary
services and will not vote for money that aren't.

Some would. A lot would not.

Would you vote to raise taxes for unneeded services?

Particularly when that
opinion of what is on what side of the line is all over the place.

There is that.

We are, after all, the ones paying for it all, so we should have a
direct say in how much we will pay.

Yep, but look at the above and you can see why a direct democracy won't
work.

Oh, I don't know. If you could earmark your check for the specific programs
you felt the money should go to.....and undecided funds would be allocated
by Congress to plug any holes.....Hmmm... possible.

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

RD Sandman wrote in
:

Somebody has to be able to adjust tax rates... If not Congress then
who?


Why? Why should the government need any more than say 10% of the
private sector, except in case of war maybe, and probably not even
then?

Why should the government be entitled to any more than 10% of the
private sector?


Who said it should be? I said somebody has to be able to adjust the tax
rates. What the if the rate needed dropped to 5%?

Congress could drop it, or it could be brought up before the people as a
referendum during a general election.

Congress can only, but only the People can vote to increase it.




--
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
:

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.

Indeed and I like it.


AFter, of course, you tell me exactly how much the guv needs and
why.

GG, somehow I doubt that decision is up to you.

Yes, but if that question is not answered we will never solve the
problem.


The problem is that it IS an ongoing problem and always will be.
Therfore we need to keep solving it as we go along. There is no magic
one shot elixer to fix it.

Which is why we need to get the Congress' power to arbitrarily increase
taxes and/or borrow money under control.

Spending control will tend to come from that, and if we can tighten the
noose until spending, programs, and how it is allocated become if not
acceptable at least bearable then we will have made great strides. The first
step, IMO, is cutting down the flow of money to them so that the rest MUST
be addressed.

"gfn" wrote in message
...
On May 25, 6:54 pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"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?


The Department of Health & Human Services’ poverty level guidelines
tel us that. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level
calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation,
medical care, etc.

Keyword "GUIDELINES"

You do know what a guideline is, right?