|
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
On May 23, 11:27*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 5/23/2011 12:49 PM, gfn wrote: On May 21, 7:30 pm, John *wrote: On 5/21/2011 4:29 PM, John Smith wrote: If you look at the figures on this page, you will find, in 2007, in America: 1) The top 1% have 42.7 of the financial wealth. 2) The next 19% have 50.3% of the wealth. 3) The bottom 80% have 7.0% of the wealth. So, according to those figures, the top 20% of the population have 42.7 + 50.3 = 93% of the financial wealth. This situation has worsened since 2007 ... I'd say we tax those top 20% of the population, what say all of you? Regards, JS Of course, I forgot the link in the above: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html Regards, JS What I say is interesting, and very slanted, one sided article. *I particularly like how they avoid who is actually footing the federal income tax bill in this country and focus primarily on the percentage of ones income that they pay in taxes. *They also avoid who primarily benefits from all this income that is coming in. *Paints two different pictures. *But, fear not, I'm here to help. Top 1% paid 38.02% of the bill Top 5% paid 58.72% of the bill Top 10% paid 69.94% of the bill Top 25% paid 86.34% of the bill Top 50% paid 97.30% of the bill Bottom 50% paid 2.7% of the bill http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html Now, before you complain about who has the wealth consider that the US does not, but for limited circumstances, derive their revenue based on wealth. *It's based on income. *So, let's compare apples to apples until the law changes to tax based on wealth. Is there a summary of the taxes which they are using in that figure, somewhere? Yeah. It's called the IRS. IRS.gov to be specific. For example, are these figures only dealing with income tax? Yes. That's how the government is primarily funded. Do they take into consideration fees, licenses, fines, federal excise taxes, state sales taxes, fuel taxes, property taxes, etc., etc. No. But, do you think the wealthy don't pay fees, licenses, fines, excise taxes, state sales taxes, fuel taxes, property taxes, etc.? No, 1% of the people in the highest income taxes are NOT paying their fair share ... and, all those other figures are just as skewed ... Sure they are. The numbers don't lie. You can not deny that the top 1% pay over 38% of all federal income taxes. That is not disputable. It is a fact. What I see your side doing is avoiding the question of who is footing the bill and prefer to frame the question as how much of one's income is someone paying in taxes. Two different questions with two very different results. My point is when it comes to funding government it is indisputable who is doing just that. Nothing you say can change that. Regards, JS |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
On 5/24/2011 7:47 AM, gfn wrote:
... I am saying the obvious, 1% of the people making a huge percentage of all the financial wealth and frequently pay no or low taxes contribute little ... We do not need innuendo, opinions or BS. We need exact figures on their contributions to the whole of all taxes paid. I think that 1% is not paying their fair share as determined by the amount of money they make. I think the reason that the figure are so hidden on all this data is obvious -- they know they are not paying their fair share, and that is reasons for websites such as this one: http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html These are the rich crooks attempting to manipulate public opinion ... and yes, the financial wealth needs spread out better than the 20/80 percent cut which is happening! Regards, JS |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
On May 24, 11:11*am, John Smith wrote:
On 5/24/2011 7:47 AM, gfn wrote: * ... I am saying the obvious, 1% of the people making a huge percentage of all the financial wealth and frequently pay no or low taxes contribute little ... What part of the top 1% pay 38% of the federal income tax bill isn't registering with you? Your statement that they pay little or contribute little is simply not true. The IRS numbers bear that out. Put your wealth envy aside and try to be just a little objective about this. We do not need innuendo, opinions or BS. *We need exact figures on their contributions to the whole of all taxes paid. *I think that 1% is not paying their fair share as determined by the amount of money they make. * Fine, you just backed up my claim in my last post on re-framing the question as to who pays the bill as opposed to who pays what of their income. I think the reason that the figure are so hidden on all this data is obvious -- they know they are not paying their fair share, and that is reasons for websites such as this one: Again, the numbers don't lie. I can't fathom how someone can say that where 1% foots 38% of the bill that they aren't paying their fair share. I'm not going to change your mind on that point so there really is no use in trying to convince you otherwise other than to say you're just flat out wrong. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html These are the rich crooks attempting to manipulate public opinion ... and yes, the financial wealth needs spread out better than the 20/80 percent cut which is happening! Crooks? Your wealth envy has clouded your judgment and objectivity. Regards, JS |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
On 5/24/2011 7:47 AM, gfn wrote:
So, let me cut to the chase here, since 1% of the people make 42.7 percent of the financial wealth, they should pay for 42.7 percent of the cost of the roads, the public utilities, the parks, the state budget, the federal budget, etc. And, since 50.3 percent of the people get half of the financial wealth, they should be paying over half the costs of all these government costs. And, they should be damn anxious to pay them, after all, that is the system which is allowing their financial wealth. Regards, JS |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
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 |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
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. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
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 Regards, JS |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
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. First of all, the data on that site is not effective in being able to reach any proper conclusions ... it has been conveniently arranged that way. Even a professional accountant would need a great amount of time to be able to apply the data effectively, and then only with the data from other sources ... Regards, JS |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
John Smith wrote in news:irghrd$f2r$1@dont-
email.me: On 5/24/2011 7:47 AM, gfn wrote: ... I am saying the obvious, 1% of the people making a huge percentage of all the financial wealth and frequently pay no or low taxes contribute little ... We do not need innuendo, opinions or BS. Then why did you just post a comment with no cite? We need exact figures on their contributions to the whole of all taxes paid. I think that 1% is not paying their fair share as determined by the amount of money they make. Then provide cites to prove it. I think the reason that the figure are so hidden on all this data is obvious -- they know they are not paying their fair share, and that is reasons for websites such as this one: http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html These are the rich crooks attempting to manipulate public opinion ... and yes, the financial wealth needs spread out better than the 20/80 percent cut which is happening! Then you should have no problem showing a cite for your claim. Otherwise, we may have to think you simply pulled it out of your ass. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
John Smith wrote in news:irgik5$f2r$3@dont-
email.me: 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 ... Oh, you mean one like this? A tax on *ALL* income no matter where derived. One deduction. Federal poverty level for a family of four and everybody gets that deduction. Have a tax rate of, say 15% and the current poverty level at $24K and we get the following: A person who earns up to $24K, pays nada... A person who earns $50K, pays $3,900 (50-24x15%) A person who earns $100K, pays $11,400 (100-24x15%) A person who earns $500K, pays $71,400 (500-24x15%) A person who earns a million pays $146,400 (1000-24x15%) That do it for you? -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
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. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
John Smith 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? -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
John Smith wrote in news:irgiev$f2r$2@dont-
email.me: On 5/24/2011 7:47 AM, gfn wrote: So, let me cut to the chase here, since 1% of the people make 42.7 percent of the financial wealth, they should pay for 42.7 percent of the cost of the roads, the public utilities, the parks, the state budget, the federal budget, etc. They do. Those roads, public utilities, parks, state budgets, federal budgets are paid mostly by income taxes, excise taxes, use taxes, gasoline taxes and some special use taxes. Are you under the impression that wealthy folks don't have to pay those? And, since 50.3 percent of the people get half of the financial wealth, they should be paying over half the costs of all these government costs. And, they should be damn anxious to pay them, after all, that is the system which is allowing their financial wealth. Hmmmm, you do realize, one hopes, that their financial wealth is one of the things that provides for worker bees....like employment, pay, benefits, etc.. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"RD Sandman" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote in news:irgik5$f2r$3@dont- email.me: 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 ... Oh, you mean one like this? A tax on *ALL* income no matter where derived. One deduction. Federal poverty level for a family of four and everybody gets that deduction. Have a tax rate of, say 15% and the current poverty level at $24K and we get the following: A person who earns up to $24K, pays nada... A person who earns $50K, pays $3,900 (50-24x15%) A person who earns $100K, pays $11,400 (100-24x15%) A person who earns $500K, pays $71,400 (500-24x15%) A person who earns a million pays $146,400 (1000-24x15%) That do it for you? .. .. If you add a $1,000 tax to the $50,000 guy he becomes homeless If you add a $1,000 tax to the $1,000,000 guy...he never notices it. That's what's UNFAIR. The EFFECT on the wealthy taxpayer is nil. The EFFECT on the low income tax payer is catastrophic. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
On May 24, 12:07*pm, John Smith wrote:
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 ... Impossible to implement. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html Regards, JS |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
On May 24, 12:13*pm, John Smith wrote:
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. First of all, the data on that site is not effective in being able to reach any proper conclusions ... it has been conveniently arranged that way. 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. Even a professional accountant would need a great amount of time to be able to apply the data effectively, and then only with the data from other sources ... Regards, JS |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
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%. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
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. Regards, JS |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
On 5/24/2011 10:45 AM, gfn wrote:
... Impossible to implement. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html Regards, JS Yeah, a lot of things are "impossible", up until someone does it ... Regards, JS |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
John Smith 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 Regards, JS First, we kill all the Marxists. -- 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? |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
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. Thanks in advance, JS |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
On May 24, 2:14*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 5/24/2011 10:45 AM, gfn wrote: ... Impossible to implement. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html Regards, JS Yeah, a lot of things are "impossible", up until someone does it ... Besides the inherent unfairness of such a system what would you suggest for implementation? I can see it now: Customer: Good day, one cup of coffee please. Waiter: Sure...first a copy of your 1040 please. Regards, JS |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
On May 24, 6:28*pm, "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message ... On May 24, 5:53 pm, "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote: "gfn" wrote in message .... On May 24, 4:56 pm, "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote: "Dave LaRue" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: 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 ... You're just the square peg, you retard. Everyone else understands... well, except other retards like you. I see terminology such as "Fair" tax and "Flat" tax. Those terms are pure and unadulterated bull****. In addition, any form of consumption tax is regressive and unfair to everyone Unfair to the poor because the tax is excessive to them to the extent that they cannot purchase necessary items because of the tax. Unfair to wealthy since a consumption tax inhibit purchasers and therefore affects industry. Another one that has no clue what the FairTax is. . A progressive tax on income no matter what the source and an effective inheritance tax are the fairest kind of taxation. We've had them for many years and they worked. Over the years they have been corrupted by special interests. They should be restored. "Fair" is only a bull**** LABEL. Describe what's unfair about it. *This presumes you actually understand it. "The Fair Tax" (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServ...ame=about_main) is an illusion. It's unrealistic bull**** with a catchy label. It's a consumption tax that falls most heavily on lower income people and HARMS the retail sector of the economy, the 70% part of our economy. Our progressive income tax, less the holes that have been punched in it by special interests the years, is fairest tax of all. Thanks for demonstrating that you don't understand the FairTax. Just wanted to be sure. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in message ... "gfn" wrote in message ... On May 24, 4:56 pm, "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote: "Dave LaRue" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: 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 ... You're just the square peg, you retard. Everyone else understands... well, except other retards like you. I see terminology such as "Fair" tax and "Flat" tax. Those terms are pure and unadulterated bull****. In addition, any form of consumption tax is regressive and unfair to everyone Unfair to the poor because the tax is excessive to them to the extent that they cannot purchase necessary items because of the tax. Unfair to wealthy since a consumption tax inhibit purchasers and therefore affects industry. Another one that has no clue what the FairTax is. . A progressive tax on income no matter what the source and an effective inheritance tax are the fairest kind of taxation. We've had them for many years and they worked. Over the years they have been corrupted by special interests. They should be restored. "Fair" is only a bull**** LABEL. So much for fair taxes, right? |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
On Tue, 24 May 2011 12:40:15 -0700 (PDT), gfn
wrote: On May 24, 3:00*pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote : 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. 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. * 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. *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. 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. Got news for you Einstein. You have to bring in over $5800 for any of your income to be taxed. The deductibles are as follows: $5,800 for unmarried taxpayers or married taxpayers filing separately, $11,600 for married taxpayers filing jointly, and $8,500 for taxpayers filing as head of household. The additional standard deduction allowed for blind taxpayers and senior citizens will be $1,150 if married filing jointly and $1,450 if single. And just how do you expect those in retail to determine how much to tax any individual? Are you suggesting that everyone carry some special "rich guy" card around to show so they can get raped at the cashier? Or maybe create a grand database and require everyone in retail to subscribe to it thus allowing them to know more about you than most people care to share? How about you just make everyone with over a $250,000 income sew a big gold dollar sign on their clothing so they'll be easier to spot and round up to put on the trains to the camps? Furthermore, your insane notion that I should pay over 42 cents on the dollar for any and all purchases I make simply because I am skilled and lucky enough to get a considerably larger paycheck than you do sounds more like typical class envy crap than anyhing that can be called "fair". Where did you come up with 42.7% as being "fair"? Are you simply figuring on that percentage leveling the playing field to the point that no one will make anymore than the lowest paid in the country? That might make you feel all warm and fuzzy but at the same time it would dramatically decrease any drive or desire for anyone to actually be successful in any field. Who the hell wants to go to college and spend all that it takes to get a degree and go out and get a $100,000 or $200,000 a year paycheck when they could save their tuition and go get a job making tires and be able to keep the same $50,000 or so a year without worrying about giving half or more to the government? Tell you what hotshot. I'll put up how much in income, sales, excise, property et al in taxes that I pay in a given year against what you pay in total and just see how "fair" it comes out to be in reality. Uncle Sam is already getting a quarter of my taxable income on top of the state, city and county getting another 10 to 15 percent in property, sales and other taxes. Yours is the typical "I know how much anyone really needs to live on" better than anyone else bull****. But go ahead. Place a ridiculous sales tax on the items that the people you perceive as being wealthy purchase and watch your neighbors and friends and family suddenly wondering why they're getting laid off due to slow downs in sales of big ticket items that a lot of them get paid to make. Sure, the wealthy will continue to purchase the items that they really really want, but a lot of us aren't going to be jumping on a $10,000 item that will end up costing over $14,000 after sales tax alone. That's not how we managed to have anything in the bank in the first place. If your scheme were in place now then GM would have lost one sale that I know of as I will not pay no $57,000 for the truck that has a $40,000 price tag on it just so you don't have to pay a dime. They likely would have lost a ****load of sales as a result of such a tax scheme. You only see how such a scheme will benefit yourself and not how it would affect anyone or anything else. Such tunnelvision typically results in more harm than good in any circumstance. BTW, since your scheme is supposed to be an exercise in perfection, can you tell us just what nations in the world have anything similar that has been a boost to their economies or improved the quality of life of the lowest income earners as a result? Since you see the plan as an example of pure genius then it should be no problem at all for you to show us where in the world it has worked. Lastly, your "fair tax" would not eliminate the federal income tax nor would it eliminate state income taxes or any of the other municipal, county and state taxes. So your so called "fair tax" would simply be just another big money grab and all of the horse**** predictions about it increasing consumption and GDP etc is a load of pure crap. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
|
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
Tornado touched down near Shawnee,Oklahoma, killing four people.
cuhulin |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"Scout" wrote in
: "MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE" wrote in message 5.250... "Scout" "John Smith" On 5/24/2011 11:38 AM, RD Sandman wrote: John Smith On 5/24/2011 10:45 AM, gfn wrote: ... Impossible to implement. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html Regards, JS Yeah, a lot of things are "impossible", up until someone does it ... Let's put it another way.......the cost of a system to do that would be a magnitude more cost than any resultant tax received. You don't think things through very far, do you. Typical Democrat, if we can find a way to stick it to some wealthy guy, we don't give a damn what it costs. Flat tax ... with exemptions for those who can't afford housing, food, medical, etc. You say flat tax, and then turn right around and make it an unflat tax. You need to make up your mind which it's going to be. Flat or not. Space isn't flat, why should tax be? Prove space isn't flat. You do understand what a "theory" is, right? Not theory. Experimental fact without which GPS satellites would not keep the correct time. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...rs/970610.html What evidence is there that supports the theory of curved space? What does General Relativity predict about the shape of space-time near a large mass (eg, a star)? The Answer There has been experimental evidence for the curvature of spacetime by a massive object since the early part of this century (1922), when observers set out to test the predictions of general relativity. During a solar eclipse, they realized, the light from stars in the same general area of the sky as the Sun are visible during the day. If light from these stars is affected by the curvature of spacetime due to the Sun's mass, then this would be measurable as a deflection (or a change in location) of the star's position on the sky. The stars closer to the position of the Sun in the sky would suffer a larger deflection; in general the deflection would be proportion to the stars distance from the Sun's location on the sky. This effect was observed for 15 stars during the solar eclipse of 1922 in Western Australia, and was interpreted as observational verification of the predictions of general relativity. General relativity predicts that spherical masses deform spacetime in much the same way a lead ball would deform the surface of a rubber sheet. It is this deformation that causes the planets to orbit the Sun, and the Moon to orbit the Earth. In fact, all orbital motion is the result of bodies being affected by the curvature of the spacetime in which they move. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE" wrote in message 5.247... "Scout" wrote in : "MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE" wrote in message 5.250... "Scout" "John Smith" On 5/24/2011 11:38 AM, RD Sandman wrote: John Smith On 5/24/2011 10:45 AM, gfn wrote: ... Impossible to implement. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html Regards, JS Yeah, a lot of things are "impossible", up until someone does it ... Let's put it another way.......the cost of a system to do that would be a magnitude more cost than any resultant tax received. You don't think things through very far, do you. Typical Democrat, if we can find a way to stick it to some wealthy guy, we don't give a damn what it costs. Flat tax ... with exemptions for those who can't afford housing, food, medical, etc. You say flat tax, and then turn right around and make it an unflat tax. You need to make up your mind which it's going to be. Flat or not. Space isn't flat, why should tax be? Prove space isn't flat. You do understand what a "theory" is, right? Not theory. Experimental fact without which GPS satellites would not keep the correct time. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...rs/970610.html What evidence is there that supports the theory of curved space? What does General Relativity predict about the shape of space-time near a large mass (eg, a star)? The Answer There has been experimental evidence for the curvature of spacetime by a massive object since the early part of this century (1922), when observers set out to test the predictions of general relativity. Sorry, but you're attempting to prove curvature by measuring something else. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that relativity has nothing to do with "curved space" and is simply an "optical illusion" on the part of the observer. Much like a man might claim that a mirage is real, even though in reality it's just an illusion created by other forces. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
On May 24, 8:26*pm, First Post wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2011 12:40:15 -0700 (PDT), gfn wrote: On May 24, 3:00*pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote : 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. 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. * 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. *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. 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. Got news for you Einstein. *You have to bring in over $5800 for any of your income to be taxed. *The deductibles are as follows: * * $5,800 for unmarried taxpayers or married taxpayers filing separately, * * $11,600 for married taxpayers filing jointly, and * * $8,500 for taxpayers filing as head of household. The additional standard deduction allowed for blind taxpayers and senior citizens will be $1,150 if married filing jointly and $1,450 if single. And just how do you expect those in retail to determine how much to tax any individual? *Are you suggesting that everyone carry some special "rich guy" card around to show so they can get raped at the cashier? *Or maybe create a grand database and require everyone in retail to subscribe to it thus allowing them to know more about you than most people care to share? How about you just make everyone with over a $250,000 income sew a big gold dollar sign on their clothing so they'll be easier to spot and round up to put on the trains to the camps? Furthermore, your insane notion that I should pay over 42 cents on the dollar for any and all purchases I make simply because I am skilled and lucky enough to get a considerably larger paycheck than you do sounds more like typical class envy crap than anyhing that can be called "fair". Where did you come up with 42.7% *as being "fair"? Are you simply figuring on that percentage leveling the playing field to the point that no one will make anymore than the lowest paid in the country? *That might make you feel all warm and fuzzy but at the same time it would dramatically decrease any drive or desire for anyone to actually be successful in any field. *Who the hell wants to go to college and spend all that it takes to get a degree and go out and get a $100,000 or $200,000 a year paycheck when they could save their tuition and go get a job making tires and be able to keep the same $50,000 or so a year without worrying about giving half or more to the government? Tell you what hotshot. *I'll put up how much in income, sales, excise, property et al in taxes that I pay in a given year against what you pay in total and just see how "fair" it comes out to be in reality. Uncle Sam is already getting a quarter of my taxable income on top of the state, city and county getting another 10 to 15 percent in property, sales and other taxes. Yours is the typical "I know how much anyone really needs to live on" better than anyone else bull****. But go ahead. *Place a ridiculous sales tax on the items that the people you perceive as being wealthy purchase and watch your neighbors and friends and family suddenly wondering why they're getting laid off due to slow downs in sales of big ticket items that a lot of them get paid to make. Sure, the wealthy will continue to purchase the items that they really really want, but a lot of us aren't going to be jumping on a $10,000 item that will end up costing over $14,000 after sales tax alone. That's not how we managed to have anything in the bank in the first place. If your scheme were in place now then GM would have lost one sale that I know of as I will not pay no $57,000 for the truck that has a $40,000 price tag on it just so you don't have to pay a dime. *They likely would have lost a ****load of sales as a result of such a tax scheme. You only see how such a scheme will benefit yourself and not how it would affect anyone or anything else. Such tunnelvision typically results in more harm than good in any circumstance. BTW, since your scheme is supposed to be an exercise in perfection, can you tell us just what nations in the world have anything similar that has been a boost to their economies or improved the quality of life of the lowest income earners as a result? Since you see the plan as an example of pure genius then it should be no problem at all for you to show us where in the world it has worked. Lastly, your "fair tax" would not eliminate the federal income tax nor would it eliminate state income taxes or any of the other municipal, county and state taxes. * So your so called "fair tax" would simply be just another big money grab and all of the horse**** predictions about it increasing consumption and GDP etc is a load of pure crap. FP, you may want to go back and clarify just who and what you are responding to. I never suggested any 42% tax on anyone, John Smith did. I did suggest the FairTax, which is significantly different than what John Smith has been writing about. When you are ready to debate the merits of the FairTax, which assumes you understand what it is, then let's talk. First, you need to distinguish between what I propose and what Smith propose. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"Scout"
.... Much like a man might claim that a mirage is real, even though in reality it's just an illusion created by other forces. DEBT is no illusion, it is created by Politico's who are factually not held accountable. Such consequence is NOT inconsequential. http://www.libertylive.org/Uploads/T...ebt%20Star.jpg DEBTSTAR:: This is NOT the Hope you have been searching for. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE" wrote in message 5.250... "Scout" ... Much like a man might claim that a mirage is real, even though in reality it's just an illusion created by other forces. DEBT is no illusion, it is created by Politico's who are factually not held accountable. And so you snip the context, and return to your original argument. I acknowledge your inability to support your primis concerning taxation. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"Scout"
"MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE" "Scout" ... Much like a man might claim that a mirage is real, even though in reality it's just an illusion created by other forces. DEBT is no illusion, it is created by Politico's who are factually not held accountable. And so you snip the context, and return to your original argument. I acknowledge your inability to support your primis concerning taxation. MANFRED acknowledges your inability grasp the magnitude of the situation, regardless of how it came about (although, that-too is abundantly clear)... IOW. it is too late to change the situation with dreams and talk, the two choices are to enact a consumption tax which will hurt the lower-tiers, and businesses far-more, with longer lasting detrimental effects, than taking the view that like-space which is seemingly flat, but actually curves near large masses, SO-TOO must the flat tax take into consideration what is obstensively the least harm that can be done within the present circumstance. The Goal-Being to educate, and, if necessary, inflame, otherwise Good Men from their sonambulence, to a state of concern, if not out right action towards a resolution. DESERVE PEACE. DESERVE FREEDOM. DEMAND COMPETANCE. DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY. DEFEAT LIB STRATEGIC INSANITY. There is a causal link among all of these, it behooves good men to understand this, and to act in their own interests, to rebuild from the rubble, or forever allow gov't and their lesser Minions to reign over the ruins! LIBs. What Prices their VISION? --- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...2934894494.htm l The president's peace proposal is a formula for war. http://www.libertylive.org/Uploads/T...ebt%20Star.jpg This is NOT the HOPE you have been searching for. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in :
"RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in : "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote in news:irgik5$f2r$3@dont- email.me: 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 ... Oh, you mean one like this? A tax on *ALL* income no matter where derived. One deduction. Federal poverty level for a family of four and everybody gets that deduction. Have a tax rate of, say 15% and the current poverty level at $24K and we get the following: A person who earns up to $24K, pays nada... A person who earns $50K, pays $3,900 (50-24x15%) A person who earns $100K, pays $11,400 (100-24x15%) A person who earns $500K, pays $71,400 (500-24x15%) A person who earns a million pays $146,400 (1000-24x15%) That do it for you? . . If you add a $1,000 tax to the $50,000 guy he becomes homeless If you add a $1,000 tax to the $1,000,000 guy...he never notices it. That's what's UNFAIR. Nope, what's unfair is YOU expecting OTHERS to pay for what YOU want. The EFFECT on the wealthy taxpayer is nil. The EFFECT on the low income tax payer is catastrophic. Interestingly, no one is asking that $50K guy for that extra grand, but here you are whining that the million dollar guy won't as affected. The problem Democrats will have is that sometime they will run out of other people's money. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. That's what is unfair. A small increase of tax on a low earner is a huge burden The same increase on a wealthy person is INSIGNIFICANT. No one is asking for the same increase from both parties, you idiot. Besides if the low earner is really a low earner like the 45% who don't pay tax in the first place, how can you increase the tax on them. They still won't reach the AGI that pays taxes. Increasing the tax percentage doesn't do a damn thing to change their AGI. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
gfn wrote in
: 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. 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. * 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. *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. 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? -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142: gfn wrote in news:1394cfb3-097e-43d7-aadb- : 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. 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. * 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. *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 $900 left. So, again, how is that regressive. Three suggestions for you to find out why as well as any other questions you might have: 1) go visit fairtax.org and read it from front to back. Pay particular attention to the FAQ. 2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz. 3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics" It will all become crystal clear. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. Taxing income is wrong anyway. You are stealing the fruit of ones labor, like a lord of the old days taking 20% of your harvest. Yer a pinko. No tax on income. Tax imports, outsourced jobs and Democrats. LOL!! -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
John Smith wrote in
: On 5/24/2011 12:05 PM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in news:irgufi$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. Of course, even with a flat tax certain safeguards would have to be in place from preventing criminals from crimes which would allow them to ignore the taxes. See Al Capone. For example, a case where they made their dollars here and bought only foreign goods in mexico or canada ... it is a given, as soon as any fix, situation, solution, etc. is enacted, the criminals will come crawling out from under their rocks attempting to avoid it ... some of these safeguards to prevent this will have to be worked out as we catch the criminals ... Unfortunately, every discussion must begin on the premise that everyone is capable of realizing "common sense." At the bottom of the fair tax or fair tax is the real intent and sole purpose that all contribute equally and in direct relationship to how much they profit from business here. Just how is your fair tax different from your scenarios above. After all, you said folks would by only foreign goods from outside the US which avoids your fair tax. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"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...... -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
John Smith wrote in
: On 5/24/2011 11:57 AM, gfn wrote: On May 24, 2:51 pm, John wrote: On 5/24/2011 11:46 AM, gfn wrote: On May 24, 2:16 pm, John wrote: 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. I did that yesterday in my very first post to you. Thanks in advance, JS I don't see any data posted, but then, I didn't expect to see any ... we both knew that. Regards, JS You don't see data posted? What part aren't you grasping? From line 1, page 1: Percentiles Ranked by AGI: Top 1% Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid: 38.02 John, this isn't rocket science. Yeah, I can tell, you missed the whole point of the discussion, went full circle and are back on the limited range of tax -- income tax. This ignores all other taxes including fines, fees, licenses, property tax, sales taxes, excise taxes, fuel taxes, cell phone taxes, electricity/water/sewer taxes, etc., etc., etc. Those are sales or use taxes and are paid regardless of income, ergo, they are regressive in nature and do not fall on the rich as much as they do on the poor. However, there is really no way to fix that based on income which is what you are trying to do. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com