"Scout" wrote in
:



"Gray Ghost" wrote in message
. 97.142...
gfn wrote in
news:c373b161-64c5-4059-8812-505c1c48b2f6@
16g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:

On May 28, 10:28 am, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message


m...









On May 27, 12:49 pm, Gray Ghost
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:a3818cb8-5698-4e24-8be3-
:

On May 27, 12:35 pm, Gray Ghost grey_ghost471-newsgro...
@yahoo.com
wrote:
gfn wrote in news:9cf9a67a-cb3c-4cd1-a678-
4e47e0379641
@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

On May 26, 6:19 pm, Gray Ghost grey_ghost471-newsgro...
@yahoo.co
m
wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:f287e735-90d5-42c1-a14d-
55a606092fd9
@
28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:

wholesale = $50
compliance costs = - $23
FairTax = $23
sales and other taxes = $27

Unless they changed the rules of math by Congressionl
decree
that's
$123.

You can refer to my math, in return I will refer to your
readi
ng
comprehension. Was there something about "- $23" (read
minu
s
$23)
that you didn't get? I guess the example wasn't simple
enou
gh
for
you.

Didn't see any minuses in there. You think compliance
costs are just
goin
g
to away?

Yes I do. As do the economists that examined the plan and
the
way
market forces work.

--
Herman Cain for President! http://her
mancai
n.c
om/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that
Obama
h
ad
as
muc
h
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have
THAT much
competence?

And economists are never mistaken, cough-cough, hack-hack.

Of course not. They've told us over and over again how our
curren
t
tax system would fully fund the government.

--
Herman Cain for President! http://herman
cain.c
om/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that
Obama had
as
muc
h
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have
THAT
muc
h
competence?

Exactly my point.

But you are perfectly fine with maintaining a system that
currently falls well short of funding the federal government?

Given the tax and spend attitude, NO amount of taxation will feed
the
bea
st.
Even under Clinton will tax increases and a massive increase in
revenue
d
ue
to a booming economy, the federal government still managed to
invent new
and
wonderful ways to spend absolutely everything it got and still
needed to borrow even more.

The problem is a lack of control on spending, not on the level of
taxatio
n.

Exactly. That's why something like the FT is revenue neutral. It's
a mechanism to maintain current levels of tax revenue. Controlling
spending is a completely different issue.


And it's pointless going through the exercise of changing the
collection method if spending doesn't change.

Further, let's assume for a moment that there is a net "savings" for
people under the new tax structure.....wouldn't that seem to be a
justification for the government to simply raise the tax rate so as to
maintain current spending levels with smaller deficits, thus negating
anything that his plan might gain?




One reason why simply adding taxes doesn't fix anything. It really never
gets applied to current programs and their overruns.

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

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

"Scout" wrote in
:



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

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Scout" wrote in
:



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

"gfn" wrote in message
.
com ...
On May 27, 7:28 pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
"Scout" wrote
:











"gfn" wrote in message

s.c om..
.
On May 26, 6:52 pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
Gray Ghost wrote
6.97.142:

gfn wrote in
news:f287e735-90d5-42c1-a14d-55a606092fd9@
28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:

wholesale = $50
compliance costs = - $23
FairTax = $23
sales and other taxes = $27

Unless they changed the rules of math by Congressionl
decree that's
$123.

You can refer to my math, in return I will refer to your
reading comprehension. Was there something about "- $23"
(read minus $23) that you didn't get? I guess the
example wasn't simple enough for you.

Didn't see any minuses in there. You think compliance
costs are just going to away?

No, he thinks that the fair tax will replace them as they
will no longer be needed. He mainly needs to use more
accurate numbers and understand that he cannot subtract 23%
from an item's cost, add stuff to it and still have it be
23% when he puts it back in place. Either his first 23% is
in error or the second one is.

$22 million in research says otherwise. On average, every
good and service you buy contains 23% in embedded costs.
Those will go away as market forces take hold. That 23% is
replaced by the FairTax. Guys, this isn't that hard.

Ok, HOW exactly are these embedded costs going to just go
away?

Do you think cost of compliance with EPA regulations is going
to be eliminated simply because you add yet another tax?

And where is the information that those costs total up to 23% of
the product cost. Tis awfully suspicious that the costs removed
equal the new costs put in when the new costs include all that
federal tax revenue that is currently being gathered.

Personal income tax - 45%
Payroll Taxes - 36%
Corporate income tax - 12%
Excise taxes - 3%
Other - 4%

http://tinyurl.com/6sdrrr

Some of those costs were already in the product cost so they
didn't go away.

I have no problem with the Fair Tax being calculated at 23% to
gather all
that stuff in. The problem I have is the claim that the cost
for that stuff was 23% of the original product cost. That is
the only way to add 23% tax and come up with the original cost
for the product.

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

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

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax. Specifically, the
section headed "Theories of retail pricing".

Wrongly titled the "Fair" tax should be labeled the "Unfair" tax.
Totally regressive it excuses the wealthiest among us.

Sid isn't happy unless it's getting stuck to the wealthy to support
his poor ass.




Begorra, methinks you figgered it out.


.
.
I'm not poor.

I ride the tax gravy train same as you do.

Hmmmmm...

So why aren't you sending more of your money in?

I mean according to your assertions you're not paying enough in taxes,
so why don't you make a check out to the IRS for the extra that you
think you deserve to pay?

Are you telling us you're a hypocrite who refuses to pay as much in
taxes as he says he should?

Seems most of them are.

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

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

On May 28, 9:47*am, "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote:

On May 28, 2:14*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in message

...











"RD Sandman" wrote in message
.. .
"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote :

"gfn" wrote in message
..
..
On May 27, 7:28 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
"Scout" wrote
:

"gfn" wrote in message

m..
.
On May 26, 6:52 pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
Gray Ghost wrote
6.97.142:

gfn wrote in
news:f287e735-90d5-42c1-a14d-55a606092fd9@
28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:

wholesale = $50
compliance costs = - $23
FairTax = $23
sales and other taxes = $27

Unless they changed the rules of math by Congressionl decree
that's
$123.

You can refer to my math, in return I will refer to your
reading comprehension. *Was there something about "- $23"
(read minus $23) that you didn't get? *I guess the example
wasn't simple enough for you.

Didn't see any minuses in there. You think compliance costs
are just going to away?

No, he thinks that the fair tax will replace them as they will
no longer be needed. He mainly needs to use more accurate
numbers and understand that he cannot subtract 23% from an
item's cost, add stuff to it and still have it be 23% when he
puts it back in place. Either his first 23% is in error or the
second one is.

$22 million in research says otherwise. *On average, every good
and service you buy contains 23% in embedded costs. *Those will
go away as market forces take hold. *That 23% is replaced by the
FairTax. Guys, this isn't that hard.

Ok, HOW exactly are these embedded costs going to just go away?

Do you think cost of compliance with EPA regulations is going to
be eliminated simply because you add yet another tax?

And where is the information that those costs total up to 23% of the
product cost. *Tis awfully suspicious that the costs removed equal
the new costs put in when the new costs include all that federal tax
revenue that is currently being gathered.

Personal income tax *- 45%
Payroll Taxes * * * *- 36%
Corporate income tax - 12%
Excise taxes * * * * - *3%
Other * * * * * * * *- *4%

http://tinyurl.com/6sdrrr

Some of those costs were already in the product cost so they didn't
go away.

I have no problem with the Fair Tax being calculated at 23% to
gather all that stuff in. *The problem I have is the claim that the
cost for that stuff was 23% of the original product cost. *That is
the only way to add 23% tax and come up with the original cost for
the product.

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

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

Go tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax. *Specifically, the
section headed "Theories of retail pricing".

Wrongly titled the "Fair" tax should be labeled the "Unfair" tax.
Totally regressive it excuses the wealthiest among us.

Actually, it evens some stuff out. *As he has noted, it is a sales tax
applied to purchases. *The wealthy tend to purchase more items and ones
with a higher cost than poor folk do. *After all, how many poor folk
purchase a 50' yacht from Broward Marine or Eggf Harbor? *The tax is
based on the selling price of an item and is the same on all items.

Ergo, those who buy more items or more expensive ones will pay more tax.

On May 27, 2:13*pm, gfn wrote:
- Yes it does.
-*The 23% is the embedded compliance "costs".
-*I'll try this one last time.
-*23% of every item you buy is composed
- embedded costs passed on in the price of
- the product associated with compliance of
- paying federal income and payroll taxes,
- including personal, gift, estate, capital
- gains, alternative minimum, Social Security/
- Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.
-*Those are "costs".
-*When the FairTax is implemented those costs
- go away.
-*I won't re-hash why.
- But, those costs go away and are replaced
- by the FairTax.
-*In it's simplest terms it removes 23% of
- embedded compliance costs, then turns
- right around and adds 23% tax.
-*Thus, the cost if the item is the same.
-*I can't make it any more simple then that.
-*If you can't figure that out then maybe you
- need to stay with the current tax system.

1st - The So Called Fair-Tax By Itself Ain't Fair
-that's-the-honest-truth- -that's-the-honest-truth-

2nd - The So Called Fair-Tax By Itself Ain't Fair
-that's-the-honest-truth- -that's-the-honest-truth-

3rd - The So Called Fair-Tax By Itself Ain't Fair
-that's-the-honest-truth- -that's-the-honest-truth-

Missouriah River will be flooding purt soon.Snow melt water and rain
water.
http://www.rense.com
cuhulin

On May 28, 2:10*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
wrote in message

...









On May 27, 2:53 pm, "Scout"
wrote:
wrote in message

....

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 ...

Clearly, then, you should go plonk yourself.

3 people who all said basically the same thing. Seems John should buy a
clue.

Yeah, sorry about the redundancy; I should have read through the rest
of the thread before responding.

Not worried about the redundancy, but simply suggesting to John when that
many people independently tell him the same thing....he might want to buy a
clue about how people view him.

Mr. Smith appears to be the sort who cannot admit a mistake. While
this appears to be a common trait on UseNet, he took it to an
interesting level: when it was pointed out that his variable sales
tax proposal (7% for the common smuck, 47% for rich folks) was
unworkable outside of a totalitarian state, he questioned the
intelligence of those that questioned his assertions, and wondered why
they didn't know he was talking about a flat tax. What?

In other words, unless you look good in blue, don't hold your breath
waiting for Mr. Smith to become clued in.

On May 28, 8:01 pm, "Scout"
wrote: