wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 May 2011 18:44:10 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:

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

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

You're still not gettng it

Compared to what they have, and/or make, it's nothing

The "burden" to the lowest income is significant compared to what they
make.

Really? I've seen no data that shows the relative burden is any less for the
wealthy.

Maybe you can show that to me?

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 May 2011 18:44:10 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:


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

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

$900 for a low income in taxes is almost 90% of what they have over
what it takes to live on

Let's see about that shall we...

Poverty level (ability to survive) is $24,000

Which means he's $6,000 above that.

Of which he pays $900 in taxes

or....15% of what they have over what it takes to live on.

So where did you get 90%? Pull it out of your ass?



$146,000 to an Income on $1 million has virtually no affect on their
ability to survive.

Depends on their expenses doesn't it? Certainly I've heard of millionaires
going bankrupt and as such it would seem these taxes could certainly play a
part in that just like anyone else living beyond their means.



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

Only in dollar amount--not what burden it has on the earner.

Really? How exactly do you determine the burden if not by the dollar amount?

One person is effectively paying 3% of his income in taxes, the other is
paying 14.6%. Seems to me the burden on the rich is higher, assuming his
lifestyle is also proportional to his income.

Oh, but that's right, you don't want people who busted their ass to get
ahead to have any benefits for doing so.

If there is no benefit for getting ahead, why would you bust your ass to do
so?

On May 25, 12:38*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
" wrote :









On May 24, 10:45*am, gfn wrote:
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 k
eep
attempting to push?

Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying 42%
of al
l of
governments costs, and sure looks like the top 19% are not
paying ha
lf
of governments costs, until that happens they are NOT paying
their f
air
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
i
s
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.

It *might* be possible to implement - in a totalitarian state. *The
government would have to always know what your worth (in terms of
wealth) is at all times, and exactly what you purchase throughout the
year, and when.

Yikes.

I suspect that such a system would encourage a black market or two.

And a MASSIVE tracking system on the income status of over 300 million
people. *Think BIG BROTHER in real time.

Hence my remark that such a system would require a totalitarian state.


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

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

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 May 2011 13:10:54 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

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

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



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


Well, aside from you "saying it", there is no validity in your
nonsense

Anyone who believes that a poor single mother should be taxed the same
rate as a Billionaire or CEO raking in $200 Million is a ****ing
idiot.

So what is your proposal for a fair tax?

Stick it to the rich guy because well, he's rich and worked to get where he
is?

On May 25, 5:08*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message

...









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

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

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

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

The point you ignored is that your suggested system - "Let me put
this
more bluntly. If I buy and item and pay 7% sales tax, the top one
percent should buy an item and pay a 42.7% sales tax, that way they
will be contributing their fair share to run government ..." - is
either impossible to implement, or requires a dictatorship.
...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So much for sales tax then.

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

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

Regards,
JS

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

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

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

Not true, things could be a lot worse, but they could also be better.

No, read what he wrote: "Anything which is better than what we have
now will be better".

Admittedly, this could go for the Obvious Statement of the Decade
Award and blow away the competition.

On May 25, 5:51*pm, "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote:
"RD Sandman" wrote in message

... "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth..net wrote :

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
. ..
Gray Ghost wrote in
96.97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
1:

"Scout" wrote in
:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/24/2011 12:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John *wrote in
:

On 5/24/2011 11:40 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
John * wrote in
:

On 5/24/2011 10:47 AM, gfn wrote:
...
Sure it is. *It gives a clear, concise and true picture of
who
pays the federal income tax burden in this country. *If you
want to talk about all taxes and all revenue that goes to the
government then your right. *I know of no place that compiles
that data. ...
OK. *Then, please cut and paste the relevant parts here, I
need
them pointed out to me.
If you can't understand the date presented at that site, you
have no hope of understanding any data presented to you. *Which
explains some of your ideas.....
If it is so simple, as you pretend, it would be no problem ...
you are attempting a circular argument ...

Just post something which proves your point ... if you can, from
the site you are claiming explains it openly ... DUH!
I didn't make that claim, however, here is the data:

2008

Top 1% * * AGI$380,354 * Percentage 38.02
Top 5% * * AGI$159,619 * Percentage 58.72
Top 10% * *AGI$113,799 * Percentage 69.94
Top 25% * *AGI$ 67,280 * Percentage 86.34
Top 50% * *AGI$ 33,048 * Percentage 97.30
Bottom 50% AGI$ 33,048 * Percentage *2.70

2007

Top 1% * * AGI$410,096 * Percentage 40.42
Top 5% * * AGI$160,041 * Percentage 60.63
Top 10% * *AGI$113,018 * Percentage 71.22
Top 25% * *AGI$ 66,532 * Percentage 86.59
Top 50% * *AGI$ 32,879 * Percentage 97.11
Bottom 50% AGI$ 32,879 * Percentage *2.89

Here is the site:

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

The Virginian-Pilot
� May 15, 2011
By Don Tabor

Who really pays the baker's taxes? The baker may write the check,
but he does not bear the cost, and in that paradox lies the cause
of much of the bitter partisanship and polarization that poisons
our political process. But to understand that problem, we must
consider how taxes are applied to the production of goods and
services.

So, how does the loaf of bread the baker sells come to market?

A farmer grew and harvested wheat for sale to the miller to be
made into flour for the baker. The farmer paid income taxes based
on his profit from the sale and property tax on his farm and
equipment. Those taxes were, from his point of view, just another
cost of doing business in the course of earning his living, no
different from fuel for his tractor or wages and taxes for
employees.

Since every other farmer had roughly the same expenses and taxes,
the price they charge the miller must cover their expenses and
taxes, plus their after-tax disposable income and savings.
Otherwise, there would be no point in growing wheat. All of these
costs and taxes were passed on to the miller, embedded in the
price of wheat.

Likewise, when the miller sold the flour ground from the wheat to
the baker, his taxes, plus the income and Social Security taxes
he
withheld from his employees, plus the farmer's taxes, were all
passed on to the baker.

The baker then sold his bread made from the flour, carrying with
it his own taxes plus those of his employees, plus all those
previous taxes from the farmer, miller and their employees,
hidden
in the price of that loaf of bread. The buyer and his family ate
the bread, and, having done so, could not sell it to anyone else
and pass the taxes along, as the baker and everyone else before
had done.

So, it is the consumer who paid the baker's taxes, along with the
farmer's taxes, the miller's taxes and the taxes they withheld
from all of their employees. From bread to automobiles to brain
surgery, the price of everything we buy carries in it the hidden
taxes of everyone who contributed to the production of that
product or service to the tune of, on average, 23 cents of every
dollar we spend for federal taxes alone.

Our complex, pervasive and expensive tax code is, in reality, a
scheme to draft businesses and individuals as unpaid and
unknowing
tax collectors to gather a hidden sales tax and to keep voters
from realizing who really bears the burden of those high taxes.

There is no way around this central reality that all income and
business taxes are a deception and that all taxes are eventually
paid by the consumer, hidden in the price of goods and services.
It doesn't matter what tax rate is applied to which tax bracket,
or what deductions you receive. These devices change only the
degree to which you are a tax collector, but the burden taxes
place on your life depends solely on what you spend.

Paying this hidden consumption tax is unavoidable, but the
illusion of income-based taxing does a great deal of harm. First,
it distorts our economic decisions. Goods and services that are
provided by highly taxed individuals and companies, like health
care, are artificially more expensive than necessary, while raw
materials and natural resources are underpriced, leading to
overconsumption and waste.

But even worse, these hidden taxes distort the political process,
encouraging government overspending by politicians who exploit
the
mistaken belief of many voters that government spending can be
paid for solely by taxing corporations or the "rich." All of the
exploitation of envy and demagoguery - which brings so much ill
will to our politics and drives wedges between Americans who
would
be better served by mutual respect and compassion - is ultimately
the meaningless exploitation of a lie.

Our income tax system, with its escalating marginal rates,
appears
progressive, but the reality is extremely regressive. Currently,
the lower income 45 percent of wage earners may pay no income tax
directly, but in reality, with their FICA taxes added to the
hidden embedded tax, their true federal tax burden is almost 30
percent of their meager income.

Voters might well choose differently were they aware that
government spending is ultimately paid for by everyone, through
an
invisible sales tax disguised as a high cost of living.

Guest columnist Don Tabor of Chesapeake is a grandfather,
Libertarian activist and proprietor of TidewaterLiberty.com. He
is
a dentist in Norfolk and Hampton.

A flat tax, and NO OTHER TAXES! *PERIOD!

Agreed. A flat tax. Mr A buys a product he pays the same tax as Mr..
B.

Mr. A pays the same rate of taxes on his income that Mr. B does.

No exceptions, no exclusions, except those which apply to ALL.

If you're going to exempt Mr. A housing, food, medical, then Mr B
gets the exact same exemptions.

Otherwise, it's not a flat tax.

And it won't fix the problem he is whining about....which is the
rich
not paying a hundred times what the poor do.

And truthfully you never will. It is childish whining to think so.
The
best you can hope for is that everyone pays the same percentage
without a plethora of deductions and weasel outs.

Which is what my flat tax proposal does.

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

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

Paying the "same percentage" is not fair.

The BURDEN is much less on the wealthy.

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

.
.
They pay the aggregate of most of the money and it has far less impact on
their lives than the ordinary working American.
To that extent it's unfair.

The progressive income tax, restored by removing the inequities that have
been put there by the wealthy, would fix it.

Serious question: restored to what point in time? Please keep in
mind that the income tax has been tinkered with on a regular basis
since it came into existence.

Restoring the inheritance tax to eliminate the loop holes that have neutered
it would help, too.

Neither the Bushes, the Harrimans, the Kennedys, nor the Rockefellers heirs
got poor because of this tax.

Then remove the caps from the SS tax and the Medicare tax.....


The cap for Medicare was removed in the mid 1990's.

The cap (wage base) for Social Security is used to limit both the
income that is taxed, and the benefit derived. Would you also remove
the cap from the benefit?

Voila! No more fiscal problems!

Then cut the **** out of the military budget.

On 5/25/2011 8:00 PM, wrote:

...
Hence my remark that such a system would require a totalitarian state.


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

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


Don't forget, we plonk fools here ...

.... plonk ...

Regards,
JS

On May 25, 10:29*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 5/25/2011 8:00 PM, wrote:

...
Hence my remark that such a system would require a totalitarian state.

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

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

Don't forget, we plonk fools here ...

... * plonk * ...

Regards,
JS

Plonkers Don't Let Plonkers Post BS !
-friends-don't-let-friends-drive-drunk-

gfn wrote in
:

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.

The luxury
tax would have been a tax on top of that.

And to cover the loss of revenue from the income tax being removed, it is
also added into that Fair Tax number.

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.

Which means that someone, somewhere needs to know your income.

*Every household


No, they just need to know how many people are in your household.
That determines the prebate, not one's income.

How do you you receive that prebate? Do you get a check every month?

receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential
goods and services.

I looked at the prebate schedule. *Where in there does income come
into it for that poverty level? *

It doesn't. Nor does it need to. It only needs to figure what the
cost of essential goods and services are for a family of X number of
people. A family of four that makes $100,000 requires the same
essential goods and services as a family of four that makes $50,000.

And how is that prebate received?

From what I see, it is based on number of
adults and number of dependents.


Correct, that's all that is needed.

*Second, per my example an item that costs $100 today still costs
$100
under the FairTax.

* If that's regressive then sign me

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

Not on a flat tax like I proposed. *The difference is slight,
depending on your income, but it is there.


Not sure I follow. If taxpayer A makes less than taxpayer B, assuming
both buy the exact same thing then taxpayer A is always going to pay
more of a percentage of their income for buying something.

My flat income tax proposal is on income not goods.

The FairTax is a replacement

for the income tax.

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

Yeah....and they both accomplish the same thing. *The FairTax is
better because a flat tax still involves taxing income which
then leads to exemptions, deductions, and keeps the 16th
amendment in place as well as the IRS, and I can go on and on
about the pitfalls of our current tax system.

A flat tax on income replaces the current tax system. *If properly
administered it only has ONE deduction and that is poverty level
wages for a family of four. *Everyone gets that ONE deduction, or
exemption if
you prefer, and no other. *You can do your tax on a postcard.

Under the FairTax you don't have to worry about deductions or
exemptions. *You don't even have to do your taxes on a postcard
because there is nothing to do. *April 15 would be just another
beautiful spring day.

Here's the problem with the flat tax, it retains the invasive
income tax administration apparatus and can easily revert to a
graduated, convoluted mess, as it has many times over many years.

And your fair tax needs to know number of adults in the household
along with number of dependents. *

Correct. Again as it should. That's how the prebate is determined.

And how is that prebate handled? There is really nothing in the proposal
that indicates that.

There is also nothing there that prevents it
from becoming another convoluted mess. *Congress can **** up a
bowling ball.


Yes, congress can **** up a bowling ball. In fact, the first
implementation of our current tax system was just a handful of
progressive tax brackets (several flat taxes if you will),

Prograssive tax brackets do not a flat tax make.

with no
exemptions, no deductions, etc. And look what happened. There is no
reason to believe a flat tax would wind up going back to the
convoluted mess we have now.

I think you meant to say "wouldn't". Anyway, there is no reason to
believe that a Fair Tax wouldn't either.

Plus, you would still have a tax code,
the IRS, the 16th Amendment, compliance costs, and on and on and on.
Under the FairTax the tax code – gone, IRS – gone, 16th Amendment –
gone, compliance costs – gone.

That said, congress can raise the FairTax rate just as it could raise
the flat tax rate or can and does raise the income tax rate. The
current income tax is effectively hidden.

So are the costs contained in the Fair Tax. I saw no provision for
showing them.

It's just taken every
paycheck and I bet 99% of workers don't even know how much is being
taken out every week. Out of sight out of mind.

That would effectively be the same with the Fair Tax. You would have it
taken out on every purchase but no indication of what all was in it in
what amounts.

They just accept
that government takes it.

Same with your sales tax.

Purposely designed that way by government.
The FairTax is highly visible (displayed on your receipt) and there is
only one tax rate.

That isn't the problem. Taxpayers DO know what is in their income tax.
They do not know what portion of that Fair Tax is the replacement for
income tax, what portion is corporate taxes, what portion is government
taxes for whatever purpose when Congress changes the percentage of the
Fair Tax.

Changing that will be harder for congress to do.
Why? Because the FairTax affects EVERYBODY. The income tax does
not. Right now, almost 50% of workers pay no federal income tax.

The only folks who would pay no federal income tax under my proposal
would be those who income was below the federally declared poverty line
for a family of four and EVERYBODY gets that one and only deduction.

It's easy for them to say raise taxes on the top 50% that actually
pay.

No, it isn't or Obama would have done it in lieu of extending the Bush
taxcuts.

Raising the FairTax means raising it on them too. Good luck to
any politician trying that.

As does raising the income tax percentages or do you think politicians
make less than the poverty level?

*In addition, a

large part of the burden of the flat tax -- the business tax --
will remain hidden from people in the retail price of goods and
services.

This is an interesting point since there are supposedly intelligent
folks in this newsgroup that don't understand that all businesses end
up passing all their costs to the consumer in the price of the
product or service. *If they don't, after awhile they go under.

Under a flat tax, individuals would still file an income tax return
each year. *Postcard or not, it's still a return. While this is a
simple postcard, the record keeping requirement is still there.
Under the FairTax, individuals never file a tax return again, ever!

Federally, that could be true, however, when looking at state and
local taxes, it is bull****.


Not could be…would be. There would be no federal filing.

Which isn't done with state and local taxes anyway. They currently get
used as a deduction on federal income tax, but even though there is no
federal income tax, they still need to do state taxes. All they have
saved is entering a number.

But, to
your larger point, the FairTax is a replacement to the federal income
tax, not state income taxes.

Which is what I said.

Federal taxes are what is at issue
here. So, what would you rather do on 4/15? File federal, state and
local tax forms; or just a state and local?

When I do my federal taxes, TurboTax, for example, also does my state
taxes. The extra time for the state tax is about 5 minutes.

*Under

the flat tax, the payroll tax would be retained and income tax
withholding would still be with us.

Yep.

Under the FairTax, the payroll
tax, which is a larger and more regressive tax burden for most
Americans than is the income tax, is repealed.

No, actually, it isn't. *It is simply placed in the Fair Tax.


And once the FairTax is implemented none of that is withheld from your
paycheck.

My point was that it was still there. You just don't see it or really
know how much it is.

With the exception of state and/or local withholding you
keep 100% of your check. So, the payroll tax that is now effectively
incorporated into the FairTax is paid by you only when you buy a new
good or service. It's not automatically withheld from your pay. YOU
decide when to pay it. Not the government. So, where's the downside
to that?

Knwing what is in it and how much each entity is. For example, assume
your percentage of 23%. Now, certain corporate taxes get changed. Your
Fair Tax rate has to change to cover that. So now, this year it is 24.5%.
How does the consumer know which changed.....the income tax portion, the
corporate portion, the FICA portion, the whatever portion?

Under the FairTax, what

you earn is what you keep. No more withholding taxes; no more
income tax.

Just more taxes on the point of sale while all taxes from state and
local governments remains intact.


You are not accounting for the removal of the 23% built in costs that
YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING on every good and service that you buy (that
government doesn't even get, by the way – just wasted dollars).

Yes, I am and it isn't 23% or the Fair Tax could not be 23% and cover all
those costs plus the amount currently from income taxes or FICA.

FWIW, all costs of doing business are placed in the price of the product
or service that is produced. Anyone who doesn't understand that won't
understand either your Fair Tax or my flat income tax proposal.

When
those built in costs go away you are back to the same price.

Not really. You have added additional taxes to that proposal in the form
on income tax replacement and FICA and federal sales taxes which were
part of certain purchases.

See my
previous example.



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?

snip......

Same taxpayer......buys $100 worth of groceries.....pays $123 for
them.

Stop right there. *That's incorrect. *Under the FairTax the $100 of
groceries will still cost $100. *There's no need to even go any
further with your example.

I was speaking of the actual worth of the product. *Yes, there are
business taxes, etc.. in there but one cannot generate a new tax
without adding to what is already there. *So a product which today
costs $100 plus city and state sales taxes will now cost the
difference between the 23% sales tax and the old taxes on the product
plus city and state sales taxes. *What you have done is taken the
taxes previously included the product price and moved them into your
Fair Tax in addition to the hit on that tax replacing federal income
taxes and FICA.


Nope. The item that costs $100 today will still cost $100. Here's
why. The built in compliance costs are, on average, 23%.

Then where did you put the replacement for the income tax? It has to be
there or the feds are missing a major, major part of their revenue.

Take that
away and your $100 now costs $77 (which already include the state and
city taxes you mention). Replace those compliance costs with the
FairTax and you are back to $100.

See above.

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
incom
e
o
n
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.

I have.


mmmmmmm okay....

2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz.

Why? *If they can't explain it on their website..........


Boortz and Linder didn't create the web site. They are advocates of
the FairTax and have their own writing on this. You can fit a whole
lot more into a book than you can a website. You really need to read
the book. You will not regret it.

3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics"

It will all become crystal clear.

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

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

Been there, read it.


Not all of it then because many of the questions you asked that I'm
replying to come right from the web site.

Look, I'm with you that a flat tax would be better than the current
system. *Problem is that it, as opposed to something like the
FairTax
,
leaves itself open to far more manipulation than the FairTax. *The
ta
x
code itself is evidence of just that.

Are you trying to say that Congress cannot **** with the Fair Tax as
much as they can **** with a flat tax? *I don't think so.


That's exactly what I'm saying and I explained why above.

LOL!!

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

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

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

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 rdsandman@comcast
[remove].net
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?



Ask John Kerry.


YOu mean after claiming everyone should pay their fair burden, he
moors
his yacht where the taxes are much less than if he moors it at home?


Indeed.


Oh, plus registration in other than his home state.

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

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