Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

"Scout" wrote in
:



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

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

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

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

2008

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

2007

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

Here is the site:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A flat tax, and NO OTHER TAXES! PERIOD!

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

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

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

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

Otherwise, it's not a flat tax.




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


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

Which is what my flat tax proposal does.

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

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



--
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
:

" wrote in
news:c3320493-53c4-474c-b720-3f6944f4ad00
@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

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.




Isn't that what we are trying to get away from? I don't much like the
government reviewing my personal financial information. Privacy and all
that.


Then a sales tax that proportions its charges on income is not the
answer.

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

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

John Smith wrote in
:

On 5/25/2011 12:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in news: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
...

I said crooks will always attempt to avoid this.

If you are going to keep dodging the questions put to you, there really
isn't much sense continuing this.


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

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

gfn wrote in
:

On May 25, 3:46*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
John Smith wrote

:

On 5/24/2011 1:44 PM, Dave LaRue wrote:
...
Well, it is impossible for you to be smart, you retard.
You can't do otherwise, you retard.

You are like dog **** on the shoe ...

And, nothing but personal attacks, opinions, etc.

... * sad, so very, very sad ...

Perhaps it you paid some attention to what it would take to implement
suc
h
a system and what it would cost in freedom, etc.. then perhaps folks
wouldn't be so hard on you. *Instead you simply seem to wish to deal
on emotion.


Liberals can't connect the dots of freedom and implementation of his
unworkable plan. You nailed it when you mentioned "emotion". But,
that's how liberals react. Not with logic or thought, but emotion.


Ahhh, you noticed that.....

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

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

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

RD Sandman wrote in
:

"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.

....and why ...radio.shortwave...? more obsolete thinking!

wrote in message
news
On Wed, 25 May 2011 14:07:09 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Besides if the low earner is really a low earner like the 45% who don't
pay tax in the first place

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 talking about tax on income, which the wealth class can affect
more than a burger flipper

Actually the wealthy would be affected more since the poverty level
deduction is negligible for their income, but a significant part of the
income of your burger flipper.

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%

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

In fact none of your objections have had any merit since your complaint
seems to be that unless we stick to the wealthy then it's impossible.

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

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"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.

I gave an example of how the same number (dollars) has a different affect
on people of different wealth.


So did I. Your low wage earner would have (after taxes) and increase in
income of 13%, while the wealth class would have an increase in wealth of
less than 1%.

Sure, the tax is more significant to the low wage earner, but the boost in
income is also more significant as well.

You wish to ignore that half of the equation.

Why is that?



You didn’t understand it.....what's the word you used....you idiot!

"gfn" wrote in message
...
On May 25, 3:18 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
:









On May 24, 3:00 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:fafaebf4-7788-4906-a699-839c2c5dac6b@
s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

On May 24, 2:34 pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:5111f00d-80ed-4513-9bae-c9a63b5cdb40@
x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

On May 24, 1:23 pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:75946acf-fb50-4a71-9677-e0b1afec14b0
@w19g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

On May 24, 11:24 am, John Smith wrote:
On 5/24/2011 8:20 AM, gfn wrote:

...

Where are some credible souces to back up any of that
innuendo you
keep
attempting to push?

Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying
42% of all
of
governments costs, and sure looks like the top 19% are not
paying half of governments costs, until that happens they
are NOT paying their
fair
share ... a flat tax can fix that ...

Regards,
JS

I already said the tax data is at irs.gov

Now, as for a flat tax I agree with you 100%. The one I
advocate is the FairTax.

That is not a flat tax, it is a sales tax.

It's a sales tax but it is flat. It's a flat 23%.

You had better spend some time learning what a flat tax is.

I'm perfectly familiar with a flat tax.

Not sure about that since it has nothing to do with sales.

Sure I do. The "flat tax" has the government deriving its revenue
from the income tax.

Yep....at a flat rate for everybody.


As does the FairTax. Best part is the consumer pays it only when they
buy something. They decide when to pay it, not when the government
decides you owe it on payday.

The FairTax is related because it is a flat sales

tax that generates revenue from sales. It replaces the income tax as
the method of funding government. If you fully understand the FairTax
you will see exactly where I am coming from.

Then to keep it from becoming regressive you must drop that sales tax
from certain items, like food, housing, public transportation, gasoline,
etc.. or you end up with the poor paying a much larger percentage of
their income on those taxes than the wealthy.


Nope, There are two reasons why it's not regressive. First, people
pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level. Every household
receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods
and services.

How exactly do you determine what are "essential goods and services" never
mind how much such "essential goods and services" a particular household
requires?

Let's take an example.

A poor family is an old but well insulated house. High effeciency heating
system. Pays $200 for heating.

Another poor family in a old, uninsulated and drafty house with an old
heating system. Pays $450 for heating.

Do you effectively impose a tax on one poor family and/or pay the other for
non-essential goods and services?

Because what would be essential for one family might be nothing more than a
luxury for the other.

So, please define for me exactly how you determine the EXACT nature of
essential goods and services for each household and exactly how much they
spent on such goods and services.

Second, per my example an item that costs $100 today
still costs $100 under the FairTax. If that's regressive then sign me
up.

Hmmm... you impose a tax, and then state you're going to collect nothing in
taxes....


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 necessarily. Look at some of the living expenses of the wealthy, or
better yet those who were wealthy that no longer are.

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

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
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.

More nonsense.
We have a system that was god when it started and has been eroded over the
years.
It was sound.
It can be made sound again without phony "fair" tax and "flat" tax
nonsense
Fix it.

They did....how do you think they made such a mess of it?

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"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......

Yep, you either put sales tax EVERYTHING equally, or the system is
automatically no longer fair.