The so-called 'fair' tax taxes (initially) 23% on
all purchases. Any/all 'protections' and
'improvements' it claims to provide can be
eliminated with the SAME 50%+1 vote legislation
that would give us it. Furthermore, the FACT that
it is 'revenue neutral' should provide the
tip-off that it is merely a deck chair shuffle.
Joe earns $10k at his job. Pete earns $20k at his.
If we had a 'flat rate' income tax where EVERYONE
paid -- say -- 20% ... Joe pays $2k and Pete $4k.
How is that 'fair'? Why should Pete pay twice as
much as Joe for the same 'service'?
Barring voluntary donation -- the only ACTUALLY
fair and moral approach -- every individual
paying the same dollar amount would be the 'fair-est'.
Presumably one would take the Budget and divide
it by the population to arrive at one's bill.
Currently (2013) we have the OBSCENE budget of
$3,685 in billions (not that JUST 20 years ago
under Clinton, we had the OBSCENE budget of
$1,409,390,000,000 (which begs MANY questions))
... AND a population of (let's call it) 313,000,000.
Some SIMPLE math ... 3 685 000 000 000 / 313 000
000... gives us $11 773.16 per person.
NOTE: The Government 'meets' only 55% of its
obligations from stealing from people's earnings.
So we are CURRENTLY (on average) paying $6475.24 per person.
Too much? Of course it is ... Government has been
spending TOO much for more than a Century ...
made EASY by the Fed and the Income Tax.
So what would happen? Gee, we should LESSEN the
burden (especially since we must pay) says 100%
of the Citizenry ... to what (you asked)? How
much is the 'service' Government is providing worth? $1000? $500? $100?
For the first 60 years under the Constitution,
the Feds spent 1 090 000 000 or (avg) 18 166 667
per year. There were around 20 million people in the Country.
That same SIMPLE math ... 18 166 667 / 20 000 000 ... gives us $.91 per person.
That sounds reasonable ... $1 per person. Too
little? Government needs to provide things like
parks? Allow it to also raise user fees (this way
those USING a 'service' will be those paying for it).
Regard$,
--MJ
"If a married couple filing jointly had the same
tax liability for federal income tax today that
it had in 1913, but with the brackets adjusted
for general price inflation, couples would not
owe any tax unless their taxable income exceeded
$93,800, and the tax rate would be 1% for all
couples earning taxable income between $93,800
and $469,000. That's why we call those times the Good Old Days.
"Of course, the situation was even better before
1913: no federal income tax at all (except
briefly in the North during the War Between the
States and even more briefly during the mid-1890s
under a law quickly declared unconstitutional)."
-- Robert Higgs, March 2013
http://www.bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Endnotes/IRS_Form_1040_1913.pdf
At 03:54 PM 6/3/2013, you wrote:
I don't think I am following your logic or
theory Michael. I understand that you are
opposed to any income tax, (I think?)
But what is the distinction between each
individual paying the exact rate, and what Brine
is suggesting, under the "Fair Tax" Legislation?
Are you suggesting that everyone pay the same
"Amount"? How would this amount be determined?
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, MJ
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
How is that in any way 'fair'?
When you go to the local burger joint, they do
not ask you for an income statement in order to
calculate the price of the burger.
That Government should be wholly funded by
voluntary contribution notwithstanding (nothing
is 'fair' about being forced to pay for what you
may not even want) ... if one is to be FORCED to
fund Government ... what is (second) 'fairest'
would be for every Individual -- regardless of
grouping -- to pay exactly the SAME amount. This
would ENCOURAGE a rate approaching zero.
AGAIN, what is 'failr' about one person paying
more or less than another person for the monopoly 'service' Government?
Regard$,
--MJ
"Of all debts men are least willing to pay the
taxes. What a satire is this on government!
Everywhere they think they get their money’s
worth, except for these (taxes)" -- Ralph Waldo Emerson.
At 03:28 PM 6/3/2013, you wrote:
What is fair is that everybody would be paying
the same proportion of their earnings ... a
sliding scale where people pay no tax and others pay tax is unfair!!!
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:55 PM, MJ
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
How is that 'fair'?
What is 'fair' about one person paying more or
less than another person for the monopoly 'service' Government?
Regard$,
--MJ
"If, then, taxation is compulsory, and is
therefore indistinguishable from theft, it
follows that the State, which subsists on
taxation, is a vast criminal organization far
more formidable and successful than any “private” Mafia in history."
-- Murray Rothbard
At 05:25 PM 6/2/2013, you wrote:
That is why a flat tax with no
deductions/exemptions is the only fair tax!!!
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:33 PM, MJ
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
The Rich Pay Most of the Taxes, Get Half the
Tax Breaks. Democrats Are Outraged at Tax Breaks.
by Gary North on May 30, 2013
The liberal Washington Post ran this headline:
Richest 20 percent get half the overall
savings from U.S. tax breaks, CBO says. The
CBO is the Congressional Budget Office.
The story began:
“The 10 largest breaks in the U.S. tax code
will save taxpayers more than $900 billion
this year, with a little more than half the
benefits flowing to the richest 20 percent of
households, congressional budget analysts said Wednesday.
And the richest 1 percent of households, those
with at least $327,000 in annual income, get
an especially big haul about 17 percent of
the total savings, according to the report by the Congressional Budget Office.”
We know what’s coming.
“Democrats seized on the new analysis, saying
it provides fresh support for President Obama’s
claim that limiting tax breaks for the rich
offers a more sensible path to deficit
reduction than sharp cuts to agency budgets,
known as the sequester. The sequester, which
took effect March 1, will cut U.S. agency
spending by roughly $42 billion through Oct. 1.”
Obama originally promoted the sequester. Now he
is pretending the Reoublicans did it. But he signed the bill into law in 2011.
“Republicans, too, welcomed the report, saying
it sheds new light on potential policy choices
as lawmakers in both parties consider a
comprehensive overhaul of the tax code. While
Democrats want to limit tax breaks to generate
new revenue for the government, Republicans
want to return the money to taxpayers in the
form of a simpler code with lower rates for everyone.”
A simpler tax code? That’ll be the day!
What are these tax loopholes?
“According to the CBO, the biggest tax breaks
by dollar value this fiscal year are the
tax-free treatment of employer-provided health
insurance (about $260 billion), preferential
rates for dividends and capital gains ($160
billion) and tax-free contributions to
retirement savings ($140 billion). Deductions
for state and local taxes ($80 billion),
mortgage interest ($70 billion) and
contributions to charity ($40 billion) are also
among the top 10, as is the tax-free treatment
of capital gains on assets transferred at death ($50 billion).”
Do you think Congress, which wrote the tax
code, will soon alienate all the PAC donors who
use these exemptions? I don’t think so.
Senator Snort is not going to vote to do away
with the income tax deduction for mortgage interest payments.
With ObamaCare in tatters, not ready for
implementation on January 1, 2014, will
Congress now abolish the tax-free income
associated with corporate payments for health care insurance?
The Washington Post then mentions this
politically inconvenient fact: “Some argue that
it might be reasonable for the rich to receive
a large portion of the benefit from federal tax
breaks because they pay an outsize share of
federal taxes. According to the independent Tax
Policy Center, the richest 20 percent of
households paid nearly 70 percent of federal
taxes last year.” Yes, “some” do argue this. That is because it’s true.
The Washington Post reporter then adds the obligatory “but.”
“But the CBO noted that tax breaks are
essentially equivalent to government spending,
intended to encourage and subsidize various
behaviors, such as buying a home, saving for
retirement and giving to charities. The rich
are likely to engage in those activities even
without such “financial assistance,” raising
the question of whether that money could be better spent on other priorities.”
Got that? A tax break taking less of your
money is a government subsidy. And it surely
is . . . if you begin with the presumption that
the federal government owns 100% of everyone’s
income. Then when it lets voters keep some of
their income, this is a government subsidy to you.
It’s all a matter of perspective. It all begins
with a view of who owns you. The CBO assumes
that the federal government owns you.
Fact: all tax laws encourage and subsidize
“behaviors.” That is why Congress writes them.
Congressmen want to encourage the behavior of
getting special-interest groups to contribute
to Congressional re-election campaigns. And let
me assure you, this strategy works.
Then what does the phrase “other priorities”
mean? It means government boondoggles.
I suggest this priority: cut taxes, thereby
encouraging this “behavior.” Encourage
taxpayers to decide what to do with more of
their own money. But this priority does not
appeal to Washington Post reporters . . . or to Congress.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/richest-20-percent-get-half-the-overall-savings-from-tax-breaks-cbo-says/2013/05/29/645f75c6-c894-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.html>Continue
Reading on www.washingtonpost.com
http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/05/30/the-rich-pay-most-of-the-taxes-get-half-the-tax-breaks-democrats-are-outraged/#ixzz2V57lqQVX
<http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/05/30/the-rich-pay-most-of-the-taxes-get-half-the-tax-breaks-democrats-are-outraged/#ixzz2V57lqQVX>
--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
