|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > July 2007 > Flat Tax - was Gasoline price gouging
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Flat Tax - was Gasoline price gouging
|
|
|
|
no spam wrote:
>
>
> Off topic but threads like conversions wonder around and at some point they
> fade out.
>
>
> I know about it and it ain't fair. Its about as fair as a store owner
> charging you more for a loaf of bread because he thought you had too much
> money. With the fair tax you now have the government telling you how much
> of your own money you get to keep. That's might nice of them isn't it? My
> other two big problems with it are;
Isn't that what is happening now.....government lets you keep whatever
they say...??...no difference....
>
> The government STILL gets to use one person's money to buy the vote of
> another's. Be a good little boy and we'll give you a nice prebate and make
> your favorite product tax free.
Still the same as now....
Do not understand make your favorite product tax free..??
If everyone gets same amout of return....and it is
the same..no matter what their income...how are they
doing anything special for
any one person...or group of people....
>
> It continues to punish those who work harder and make more money. The more
> money you make the less of it you get to keep. Isn't that the same unfair
> system we have now?
Still same...however percentage wise it is a lot less...this is possible
since
all money that is spent is taxed.....eventually all money no matter how
made is spent...and taxed....if you are a drug dealer and paying no
taxes now....when you buy your pimp mobile <grin>...you will pay your
tax....or when you throw a party for all your buddies you will pay the
tax.....if you are working under the table getting cash for what you
do...when you spend the money you will pay tax....etc, etc....
>
> There are other problems as well. A flat tax has none of these problems and
> is truly fair. Everyone pays the same rate.
>
As I understand it...flat tax is national sales tax...and other taxes
remain
the same...only thing that disapears is income tax
Imbedded taxes (taxes paid by companies), social security tax...etc...
still remain the same....polititians can still raise more taxes without
you seeing, by raising taxes on companies...which are really taxes on
you.....
Fair tax does away with ALL taxes...only thing left is federal sales tax
and
state taxes....if the raise tax you will see it right away...since is
only
tax left...no other way to raise taxes....
> I MIGHT be able to go with a national sale's tax but only if 1) it took a
> 2/3 majority in both houses to raise the rate. 2) it was applied to
> everything and everyone 3) there was a requirement that after any tax
> increase when there was a national election (House, Senate, President, etc)
> there was a national straight up or down vote on every state ballot in the
> nation and if a simple majority of the states voted down a tax increase it
> was automatically repealed. 4) By a simple majority vote of the people in
> 2/3 of the states at any time voted for the rate to be reduced to the
> previous level.
If fair tax was enacted everyone would pay 23 percent...and if was
raised
you would see it immediately...not like now where they can hide a
raise...
23 percent is a lot, lot lower then almost anyone pays now....when you
include social security, medicare, income tax together I sure pay
more....
I agree with the above...on what you might agree with....I would also
like to include make all laws valid for 5 yrs....and then have to be
reviewed....<g>....it is bad enough getting them to really reform
tax laws....takes to much power away from polititians....however
fair tax seems to have a chance....a number of people are putting
pressure on their....representatives..??
If you have the time....read over my link...and check it out
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
>
> Personally I'd like to see these rules put into effect for about 90% of the
> laws passed in DC. But that's a different issue.
--
No matter how dangerous nuclear power may or
may not be.....
Is it any more dangerous then what we are doing
now.....???
This tag line is generated by:
SLNG (Silly Little Nuclear Generator)
| |
| no spam 2007-06-06, 9:25 am |
| >> >> Missed the point completly (AAMOF, you seemed to have gone off some
>
> Isn't that what is happening now.....government lets you keep whatever
> they say...??...no difference....
Which is my point, the 'fair tax' is no more fair than the system we have
now. If that's true then why spend all the money to change it?
>
> Still the same as now....
>
> Do not understand make your favorite product tax free..??
If a politician wants to get the 'green' vote all he needs to do is make
their favorite green thing, e.g. electric cars, solar panels, etc., become
tax free. Suddenly they are paying 25% less for things they want and the
politician has a group of people wo are going to be big supporters.
If an industry gives enough money to the right politician(s) then their
product would become tax free. If the tax rate is 25% that could be a big
help in sales. In either Tennessee or Florida (both have no income tax but
fairly big sales taxes) the newspaper industry managed to get its product
exempted from the state sales tax.
>
> Still same...however percentage wise it is a lot less...this is possible
> since
> all money that is spent is taxed.....eventually all money no matter how
> made is spent...and taxed....if you are a drug dealer and paying no
> taxes now....when you buy your pimp mobile <grin>...you will pay your
> tax....or when you throw a party for all your buddies you will pay the
> tax.....if you are working under the table getting cash for what you
> do...when you spend the money you will pay tax....etc, etc....
A good point for a national sales tax but doesn't address the problems with
the 'fair tax'.
> As I understand it...flat tax is national sales tax...and other taxes
> remain
> the same...only thing that disapears is income tax
But it still leaves too much control in the government's hands. Ever read
the history on the income tax? When it started it was a temporary tax only
on the top 1% money earner.
> Imbedded taxes (taxes paid by companies), social security tax...etc...
> still remain the same....polititians can still raise more taxes without
Then why spend all the money to change to a different system that has all
the same problems? It would be easier and cheaper to patch up the current
system.
> you seeing, by raising taxes on companies...which are really taxes on
> you.....
Most people don't even see income tax. Ask 20 people you know how much
income tax they paid last year and see how many can tell you. Ask 100
people at random and see how many of them will tell you they didn't pay any
income tax, they got a refund.
> Fair tax does away with ALL taxes...only thing left is federal sales tax
> and
> state taxes....if the raise tax you will see it right away...since is
> only
> tax left...no other way to raise taxes....
Again the biggest problem I see with it is the fact that you have people not
paying the same rate. To make things simple, let's say the prebate is
$10K/year and the sales tax rate is 25% and everyone spends all the money
they make every year.
Person #1 makes $30K/yr. That mean he pays $5K/year in taxes. That works
out to a tax rate of 17% (16.666666%).
Person #2 makes $1M/yr. That means he pays 250K ($247,500 to be exact) in
taxes. That works out to a tax rate of 25% (24.75%).
Person #2 is paying 8% more for everything he buys. Nice and fair huh?
Also as time goes by and the size of the prebate goes up, to buy more votes,
and the tax rate goes up, to keep money coming to the government, it becomes
more 'fair'.
>
> If fair tax was enacted everyone would pay 23 percent...and if was
> raised
> you would see it immediately...not like now where they can hide a
> raise...
> 23 percent is a lot, lot lower then almost anyone pays now....when you
> include social security, medicare, income tax together I sure pay
> more....
Ok if everyone is going to be paying less how is the 'fair tax' tax neutral
as claimed?
> I agree with the above...on what you might agree with....I would also
> like to include make all laws valid for 5 yrs....and then have to be
> reviewed....<g>....it is bad enough getting them to really reform
> tax laws....takes to much power away from polititians....however
> fair tax seems to have a chance....a number of people are putting
> pressure on their....representatives..??
I'd say it has two chances, slim and none. There's not a politician who is
going to vote to cut his power by limiting the control he has by giving out
billions of dollars. Take a trip through West Virginia and see just how
many government built items (buildings, bridges, etc.) have the name Robert
C. Byrd on it.
> If you have the time....read over my link...and check it out
>
> http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
Again my main problem the fact that it is not fair because not everyone pays
the same rate. Has to do with the way I was raised I guess. You don't
treat anyone different than anyone else without an extraordinary reason.
And just because one person makes more money than another is NOT a good
reason.
| |
|
|
no spam wrote:
>
>
> Which is my point, the 'fair tax' is no more fair than the system we have
> now. If that's true then why spend all the money to change it?
>
>
> If a politician wants to get the 'green' vote all he needs to do is make
> their favorite green thing, e.g. electric cars, solar panels, etc., become
> tax free. Suddenly they are paying 25% less for things they want and the
> politician has a group of people wo are going to be big supporters.
>
> If an industry gives enough money to the right politician(s) then their
> product would become tax free. If the tax rate is 25% that could be a big
> help in sales. In either Tennessee or Florida (both have no income tax but
> fairly big sales taxes) the newspaper industry managed to get its product
> exempted from the state sales tax.
>
>
> A good point for a national sales tax but doesn't address the problems with
> the 'fair tax'.
>
>
> But it still leaves too much control in the government's hands. Ever read
> the history on the income tax? When it started it was a temporary tax only
> on the top 1% money earner.
>
>
> Then why spend all the money to change to a different system that has all
> the same problems? It would be easier and cheaper to patch up the current
> system.
>
>
> Most people don't even see income tax. Ask 20 people you know how much
> income tax they paid last year and see how many can tell you. Ask 100
> people at random and see how many of them will tell you they didn't pay any
> income tax, they got a refund.
>
>
> Again the biggest problem I see with it is the fact that you have people not
> paying the same rate. To make things simple, let's say the prebate is
> $10K/year and the sales tax rate is 25% and everyone spends all the money
> they make every year.
>
> Person #1 makes $30K/yr. That mean he pays $5K/year in taxes. That works
> out to a tax rate of 17% (16.666666%).
>
> Person #2 makes $1M/yr. That means he pays 250K ($247,500 to be exact) in
> taxes. That works out to a tax rate of 25% (24.75%).
1,000,000 X .25 = 250K minus 3000 rebate = 247K (
>
> Person #2 is paying 8% more for everything he buys. Nice and fair huh?
> Also as time goes by and the size of the prebate goes up, to buy more votes,
> and the tax rate goes up, to keep money coming to the government, it becomes
> more 'fair'.
>
>
> Ok if everyone is going to be paying less how is the 'fair tax' tax neutral
> as claimed?
>
>
> I'd say it has two chances, slim and none. There's not a politician who is
> going to vote to cut his power by limiting the control he has by giving out
> billions of dollars. Take a trip through West Virginia and see just how
> many government built items (buildings, bridges, etc.) have the name Robert
> C. Byrd on it.
>
>
> Again my main problem the fact that it is not fair because not everyone pays
> the same rate. Has to do with the way I was raised I guess. You don't
> treat anyone different than anyone else without an extraordinary reason.
> And just because one person makes more money than another is NOT a good
> reason.
OK...I guess I understand what you are saying now....it is a graduated
tax,
but a lot fairer one then we have now...and a lot lot lot simpler then
now.
Without graduation there would not be any chance of it passing...as you
probably know....with there is a chance....
It is called tax neutral because the government brings in as much total
money as it does now.....
You are right, the polititians will figure out how to get more money
somehow....can imagine everything having a "user fee" put on it...call
it something else not a tax....
Even with those things you do not like about it...I do not see any
reason
for anyone, even you, to not support it...as it does away with present
system...which I cannot believe you think is better then the fair
tax....and gives us a better tax system then now....sure in 50 yrs or
so it will be as complicated as what we have now....but once tax
system is completely changed once (now), it will be easier for them to
throw out the fair tax and go with something else in the
future....
Just thinking...if people did not go for things unless those things
were "perfect", no one would be married....no one would have children...
etc, etc...
thank you for your comments and thoughts....have fun....sno
--
No matter how dangerous nuclear power may or
may not be.....
Is it any more dangerous then what we are doing
now.....???
This tag line is generated by:
SLNG (Silly Little Nuclear Generator)
| |
|
| On Jun 5, 6:17 pm, sno <s...@opelc.com> wrote:
> no spam wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Isn't that what is happening now.....government lets you keep whatever
> they say...??...no difference....
>
>
>
>
> Still the same as now....
>
> Do not understand make your favorite product tax free..??
>
> If everyone gets same amout of return....and it is
> the same..no matter what their income...how are they
> doing anything special for
> any one person...or group of people....
>
>
>
>
> Still same...however percentage wise it is a lot less...this is possible
> since
> all money that is spent is taxed.....eventually all money no matter how
> made is spent...and taxed....if you are a drug dealer and paying no
> taxes now....when you buy your pimp mobile <grin>...you will pay your
> tax....or when you throw a party for all your buddies you will pay the
> tax.....if you are working under the table getting cash for what you
> do...when you spend the money you will pay tax....etc, etc....
>
>
> As I understand it...flat tax is national sales tax...and other taxes
> remain
> the same...only thing that disapears is income tax
>
> Imbedded taxes (taxes paid by companies), social security tax...etc...
> still remain the same....polititians can still raise more taxes without
> you seeing, by raising taxes on companies...which are really taxes on
> you.....
>
> Fair tax does away with ALL taxes...only thing left is federal sales tax
> and
> state taxes....if the raise tax you will see it right away...since is
> only
> tax left...no other way to raise taxes....
>
>
> If fair tax was enacted everyone would pay 23 percent...and if was
> raised
> you would see it immediately...not like now where they can hide a
> raise...
> 23 percent is a lot, lot lower then almost anyone pays now....when you
> include social security, medicare, income tax together I sure pay
> more....
>
> I agree with the above...on what you might agree with....I would also
> like to include make all laws valid for 5 yrs....and then have to be
> reviewed....<g>....it is bad enough getting them to really reform
> tax laws....takes to much power away from polititians....however
> fair tax seems to have a chance....a number of people are putting
> pressure on their....representatives..??
>
> If you have the time....read over my link...and check it out
>
> http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
>
>
>
>
> --
> No matter how dangerous nuclear power may or
> may not be.....
> Is it any more dangerous then what we are doing
> now.....???
>
> This tag line is generated by:
> SLNG (Silly Little Nuclear Generator)-
like here in CT; one state party, I'm not even sure which one, wants
to institute a sales tax on basic food (which does not have a state
tax now, although prepared food does), but they will "make up for it"
by removing the tax on health clubs. ???
| |
| no spam 2007-06-06, 1:25 pm |
| >> Again my main problem the fact that it is not fair because not everyone
>
> OK...I guess I understand what you are saying now....it is a graduated
> tax,
> but a lot fairer one then we have now...and a lot lot lot simpler then
> now.
>
> Without graduation there would not be any chance of it passing...as you
> probably know....with there is a chance....
>
> It is called tax neutral because the government brings in as much total
> money as it does now.....
>
> You are right, the polititians will figure out how to get more money
> somehow....can imagine everything having a "user fee" put on it...call
> it something else not a tax....
>
> Even with those things you do not like about it...I do not see any
> reason
> for anyone, even you, to not support it...as it does away with present
> system...which I cannot believe you think is better then the fair
> tax....and gives us a better tax system then now....sure in 50 yrs or
> so it will be as complicated as what we have now....but once tax
> system is completely changed once (now), it will be easier for them to
> throw out the fair tax and go with something else in the
> future....
I give up just HOW is it more fair than the system we have now? You are
just shifting where the taxes are coming from. Its just like the bozos who
want to increase the taxes on companies so the 'average Joe' won't have to
pay so much. Plus it still screws those out there who put their money at
risk, work 60-80 hrs/week running their own business when that business pays
off. It MIGHT screw them a little less but is it more fair to only get
raped by 10 guys rather than 9? It might hurt a little less but you are
still getting raped.
Or are you one of those who think its fair for someone who makes more money
to pay more? I don't. Fair is we all pay the same and play by the same
rules.
> Just thinking...if people did not go for things unless those things
> were "perfect", no one would be married....no one would have children...
> etc, etc...
Using that analogy, its more like divorcing a eally ugly wife and marrying
one that isn't quite as ugly. The second one might look better than the
first one but she's still ugly.
BTW, have you looked into the flat tax?
| |
| no spam 2007-06-06, 1:25 pm |
| > like here in CT; one state party, I'm not even sure which one, wants
> to institute a sales tax on basic food (which does not have a state
> tax now, although prepared food does), but they will "make up for it"
> by removing the tax on health clubs. ???
The wife calls me hard hearted but why should ANYTHING not be taxed? Once
you have one thing tax free there's going to be people lining up outside the
government's door trying to get their item made tax free.
I know several truly poor families (not the government 'under the poverty
line' poor) and none of them have ever not had food in their house. They
don't have cable TV, cell phones, two cars, 5 TV, and the like but they
always have food.
| |
|
|
no spam wrote:
>
>
> I give up just HOW is it more fair than the system we have now? You are
> just shifting where the taxes are coming from. Its just like the bozos who
> want to increase the taxes on companies so the 'average Joe' won't have to
> pay so much. Plus it still screws those out there who put their money at
> risk, work 60-80 hrs/week running their own business when that business pays
> off. It MIGHT screw them a little less but is it more fair to only get
> raped by 10 guys rather than 9? It might hurt a little less but you are
> still getting raped.
>
> Or are you one of those who think its fair for someone who makes more money
> to pay more? I don't. Fair is we all pay the same and play by the same
> rules.
>
>
> Using that analogy, its more like divorcing a eally ugly wife and marrying
> one that isn't quite as ugly. The second one might look better than the
> first one but she's still ugly.
LOL....I like that....but if you have a choice between the
two...wouldn't
you choose the less ugly...if that were the only choice available...???
In the case of taxes it would be the one that might possibly be
passed...
still ugly, but not as ugly....just like the capitalist system...is
ugly but there is not anything better around....
>
> BTW, have you looked into the flat tax?
When we first started this discussion I looked up flat tax on
wikipedia..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
Saw the positives and negatives there...and also that even if it was
advocated by some politicians it got nowhere....(I suspect anything
that is advocated by people running for office...<grin> )
I agree that flat tax would be a fairer tax plan then what we have
now...
but being a realist I understand that there is less of a chance of
it being passed then what is called the fair tax...(maybe you would
prefer it be called a fairer tax..??)....if I had the choice between
what we have now, the flat tax, or the fair tax...I would have to do
a lot more research....and very well might choose the flat tax...
I do not feel there is that choice at the present time...
The fair tax...along with arguments for and against....(maybe some you
haven't even thought of) is also on wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_tax
The choice as I see it is leave things the way they are or try something
that is better...(maybe not that much better, but better)...that has
a chance of being passed at this time.
have fun....sno
--
No matter how dangerous nuclear power may or
may not be.....
Is it any more dangerous then what we are doing
now.....???
This tag line is generated by:
SLNG (Silly Little Nuclear Generator)
| |
| no spam 2007-06-06, 5:25 pm |
| >> >> Again my main problem the fact that it is not fair because not
>
> LOL....I like that....but if you have a choice between the
> two...wouldn't
> you choose the less ugly...if that were the only choice available...???
Re-read it. You already have a really ugly woman do you want the go through
the effort of a divorce just to get one that is ONLY less ugly? The cost
isn't worth the benefit. At least you know what you have with the wife you
have now. The less ugly one might be a bigger (insert bad wife practice
here).
> In the case of taxes it would be the one that might possibly be
> passed...
> still ugly, but not as ugly....just like the capitalist system...is
> ugly but there is not anything better around....
I rather give the one I have now some plastic surgery and put up with it
until a good looking one to come along.
>
> When we first started this discussion I looked up flat tax on
> wikipedia..
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
>
> Saw the positives and negatives there...and also that even if it was
> advocated by some politicians it got nowhere....(I suspect anything
> that is advocated by people running for office...<grin> )
It has got about as far as the fair tax.
> I agree that flat tax would be a fairer tax plan then what we have
> now...
> but being a realist I understand that there is less of a chance of
> it being passed then what is called the fair tax...(maybe you would
> prefer it be called a fairer tax..??)....if I had the choice between
> what we have now, the flat tax, or the fair tax...I would have to do
> a lot more research....and very well might choose the flat tax...
> I do not feel there is that choice at the present time...
Only because people have made it a non-choice. If you really want to see
the tax system change in a hurry all you need to do is have the automatic
withholding of all taxes stopped. When people have to pay all their taxes
in one lump sum, things would change on April 16th.
> The fair tax...along with arguments for and against....(maybe some you
> haven't even thought of) is also on wikipedia...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_tax
>
> The choice as I see it is leave things the way they are or try something
> that is better...(maybe not that much better, but better)...that has
> a chance of being passed at this time.
How about working with the system we have. Its taken a while but we have
gotten the top tax rate has gone from 91% to 35% .
| |
|
|
no spam wrote:
>
>
> Re-read it. You already have a really ugly woman do you want the go through
> the effort of a divorce just to get one that is ONLY less ugly? The cost
> isn't worth the benefit. At least you know what you have with the wife you
> have now. The less ugly one might be a bigger (insert bad wife practice
> here).
>
>
> I rather give the one I have now some plastic surgery and put up with it
> until a good looking one to come along.
>
>
> It has got about as far as the fair tax.
>
>
> Only because people have made it a non-choice. If you really want to see
> the tax system change in a hurry all you need to do is have the automatic
> withholding of all taxes stopped. When people have to pay all their taxes
> in one lump sum, things would change on April 16th.
>
>
> How about working with the system we have. Its taken a while but we have
> gotten the top tax rate has gone from 91% to 35% .
I think people have been trying to work within the system for to long...
tax code has gotten to complicated...can remember a time way back
when people were able to do their own taxes...now is almost impossible
for most people...only way I can think of to simplify it is to get
rid of what we got now....flat tax...fair tax...no tax....it doesn't
really make any difference to me....
Was it Einstein that said something like if you keep doing the same
thing over and over and expect something different then you are
really crazy....
Trying something different is always better then repeating what you
have been doing....
Also it looks like most peoples taxes would be less...
If you really think you can change what we have...make it simpler and
cost less for most of us....then I guess that is your decision...
still think it wouldn't hurt you to go along and try something
different...
At least I got you thinking about it...<grin>...
have fun....sno
--
No matter how dangerous nuclear power may or
may not be.....
Is it any more dangerous then what we are doing
now.....???
This tag line is generated by:
SLNG (Silly Little Nuclear Generator)
| |
| no spam 2007-06-07, 1:25 pm |
| > Also it looks like most peoples taxes would be less...
IOW, it shifts more of the taxes onto the higher earners.
> If you really think you can change what we have...make it simpler and
> cost less for most of us....then I guess that is your decision...
> still think it wouldn't hurt you to go along and try something
> different...
>
> At least I got you thinking about it...<grin>...
Been thinking/working on it for a LONG time. AAMOF, when I first started
looking at a flat tax the rate needed to bring in the same amount of money
was something like 12%. Now I its in the 20+% range. BTW, you ever thought
about that? Using either the flat tax or the almost fair tax you still will
spend the first 4 months of the year working JUST to pay your taxes! There
is just something wrong with that.
| |
| RW Salnick 2007-06-07, 1:25 pm |
| no spam brought forth on stone tablets:
>
>
> IOW, it shifts more of the taxes onto the higher earners.
>
>
>
>
>
> Been thinking/working on it for a LONG time. AAMOF, when I first started
> looking at a flat tax the rate needed to bring in the same amount of money
> was something like 12%. Now I its in the 20+% range. BTW, you ever thought
> about that? Using either the flat tax or the almost fair tax you still will
> spend the first 4 months of the year working JUST to pay your taxes! There
> is just something wrong with that.
>
>
Yup. Same with the current system. Apparently you have never heard of
"Tax Freedom Day"
bob
s/v Eolian
Seattle
| |
| Foobar 2007-06-12, 1:25 pm |
|
>Then why spend all the money to change to a different system that has all
>the same problems? It would be easier and cheaper to patch up the current
>system.
Because it's already been patched to death and still doesn't work?
On Jun 6, 9:44 am, "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Which is my point, the 'fair tax' is no more fair than the system we have
> now. If that's true then why spend all the money to change it?
>
>
>
>
> If a politician wants to get the 'green' vote all he needs to do is make
> their favorite green thing, e.g. electric cars, solar panels, etc., become
> tax free. Suddenly they are paying 25% less for things they want and the
> politician has a group of people wo are going to be big supporters.
>
> If an industry gives enough money to the right politician(s) then their
> product would become tax free. If the tax rate is 25% that could be a big
> help in sales. In either Tennessee or Florida (both have no income tax but
> fairly big sales taxes) the newspaper industry managed to get its product
> exempted from the state sales tax.
>
>
>
> A good point for a national sales tax but doesn't address the problems with
> the 'fair tax'.
>
>
>
> But it still leaves too much control in the government's hands. Ever read
> the history on the income tax? When it started it was a temporary tax only
> on the top 1% money earner.
>
>
> Then why spend all the money to change to a different system that has all
> the same problems? It would be easier and cheaper to patch up the current
> system.
>
>
> Most people don't even see income tax. Ask 20 people you know how much
> income tax they paid last year and see how many can tell you. Ask 100
> people at random and see how many of them will tell you they didn't pay any
> income tax, they got a refund.
>
>
> Again the biggest problem I see with it is the fact that you have people not
> paying the same rate. To make things simple, let's say the prebate is
> $10K/year and the sales tax rate is 25% and everyone spends all the money
> they make every year.
>
> Person #1 makes $30K/yr. That mean he pays $5K/year in taxes. That works
> out to a tax rate of 17% (16.666666%).
>
> Person #2 makes $1M/yr. That means he pays 250K ($247,500 to be exact) in
> taxes. That works out to a tax rate of 25% (24.75%).
>
> Person #2 is paying 8% more for everything he buys. Nice and fair huh?
> Also as time goes by and the size of the prebate goes up, to buy more votes,
> and the tax rate goes up, to keep money coming to the government, it becomes
> more 'fair'.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ok if everyone is going to be paying less how is the 'fair tax' tax neutral
> as claimed?
>
>
> I'd say it has two chances, slim and none. There's not a politician who is
> going to vote to cut his power by limiting the control he has by giving out
> billions of dollars. Take a trip through West Virginia and see just how
> many government built items (buildings, bridges, etc.) have the name Robert
> C. Byrd on it.
>
>
>
> Again my main problem the fact that it is not fair because not everyone pays
> the same rate. Has to do with the way I was raised I guess. You don't
> treat anyone different than anyone else without an extraordinary reason.
> And just because one person makes more money than another is NOT a good
> reason.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
| |
| no spam 2007-06-12, 1:25 pm |
|
>
> Because it's already been patched to death and still doesn't work?
Read the question again. The 'fair tax' has almost all the same problems
that the current tax system has. It makes some people pay more than others.
The government will still have the power to punish those it doesn't like and
reward those they do. There will have to be HUGE government agencies to
oversee it.
Again if you want a truly fair tax you should look into a flat tax.
Everyone pays the same rate on everything they make.
| |
| Foobar 2007-06-21, 5:25 pm |
| Of course, this will never fly. 10% of 10K is a far cry from 10% of
100K.
Lets's assume 10%.
My 10K buys 9K worth of goods, while your 100K buys 90K worth of
goods.
I can purchase alot more for 90K than I can for 9K.
On Jun 12, 1:32 pm, "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>
>
> Read the question again. The 'fair tax' has almost all the same problems
> that the current tax system has. It makes some people pay more than others.
> The government will still have the power to punish those it doesn't like and
> reward those they do. There will have to be HUGE government agencies to
> oversee it.
>
> Again if you want a truly fair tax you should look into a flat tax.
> Everyone pays the same rate on everything they make.
| |
| no spam 2007-06-21, 8:25 pm |
|
> Of course, this will never fly. 10% of 10K is a far cry from 10% of
> 100K.
>
> Lets's assume 10%.
>
> My 10K buys 9K worth of goods, while your 100K buys 90K worth of
> goods.
>
> I can purchase alot more for 90K than I can for 9K.
IOW, the government gets more dollars from me than you but we both are still
paying the same rate. So in reality we are both paying the same.
>
> On Jun 12, 1:32 pm, "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>
>
| |
| Mike Swift 2007-06-24, 5:25 pm |
| In article <%MAbi.35510$G23.26793@newsreading01.news.tds.net>,
"no spam" <no@spam.net> wrote:
>
> Read the question again. The 'fair tax' has almost all the same problems
> that the current tax system has. It makes some people pay more than others.
> The government will still have the power to punish those it doesn't like and
> reward those they do. There will have to be HUGE government agencies to
> oversee it.
>
> Again if you want a truly fair tax you should look into a flat tax.
> Everyone pays the same rate on everything they make.
Could you please tell me what the problems of the current tax system are
that are the same as the ones you say are in the 'fair tax' system. The
elimination of the IRS alone would reduce the load on the nation by one
or two percent. Most states have sales tax systems that work well.
Adding a percentage for Federal tax would be trivial. The rebate for
goods that should not be taxed would amount to about $1600 a month for a
family of 4 which while trivial to Bill Gates would a major source of
income for a low income family.
--
Mike
Mike Swift
| |
| no spam 2007-06-25, 3:25 am |
| >> >>Then why spend all the money to change to a different system that has
>
> Could you please tell me what the problems of the current tax system are
> that are the same as the ones you say are in the 'fair tax' system. The
OK:
1 The more money you make the more taxes you pay. (I ran the numbers in a
post before)
2 Congress can use tax money or change tax rates to buy votes.
3 Congress can raise the tax rate with nothing more than a simple majority
vote.
4 Operated by a large government agency with huges powers and very little
oversite.
5 Congress can 'adjust' the tax rate on specific industries.
> elimination of the IRS alone would reduce the load on the nation by one
> or two percent. Most states have sales tax systems that work well.
See #4 above. You think fewer people will be needed to over see a system
which has to take in the money but send out checks each and every month
rather than once a year?
> Adding a percentage for Federal tax would be trivial. The rebate for
> goods that should not be taxed would amount to about $1600 a month for a
> family of 4 which while trivial to Bill Gates would a major source of
> income for a low income family.
A few questions.
Just who gets to set the prebate amount? Congress itself or some group of
non-elected government group?
How will it be set? Will there be a published set of items which are
government approved and amounts?
Will there be a Cost Of Living Allowance (COLA) based on where a
person/family lives? After all someone living in Mississippi can buy a lot
more stuff with $1600 than someone living in Alaska. Heck someone living in
New York City will get a lot less for their $1600 than someone living in
another part of the state.
Should I be able to force you to pay more for a loaf of bread just because
you make more money than I do? Or if we make the same money just because I
have kids and you don't? If not then why should the federal government be
able to make you pay more to run the federal park system?
| |
| Mike Swift 2007-06-25, 9:25 am |
| In article <S%Ffi.35835$G23.23335@newsreading01.news.tds.net>,
"no spam" <no@spam.net> wrote:
>
> OK:
>
> 1 The more money you make the more taxes you pay. (I ran the numbers in a
> post before)
How can this be. The Fair Tax is a tax on sales of goods and services,
while the income tax is on, well, income.
> 2 Congress can use tax money or change tax rates to buy votes.
There is one tax rate for all sales of new goods or services. The
ability to lower the tax on 'good' items and raise it on 'bad' items
would defeat the system. Politicians would use that ability to buy
votes, and punish their opponents. As far as spending the moneys
collected the fair tax does not address that problem.
> 3 Congress can raise the tax rate with nothing more than a simple majority
> vote.
Yes, but to do so they must raise it on everyone evenly. The law does
not allow raising the sales tax on only the 'bad' people or products.
This prevents the government from grabbing an increase in their take
from the GDP unless a very large percentage of the population wants it.
> 4 Operated by a large government agency with huges powers and very little
> oversite.
The current IRS has well over 100,000 employees, and a budget of over $8
billion dollars. Its code books are over 11 feet long if all are
stacked end to end, and this doesn't count the 'rulings'. It handles
over 100 million returns a year that are filed according to this code.
This would be replaced by an organization that collected taxes from
maybe one or two million businesses following a code that can fit on one
side of a piece of paper.
> 5 Congress can 'adjust' the tax rate on specific industries.
Not true. The tax is collected on the sale to the consumer of ALL new
goods and services. The rebait is calculated by taking the total taxes
that were collected on items that they determine should not have been
collected. This would then be evenly divided among all persons living
legally in the US, and credited to their bank accounts. Those without
bank accounts could receive checks in the mail. The system would be
very much automated needing people for logging changes in stuse and
audit perposes.
>
>
>
>
> See #4 above. You think fewer people will be needed to over see a system
> which has to take in the money but send out checks each and every month
> rather than once a year?
>
See answer above.
>
>
> A few questions.
>
> Just who gets to set the prebate amount? Congress itself or some group of
> non-elected government group?
They are rebates as the payments are made on the month following the
month taxes are collected. Congress just sets the items that will not
be taxed. The Tax Administration Organization would then find the total
sales of that item, and place the amount of its tax collected into the
rebate fund.
>
> How will it be set? Will there be a published set of items which are
> government approved and amounts?
Congress will determine which items will be eligible for rebate such as
food, drugs and medical services. As there are few tax consideration at
the local sales level there are few places to make taxing errors. A
business could have a tax return of one page.
>
> Will there be a Cost Of Living Allowance (COLA) based on where a
> person/family lives? After all someone living in Mississippi can buy a lot
> more stuff with $1600 than someone living in Alaska. Heck someone living in
> New York City will get a lot less for their $1600 than someone living in
> another part of the state.
That is the problem with the income tax system today. Everyone has a
lot of 'good' reasons they should pay less tax, and the other guy should
pay more. Just to make the playing field level of course.
>
> Should I be able to force you to pay more for a loaf of bread just because
> you make more money than I do? Or if we make the same money just because I
> have kids and you don't? If not then why should the federal government be
> able to make you pay more to run the federal park system?
That logic is used every day to justify higher taxes on the other guy.
I am in the process of building a new house on my property in Santa
Cruz, CA. The local government is taxing me over $8000 for 'schools',
and over $6000 for 'parks', total fees are over $27,000 for 'permits'.
They do it because if I am building a new house I must be rich, and they
can extort the money for the 'essential services' without fearing
reprisals from the electorate.
--
Mike
Remember companies do not pay taxes. They only collect
them from their customers for payment to the government.
| |
| no spam 2007-06-25, 1:25 pm |
| >> >> >>Then why spend all the money to change to a different system that
> How can this be. The Fair Tax is a tax on sales of goods and services,
> while the income tax is on, well, income.
Wouldn't you know it, just a few days ago I deleted all my old msg to save
some disk space and now I need one. Well I'll just have to show the numbers
again. Stay with me, there's a lot of numbers and its fairly long.
To make things easy we will take the following as being true:
The 'fair tax' rate is 25%.
The 'prebate is $1000/month or $10K/year
Everyone in the example spends all the money they make.
Person #1 makes $10K
Person #2 makes $50K
Person #3 makes $100K
Person #4 makes $500K
Equation used:
Taxes paid = income * tax rate
Net income = gross income - taxes paid + prebate
True tax rate = [(gross income - net income) / gross income] * 100
Person #1
Taxes paid: $10K * 0.25 = $2.5
Net income: $10K - $2.5K + $10K = $17.5K
True tax rate: [(10-17.5)/10] * 100 = (-)75% <--yes that's a negative tax
rate
Person #2
Taxes paid: $50K * 0.25 = $12.5K
Net income: $50K - $12.5K + $10K = $47.5K
True tax rate: [(50-47.5)/50] * 100 = 5%
Person #3
Taxes paid: $100K * 0.25 = $25K
Net income: $100K - $25K + $10K = $85K
True tax rate: [(100-85)/100] * 100 = 15%
Person #4
Taxes paid: $500K * 0.25 = $125K
Net income: $500K - $125K + $10K = $385K
True tax rate: [(500-385)/500] * 100 = 23%
Resulting tax rates
Person #1 . . . .makes 75% more
Person #2 . . . . 5%
Person #3 . . . 15%
Person #4 . . . 23%
> There is one tax rate for all sales of new goods or services. The
> ability to lower the tax on 'good' items and raise it on 'bad' items
> would defeat the system. Politicians would use that ability to buy
> votes, and punish their opponents. As far as spending the moneys
> collected the fair tax does not address that problem.
So why spend the money to change the system?
> Yes, but to do so they must raise it on everyone evenly. The law does
Nope, see the numbers above.
> not allow raising the sales tax on only the 'bad' people or products.
> This prevents the government from grabbing an increase in their take
> from the GDP unless a very large percentage of the population wants it.
First off, to parapharse the old School House Rock song goes, its a bill its
only a bill. And if it happens to get passed in that form how long do you
think it would be before they 'corrected' that little 'problem'?
> The current IRS has well over 100,000 employees, and a budget of over $8
> billion dollars. Its code books are over 11 feet long if all are
> stacked end to end, and this doesn't count the 'rulings'. It handles
> over 100 million returns a year that are filed according to this code.
> This would be replaced by an organization that collected taxes from
> maybe one or two million businesses following a code that can fit on one
> side of a piece of paper.
Oh, so naive. Ever read the history of the income tax or the social
security system? Go back and see how those monsters got started.
> Not true. The tax is collected on the sale to the consumer of ALL new
> goods and services. The rebait is calculated by taking the total taxes
> that were collected on items that they determine should not have been
> collected. This would then be evenly divided among all persons living
> legally in the US, and credited to their bank accounts. Those without
> bank accounts could receive checks in the mail. The system would be
> very much automated needing people for logging changes in stuse and
> audit perposes.
Your naïveté is showing again. You are looking at what you want the bill to
be not what it will be when passed or after a few years Congress 'fixing'
it. I again point you to the history of the income tax.
> They are rebates as the payments are made on the month following the
> month taxes are collected. Congress just sets the items that will not
> be taxed. The Tax Administration Organization would then find the total
> sales of that item, and place the amount of its tax collected into the
> rebate fund.
There you go. If I pay enough to the right congressmen my product some how
becomes 'necessary' and should not be taxed. People need transportation
right? Then shouldn't cars be tax free? What good does it do to make cars
tax free if people can't afford to drive them therefore we MUST remove the
tax on oil, tires, gasoline, diesel, car cd players, seat covers. . . What
about the internet, that should be tax free because of all the good it does.
But you need a computer to get online don't you? Computer's tax free. But
wait, imported computers are unfairly competing with our home grown ones
therefore we should put the tax on imported computers. Oh man what about
the way the imported cars are killing our auto industry, tax them suckers!
Don't you need to have something to eat dinner off of? I guess we should
make furniture tax free. I could on and on. You know like the government
has done with the current tax code.
> Congress will determine which items will be eligible for rebate such as
> food, drugs and medical services. As there are few tax consideration at
> the local sales level there are few places to make taxing errors. A
> business could have a tax return of one page.
See above with letting congress set anything involved with giving themselves
more money to spend to buy more votes to stay in office and in power.
> That is the problem with the income tax system today. Everyone has a
> lot of 'good' reasons they should pay less tax, and the other guy should
> pay more. Just to make the playing field level of course.
But you didn't answer the question. Is the guy living in Alaska going to
get screwed or not? Do you know how much a gallon of milk cost in Alaska?
A quick google search gives me $6.89. For me it runs about 3 bucks a
gallon. Using that I'm getting over twice the prebate as someone in Alaska.
Sounds fair to me, how about you?
> That logic is used every day to justify higher taxes on the other guy.
> I am in the process of building a new house on my property in Santa
> Cruz, CA. The local government is taxing me over $8000 for 'schools',
> and over $6000 for 'parks', total fees are over $27,000 for 'permits'.
> They do it because if I am building a new house I must be rich, and they
> can extort the money for the 'essential services' without fearing
> reprisals from the electorate.
You did it again, you didn't answer the questions put to you. You are the
one talking about how fair the 'fair tax' is, I just want you to tell me
what you think is fair. Stop whining about how unfair the current system.
Especially when what you are whining about will not be effected by your nice
and unfair 'fair tax'.
To make things a little easier I'll past the questions again below
Should I be able to force you to pay more for a loaf of bread just because
you make more money than I do? Or if we make the same money just because I
have kids and you don't? If not then why should the federal government be
able to make you pay more to run the federal park system?
| |
| Foobar 2007-06-26, 5:25 pm |
| > To make things easy we will take the following as being true:
> The 'fair tax' rate is 25%.
> The 'prebate is $1000/month or $10K/year
> Everyone in the example spends all the money they make.
> Person #1 makes $10K
> Person #2 makes $50K
> Person #3 makes $100K
> Person #4 makes $500K
Well, duh. Yeah, the more one makes the closer they will come to that
25% number. But 24.99999% is as close as they can get.
On Jun 25, 12:10 pm, "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>
>
es[color=darkred]
>
>
The[color=darkred]
>
>
n a[color=darkred]
>
> Wouldn't you know it, just a few days ago I deleted all my old msg to save
> some disk space and now I need one. Well I'll just have to show the numb=
ers
> again. Stay with me, there's a lot of numbers and its fairly long.
>
> To make things easy we will take the following as being true:
> The 'fair tax' rate is 25%.
> The 'prebate is $1000/month or $10K/year
> Everyone in the example spends all the money they make.
> Person #1 makes $10K
> Person #2 makes $50K
> Person #3 makes $100K
> Person #4 makes $500K
>
> Equation used:
> Taxes paid =3D income * tax rate
> Net income =3D gross income - taxes paid + prebate
> True tax rate =3D [(gross income - net income) / gross income] * 100
>
> Person #1
> Taxes paid: $10K * 0.25 =3D $2.5
> Net income: $10K - $2.5K + $10K =3D $17.5K
> True tax rate: [(10-17.5)/10] * 100 =3D (-)75% <--yes that's a negativ=
e tax
> rate
>
> Person #2
> Taxes paid: $50K * 0.25 =3D $12.5K
> Net income: $50K - $12.5K + $10K =3D $47.5K
> True tax rate: [(50-47.5)/50] * 100 =3D 5%
>
> Person #3
> Taxes paid: $100K * 0.25 =3D $25K
> Net income: $100K - $25K + $10K =3D $85K
> True tax rate: [(100-85)/100] * 100 =3D 15%
>
> Person #4
> Taxes paid: $500K * 0.25 =3D $125K
> Net income: $500K - $125K + $10K =3D $385K
> True tax rate: [(500-385)/500] * 100 =3D 23%
>
> Resulting tax rates
> Person #1 . . . .makes 75% more
> Person #2 . . . . 5%
> Person #3 . . . 15%
> Person #4 . . . 23%
>
>
> So why spend the money to change the system?
>
>
> Nope, see the numbers above.
>
>
> First off, to parapharse the old School House Rock song goes, its a bill =
its
> only a bill. And if it happens to get passed in that form how long do you
> think it would be before they 'corrected' that little 'problem'?
>
tle[color=darkred]
>
> Oh, so naive. Ever read the history of the income tax or the social
> security system? Go back and see how those monsters got started.
>
>
> Your na=EFvet=E9 is showing again. You are looking at what you want the =
bill to
> be not what it will be when passed or after a few years Congress 'fixing'
> it. I again point you to the history of the income tax.
>
>
>
>
>
or[color=darkred]
>
>
>
> There you go. If I pay enough to the right congressmen my product some h=
ow
> becomes 'necessary' and should not be taxed. People need transportation
> right? Then shouldn't cars be tax free? What good does it do to make ca=
rs
> tax free if people can't afford to drive them therefore we MUST remove the
> tax on oil, tires, gasoline, diesel, car cd players, seat covers. . . What
> about the internet, that should be tax free because of all the good it do=
es.
> But you need a computer to get online don't you? Computer's tax free. B=
ut
> wait, imported computers are unfairly competing with our home grown ones
> therefore we should put the tax on imported computers. Oh man what about
> the way the imported cars are killing our auto industry, tax them suckers!
> Don't you need to have something to eat dinner off of? I guess we should
> make furniture tax free. I could on and on. You know like the government
> has done with the current tax code.
>
>
> See above with letting congress set anything involved with giving themsel=
ves
> more money to spend to buy more votes to stay in office and in power.
>
ing[color=darkred]
in[color=darkred]
>
> But you didn't answer the question. Is the guy living in Alaska going to
> get screwed or not? Do you know how much a gallon of milk cost in Alaska?
> A quick google search gives me $6.89. For me it runs about 3 bucks a
> gallon. Using that I'm getting over twice the prebate as someone in Alas=
ka.
> Sounds fair to me, how about you?
>
use[color=darkred]
>
> You did it again, you didn't answer the questions put to you. You are the
> one talking about how fair the 'fair tax' is, I just want you to tell me
> what you think is fair. Stop whining about how unfair the current system.
> Especially when what you are whining about will not be effected by your n=
ice
> and unfair 'fair tax'.
>
> To make things a little easier I'll past the questions again below
>
> Should I be able to force you to pay more for a loaf of bread just because
> you make more money than I do? Or if we make the same money just because=
I
> have kids and you don't? If not then why should the federal government be
> able to make you pay more to run the federal park system?- Hide quoted te=
xt -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
| |
| no spam 2007-06-26, 8:25 pm |
| >> To make things easy we will take the following as being true:
[color=darkred]
>Well, duh. Yeah, the more one makes the closer they will come to that
>25% number. But 24.99999% is as close as they can get.
Which is my point the so called 'fair tax' isn't fair it is just another way
of making the 'rich' pay more.
If the 'fair tax' is fair then all of the following would be just as fair:
[color=darkred]
| |
| Foobar 2007-06-26, 8:25 pm |
| On Jun 26, 6:47 pm, "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>
> Which is my point the so called 'fair tax' isn't fair it is just another way
> of making the 'rich' pay more.
>
I am all for the so called "fair tax", but you won't sell it this
way.
Take case #4. This person is a fool if they spend 500K. One is taxed
on what one spends, correct?
So, If I invest 250k of that 500k, my rate of taxation goes down and
my value goes up... No?
> If the 'fair tax' is fair then all of the following would be just as fair:
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
| |
| no spam 2007-06-27, 1:25 pm |
|
"Foobar" <bamberbert@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182901940.942712.186130@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 26, 6:47 pm, "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote:
> I am all for the so called "fair tax", but you won't sell it this
> way.
>
> Take case #4. This person is a fool if they spend 500K. One is taxed
> on what one spends, correct?
>
> So, If I invest 250k of that 500k, my rate of taxation goes down and
> my value goes up... No?
Ok lets run YOUR numbers and see what happens:
Taxes paid: ($250K * 0.25) - 10K = $52.5K
Tax rate: $52.5K / $500K * 100 = 12.5%
So now your 500K person is paying less than the 100K guy (10.5% vs 15%).
Again that's really fair isn't it.
Also the 'fair tax' you now have given people incentive NOT to spend any
more money than necessary. Do you think that's good for the economy? Do
you remember when they put a big tax on yachts and such? Remember what
happened? People just stopped buying yachts and people who build and sold
them lost their jobs.
Why not a nice simple and truly fair tax, a flat tax on all income with no
deductions? Then you could actually get rid of the IRS. There would also
be no need for all the other government interference which would be needed
with your 'fair tax'. No government agency telling you just what you need
to live and how much of your money you are allowed to spend to get what you
need. Congress would have no say on who's product gets taxed or is tax
free. You wouldn't be paying to help some guy buy a million dollar house or
raise his kids.
| |
| Foobar 2007-06-28, 5:25 pm |
| I'm all for it, but only with a constitutional amendment which does
away with income based taxes. Absent that, we will have both.
On Jun 27, 12:00 pm, "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote:
> "Foobar" <bamberb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182901940.942712.186130@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ok lets run YOUR numbers and see what happens:
>
> Taxes paid: ($250K * 0.25) - 10K = $52.5K
> Tax rate: $52.5K / $500K * 100 = 12.5%
>
> So now your 500K person is paying less than the 100K guy (10.5% vs 15%).
> Again that's really fair isn't it.
>
> Also the 'fair tax' you now have given people incentive NOT to spend any
> more money than necessary. Do you think that's good for the economy? Do
> you remember when they put a big tax on yachts and such? Remember what
> happened? People just stopped buying yachts and people who build and sold
> them lost their jobs.
>
> Why not a nice simple and truly fair tax, a flat tax on all income with no
> deductions? Then you could actually get rid of the IRS. There would also
> be no need for all the other government interference which would be needed
> with your 'fair tax'. No government agency telling you just what you need
> to live and how much of your money you are allowed to spend to get what you
> need. Congress would have no say on who's product gets taxed or is tax
> free. You wouldn't be paying to help some guy buy a million dollar house or
> raise his kids.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
| |
| Mike Swift 2007-07-01, 9:25 am |
| The Fair Tax proposal requires that the sixteenth amendment be repealed.
In article <1183065588.432502.226440@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Foobar <bamberbert@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
> I'm all for it, but only with a constitutional amendment which does
> away with income based taxes. Absent that, we will have both.
>
> On Jun 27, 12:00 pm, "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote:
--
Mike
Remember companies do not pay taxes. They only collect
them from their customers for payment to the government.
| |
| Foobar 2007-07-03, 5:25 pm |
| With no guarantee it won't re-appear. I trust government about as far
as I can throw a 2 ton truck.
On Jul 1, 3:12 am, Mike Swift <tomsw...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> The Fair Tax proposal requires that the sixteenth amendment be repealed.
>
> In article <1183065588.432502.226...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Foobar <bamberb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mike
>
> Remember companies do not pay taxes. They only collect
> them from their customers for payment to the government.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
|
|
|
|