Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

"As for being annoyed, I find it impossible to discuss any issue with people who dismiss the suggestions out of hand because it doesn't sound like something they would like, or because they heard somewhere that it might maybe possibly would cause some distress to some poor little underprivileged w

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

All money paid by the government comes from tax revenue, whether it is the prebate proposed by the Fair Tax folks, to the let me buy your vote tax refund that both Bush and Obama send out. As for being annoytedI find it impossible to discuss any issue with people who dismiss the suggestions out o

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

that helps a bit, thanks. On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Cameron Childress wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Dana wrote: > > > I don't find that answer terribly informative. > > > It's a prebate. It's financed by the taxes collected during that month, > but > paid ahead instead of

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Dana wrote: > I don't find that answer terribly informative. It's a prebate. It's financed by the taxes collected during that month, but paid ahead instead of after. -Cameron -- Cameron Childress -- p: 678.637.5072 im: cameroncf facebook

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

oh yeah - peace out ;) On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Dana wrote: > I don't find that answer terribly informative. Sounds kinda like the jobs > that were going to be financed by the tax cuts. But ok, whatever. In a > minute someone will tell me to read the website again. I am pretty sure it's

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

I don't find that answer terribly informative. Sounds kinda like the jobs that were going to be financed by the tax cuts. But ok, whatever. In a minute someone will tell me to read the website again. I am pretty sure it's not there... but I don't have days to sink into this discussion especially s

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

It is financed by the tax. On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Dana wrote: > > where does the "standard stipend" come from and how is it financed? > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Maureen wrote: > >> >> This is where your argument falls apart.  The amount of money for >> someone who is at or be

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

"A family or couple making 50K a year is not spending 50K on taxable items. " Maureen, seems like you have to keep repeating yourself. And it still doesn't sink in. "I've noticed that you're no longer arguing with the numbers and also that Jerry has dropped off." Why bother? You have set you

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

ha. The correct word is theoretically. In a world where some prescriptions cost $3500 per weekly dose, there is no way youu can be sure of that. On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote: > > " If the proposal excluded medicine and food from taxation, that exclusion > would happen at t

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

where does the "standard stipend" come from and how is it financed? On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Maureen wrote: > > This is where your argument falls apart. The amount of money for > someone who is at or below the poverty level would not decrease > because they would receive the standard st

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Maureen wrote: > > I do occasionally have to sleep.  As for your numbers, you're playing > fast and loose with both the intent and outcome How so? * I provided the link showing both the average family per the US census and the median income per the IRS. * I provided a real scenario that compar

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Maureen wrote: > > You venom toward this makes me think you work for the IRS. > The voracity in which he is arguing against it, leads me to believe that it might actually work. :D -- Scott Stroz --- You can make things happen, you can watch things h

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

I do occasionally have to sleep. As for your numbers, you're playing fast and loose with both the intent and outcome, and you have not changed my mind. You venom toward this makes me think you work for the IRS. On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Gruss Gott wrote: > > Maureen wrote: >> >> Gruss

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Maureen wrote: > > Gruss, do you spend every single penny of your income on purchases? I've noticed that you're no longer arguing with the numbers and also that Jerry has dropped off. Are you two religious about this? It's kinda seeming like it. Because I hope you see that not only is the Fai

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Maureen wrote: > > Gruss, do you spend every single penny of your income on purchases? Or > do you make a mortgage payment, invest it, save any of it?  No one..no > one, spends their entire income on "new goods and services". > >From FairTax.org: "To calculate the effective tax rate it is assum

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Gruss, do you spend every single penny of your income on purchases? Or do you make a mortgage payment, invest it, save any of it? No one..no one, spends their entire income on "new goods and services". On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Gruss Gott wrote: > > Maureen wrote: >> >> A family or cou

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Maureen wrote: > > A family or couple making 50K a year is not spending 50K on taxable > items.  Assuming that 20% of their income goes to taxable items According to FairTax.org that's wrong: (1.) "The FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

A family or couple making 50K a year is not spending 50K on taxable items. Assuming that 20% of their income goes to taxable items, and even that is debatable, and sales tax at 23%, which is what the Fair Tax calculator assumes. They would pay 4600 in sales tax. The family of four would get a pr

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Maureen wrote: > > No, because you leave out the prebate in your calculations. > > Go here and plug in your numbers. > http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator > Yes, but their calculator seems to be a piece of crap. Let's try the math ourselves: Now maybe I'm not understandi

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

No, because you leave out the prebate in your calculations. Go here and plug in your numbers. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator When I put them in it shows a net spendable increase of over 11 grand. On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Gruss Gott wrote: > > Maureen wrote:

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Maureen wrote: > > This is where your argument falls apart.  The amount of money for > someone who is at or below the poverty level would not decrease > because they would receive the standard stipend to cover all sales tax > they would owe. But doesn't your argument fall apart when you look at

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Until Later! C. Hatton Humphrey http://www.eastcoastconservative.com No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Maureen wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Gruss Gott wrote: > > (1

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Gruss Gott wrote: > (1.) Let's say the Fair Tax is 20% > > (2.) That family of 4 making $50,000/yr is probably living check to > check.  In other words they're spending $50,000/yr and getting hit > with a 20% tax. > (3.) Then there a childless married couple - bot

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Gruss Gott wrote: > All of sudden to them, life just got 15-20% more expensive!  That's a > MAJOR life hit.  They might have to choose between paying mortgage and > having their kids get, say, math tutoring. > > Thus when you COMPARE tax burden of the middle class (and others!) > suddenly the "Fa

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

" If the proposal excluded medicine and food from taxation, that exclusion would happen at the cash register, just as it does now in states that don't charge sales tax on food. " The Fair Tax is adamantly against any types of exclusion at the register or anywhere else. Once you start allowing c

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

This is where your argument falls apart. The amount of money for someone who is at or below the poverty level would not decrease because they would receive the standard stipend to cover all sales tax they would owe. Everyone would receive the same amount, so you would only owe tax if you spent t

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

"In short, the incentives are too unknown and the systemic risks too great. Not gonna happen" Well, you're probably right about one thing. It's not gonna happen. It has more to do with special interest than whether it will work and/or be a better system and/or be a more fair system and/or if i

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Jerry Barnes wrote: > > My bad.  You jump around so much and change your arguments so much it's hard > to keep track of them. > Interesting observation for you since I've just been responding to your pro arguments. My argument against the Fair Tax is not conceptual, it's practical: (1.) Multip

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

"No. My apologies, but I thought I was pretty clear on where 'my gotch' came from: Northwestern Law School's comparative law class" My bad. You jump around so much and change your arguments so much it's hard to keep track of them. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

I'll read it. No guarantee on when. I find progressive on income, regressive on sales kind of confusing too, if what I was describing before is wrong. On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Judah McAuley wrote: > > I look forward to reading all of that, Cam, thanks. But I read the > first 4 pages and

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Jerry Barnes wrote: > > The discussion is pointless.  You don't know enough about the issue to bring > up any valid points And yet you seem completely unable to invalidate "my" points. > Do you honestly think you have come up with a gotcha > that someone else hasn't? No. My apologies, but I t

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

I look forward to reading all of that, Cam, thanks. But I read the first 4 pages and looked at Table 0 and I'm not really sold on their explanation that Total Expenditures is a better measure than Total Income. They have Total Income declining for the bottom 50% and raising significantly for the t

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Dana wrote: > Well, you know more about the proposal than I do, but I was sure I saw that > somewhere. But ok. If it's entirely retailer-side you've got a regressive > tax, is what you've got, right? > There is also an interesting, more plain english explanati

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Dana wrote: > Well, you know more about the proposal than I do, but I was sure I saw that > somewhere. But ok. If it's entirely retailer-side you've got a regressive > tax, is what you've got, right? > Which I think was where we left off last time too... It woul

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Well, you know more about the proposal than I do, but I was sure I saw that somewhere. But ok. If it's entirely retailer-side you've got a regressive tax, is what you've got, right? On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Cameron Childress wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Dana wrote: > > > Y

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Dana wrote: > Y-e-e-s-sAlso there is apparently going to be some sort > of tracking of who bought what to make sure these people don't pay too > much. > Nothing I have ever read indicates this. Though, the Federal government is guaranteed to attempt to screw

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

I do not have time to argue with evangelists at the moment. I do not enjoy debate for the sake of debate. A discussion where people are actually listening to one another is one thing, but it seems like people are mainly just waiting for the next cue for *them* to say something. And it doesn't see

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Dana wrote: > yeah, Gruss. Professors. You should trust them ;) I have noticed you keeping your distance this time around... ;) -Cameron ... ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http:/

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

yeah, Gruss. Professors. You should trust them ;) On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote: > > Gruss, > > The discussion is pointless.  You don't know enough about the issue to bring > up any valid points, and as Maureen said, you don't want to know anything > about it. > > Anyway, th

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Gruss, The discussion is pointless. You don't know enough about the issue to bring up any valid points, and as Maureen said, you don't want to know anything about it. Anyway, the Fair Tax idea was written by a team of economic professors from around the country with the idea of collecting taxes

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Jerry Barnes wrote: > > Missouri opposes it so much that it will be on the ballot in 2012.  It is > being researched in GA.  Other states are looking at it too. > You continue to miss the point by conflating that which shan't be conflated: behaviors in a heterogeneous tax environment (feds, inco

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

"Hey Jerry?" Hey Gruss. "Last I checked Missouri wasn't the federal government." Last time I checked, Missouri was a state. Your quote: "And, btw, which states do you think would oppose this? I bet ... all the states with existing sales tax?? Yup, that's who'd oppose it alright." Missour

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Sam wrote: > > Back in the day you could buy a BMW or Benz in Germany, get it > converted for use in the US and ship it. In the end it would cost the > same as buying it here but you get a trip to Germany. That's basically the deal - you get a 14% discount (off the negotiated price), get to driv

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Back in the day you could buy a BMW or Benz in Germany, get it converted for use in the US and ship it. In the end it would cost the same as buying it here but you get a trip to Germany. Problem is it's not under warranty since it's gray market. I'm talking 30 years ago so things might have change

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Munich Germany? How are you getting it past state inspections and smog control laws? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Gruss Gott wrote: > > Maureen wrote: >> >> I wonder how aghast people would be.  Most people don't conside how >> much the sales tax would be before making a purchase.  Do peop

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

e: >>> >>> I know a lot of people who drive to stores in IN because they do not charge >>> taxes on food...even if they are driving an extra 20 miles or so to do this. >>> >>> -----Original Message- >>> From: PT [mailto:cft...@gmail.com] &g

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

o to do this. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: PT [mailto:cft...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 9:23 PM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...) >> >> >> On 7/5/2011 9:57 PM, Maure

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

You are my hero! :) On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Gruss Gott wrote: > > We also routinely - based on hotel promotions - check into hotel rooms > in town, mess up the bed, take the paper and soaps and shampoos, and > then leave. We do this because of the points arbitrage: we can score > an i

RE: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

local producers instead of the supermarket chains. -Original Message- From: Gruss Gott [mailto:grussg...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 11:48 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...) Eric Roberts wrote: > > I know quite a few.  I

RE: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

They do...they usually go once or twice a month and pretty much buy in bulk. -Original Message- From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 11:46 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...) you'd need

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

NYers shop in NJ to beat the sales tax. People drive to reservations to beat the sin tax on smokes. Shops in the diamond district ask you if you have someone you can trust in another state so they can sell you an engagement ring tax free. Then have your friend ship it back to you. . On Tue, Jul

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

"You can't fight City Hall" is propaganda, started by City Hall. Those who benefit from the current system want us to believe it cannot be changed. That is patently untrue, and we have a duty to prove them wrong. On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Vivec wrote: > > This "Fair Tax" , or any change

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Vivec wrote: > > This "Fair Tax" , or any change to the US tax system,will never happen > anyways. > I don't think the illusion will last as long as Brooks believes. All the political trickery in the world isn't going to save a system that is clearly broken. We ne

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Eric Roberts wrote: > > I know quite a few.  I have a friend who is looking at getting a job in the > Chicago area and is basing a large part of his decision on where he is going > to move to based on what the general merchandise taxes are.  They can > fluctuate by almost 5% based on county and c

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

ge- > From: PT [mailto:cft...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 9:23 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...) > > > On 7/5/2011 9:57 PM, Maureen wrote: >> >> I wonder how aghast people would be.  Most people d

RE: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

I know a lot of people who drive to stores in IN because they do not charge taxes on food...even if they are driving an extra 20 miles or so to do this. -Original Message- From: PT [mailto:cft...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 9:23 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Fair Tax (was

RE: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Message- From: Maureen [mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 8:57 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...) I wonder how aghast people would be. Most people don't conside how much the sales tax would be before making a pur

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Maureen wrote: > > I wonder how aghast people would be.  Most people don't conside how > much the sales tax would be before making a purchase.  Do people drive > to a different city to make purchases because the sales tax is lower? > Even on major purchases like cars where even a 1% difference is

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Justin Scott wrote: > > You're ignoring the increase in take-home pay that comes from not > having an income tax.  Sure, people would be aghast at higher prices > for a while, but they'd also have more money to spend, so things would > balance out. > Hm. I'm sure I'm saying things without clari

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Georgia. I paid the sales tax to the Dealership. They sent it to whichever state was entitled to receive it. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 7:40 PM, PT wrote: > > Sales tax in NC, or GA? > > On 7/5/2011 10:35 PM, Maureen wrote: >  I bought several cars from the family dealership in >> North Carolina w

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Sales tax in NC, or GA? On 7/5/2011 10:35 PM, Maureen wrote: I bought several cars from the family dealership in > North Carolina when I lived in Georgia, and occasionally got a letter > from the state of Georgia asking about the sales tax. I would just > send a copy of the contract showing th

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

I know they will bust you for not paying the sales tax across a state line if you neglect to pay the tax at all, but I've never known of anyone having a problem from going to an adjoining county or city to pay less tax. I bought several cars from the family dealership in North Carolina when I liv

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

> One would think the big drug dealers would welcome this to some degree. > No more getting busted for tax evasion. =D And ... this just made me wonder ... what would happen if someone actually recorded 0 income from cocaine sales on their taxes? Probably nothing but the DEA watching your acti

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On 7/5/2011 10:21 PM, Scott Stroz wrote: > A long time ago, when I took economics in college, there was an > magazine article the professor passed out that estimated the amount of > money in the 'underground economy' - all income made from illegal > activities or unreported income from illegal sal

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On 7/5/2011 9:57 PM, Maureen wrote: > > I wonder how aghast people would be. Most people don't conside how > much the sales tax would be before making a purchase. Do people drive > to a different city to make purchases because the sales tax is lower? > Even on major purchases like cars where eve

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Maureen wrote: > >  However, people like Paris > Hilton who spend their lives shopping  or those who earn all their > income from illegal enterprises and currently pay no income tax might > not like it much. A long time ago, when I took economics in college, ther

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

I wonder how aghast people would be. Most people don't conside how much the sales tax would be before making a purchase. Do people drive to a different city to make purchases because the sales tax is lower? Even on major purchases like cars where even a 1% difference is a substantial sum of mone

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

> The whole gee-the-states-already-have-sales-tax argument is like > saying that since you licked a 9 volt battery and didn't die it must > be ok to lick the wires sticking out of the live outlet.  A little > doesn't mean a lot is ok. Your argument is more like, "well, sure that battery works fin

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

It is abundantly clear that not only do you not know anything about the proposed Fair Tax, you don't want to know. Further you refuse to even acknowledge your previous statements on the issue. I don't know what happened to you in your absence, or if you are even the same person who used to post

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Jerry Barnes wrote: > > My God, it's hard to be so wrong about stuff so consistently, but you > manage.  Kudos on consistency. > > From the Fair Tax Blog: > > The Missouri House gave final approval to a proposed constitutional Hey Jerry? Last I checked Missouri wasn't the federal government. Th

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

"The amount of taxes the rich want to pay is, like now, is nothing." Let me fix this for you: The amount of taxes anyone wants to pay is, like now, is nothing. "And, btw, which states do you think would oppose this? I bet ... all the states with existing sales tax?? Yup, that's who'd oppos

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Maureen wrote: > > How can you refer to yourself as open-minded and suggest you would > change your mind upon seeing a probable solution if, as you stated, > you refuse to look at anything regarding the fair tax?  That's quite a > leap of logic. > I didn't say I refuse to look at anything, I sai

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

How can you refer to yourself as open-minded and suggest you would change your mind upon seeing a probable solution if, as you stated, you refuse to look at anything regarding the fair tax? That's quite a leap of logic. On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Gruss Gott wrote: > I'm certainly not a fan

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Maureen wrote: > > You need to do some reading on confirmation bias.  I fail to see how > gathering data only from opponents would be less emotional. Because before any studies are conducted, and therefore observations made and conclusions drawn, one must decide where and when to look, and what

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

You need to do some reading on confirmation bias. I fail to see how gathering data only from opponents would be less emotional. Also, I am quite capable of looking at the information any source and doing my own analysis - sans emotion. That being said - it is my opinion, based on 40 plus years

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Gruss Gott wrote: > If you want to understand the Fair Tax, don't read anything by anybody > with any relationship to it, and preferably not anyone who supports > it.  That way you'll get a less emotional analysis from people who are > considering the realistic hu

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Cameron Childress wrote: > > Consumer understanding of the tax would definitely be a challenge, as > evidenced by misunderstanding even among those on the list who claim > to have researched it (looking at you Gruss). > If you want to understand the Fair Tax, don't read anything by anybody with

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Gruss Gott wrote: > (1.) Lobbyists.  Every special interest that gets a benefit (relative > to others), will oppose it and that's a LOT. Yup. > (2.) Business.  How this would impact incentives and restructure > business is incalculable.  Many business would have

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Cameron Childress wrote: > > I am skeptical of it happening as well, however this is at the bottome of my > list of reasons why.  Leading that list is that 1) politicians use tax code > as a form of social behavior control an pet policy making (they would lose > this under fairtax) and 2) too

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On Jul 4, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Gruss Gott wrote: > LOL, am I really the first person that's pointed out to you why this > is never going to happen I am skeptical of it happening as well, however this is at the bottome of my list of reasons why. Leading that list is that 1) politicians use tax cod

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Cameron Childress wrote: > > On Jul 4, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Gruss Gott wrote: > >> No.  If you unclench your bung hole and read what I wrote, it's not an >> argument for, simply a point of fact. > No, I was referring to the existing folk that use income tax as saving account. They do. That's the

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On Jul 4, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Gruss Gott wrote: > No. If you unclench your bung hole and read what I wrote, it's not an > argument for, simply a point of fact. Emotional? 4x is a fact? I though you were 'pulling that out of your ass'? > Further your wiki study ... I can't believe someone actu

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Cameron Childress wrote: > > You are making an argument of forced saving for the poor because they > don't know any better and have no self control? No. If you unclench your bung hole and read what I wrote, it's not an argument for, simply a point of fact. Further your wiki study ... I can't b

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Gruss Gott wrote: > Enough with the histrionics already.  Exercise just a tab bit of > emotional control once in awhile, huh? 10,000x is just as valid, based on the basis of your argument (none). > I think it is reasonable to have an opinion that says that the >

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Cameron Childress wrote: > > On Jul 3, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Gruss Gott wrote: >> Yes, completely out of my arse.  But it's a small arse guess.  If you >> pressed me for accuracy, depending on what kind of loss tolerance we >> agreed to, I'd say more like 10x. > > Why not 1,000x or 10,000x? Enough

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On Jul 3, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson wrote: > If you want to know more about multiplying by 4, I would suggest flash > cards. They seem to have worked best for my nephew when he was 4. These sound fantastic. I will see if I can find some that come preprinted with wild guesses and as

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On Jul 3, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Gruss Gott wrote: > Yes, completely out of my arse. But it's a small arse guess. If you > pressed me for accuracy, depending on what kind of loss tolerance we > agreed to, I'd say more like 10x. Why not 1,000x or 10,000x? I mean if you are making up numbers from no

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Won't happen. Their are economic lines that the people won't cross. We saw this in 2008 when gas prices approached five dollars and people not only stopped buying gas, they stopped buying cars, houses, and much of anything other than necessities. That is in truth what triggered the near collapse

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On Jul 4, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Vivec wrote: > This "Fair Tax" , or any change to the US tax system,will never happen > anyways. Unfortunately, this is probably true. Not without an even larger financial crisis anyway. It could perhaps move slowly one percent at a time into existence, but that

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

This "Fair Tax" , or any change to the US tax system,will never happen anyways. I think the US will simply continue to print money and sink deeper and deeper into Debt. Until the point where a ride in an ambulance costs 1500 dollars, and emergency care costs 350k. There'll be no "middle class" a

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Jerry Barnes wrote: > > The "fairness" comes in since no one pays taxes on the necessities up to the > poverty line.  Since the rich spend more money, way more than the poverty > line, they will be taxed more.  More importantly, they are only taxed on > what they want to be taxed on.  If they don

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Justin Scott wrote: > >> Nope, you haven't thought this through at all. > > I have, I just have a more optimistic world-view than you do. > > Well I hope you get what you dream cause that would mean a 30% raise for me. I'll take it! ~

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

> Nope, you haven't thought this through at all. I have, I just have a more optimistic world-view than you do. -Justin ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

"So there is, in fact, policy built into the Fair Tax. i.e., taxing consumption for rich people buying ferraris is not the same as taxing poor people buying food to live." Wrong. Last time I checked, rich people need food to live. "To me, the whole concept of 'fair' in the tax is right from t

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

4 is a whole number, here is a little more information http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ9WiuJPnNA Multiplication (often denoted by the cross symbol "×") is the mathematical operation of scaling one number by another. It is one of the four basic operations in elementary arithmetic (the others bein

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Cameron Childress wrote: > > Based on what?  Pulling numbers from your ass?  Is x4 documented anywhere at > all? > Yes, completely out of my arse. But it's a small arse guess. If you pressed me for accuracy, depending on what kind of loss tolerance we agreed to, I'd say more like 10x. Dude.

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

On Jul 3, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson wrote: > IRS x 4 = New IRS > > (How hard was that?) Based on what? Pulling numbers from your ass? Is x4 documented anywhere at all? -Cameron ... ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Maureen wrote: > > People have been analyzing the potential benefits and problems with a > national sales tax for decades, which you would know if you bothered > to find out anything about it at all. > > Start here:  FairTax.org > Here's where I started: Northwestern Law School. They teach a cl

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

People have been analyzing the potential benefits and problems with a national sales tax for decades, which you would know if you bothered to find out anything about it at all. Start here: FairTax.org On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Gruss Gott wrote: > If, all of sudden, you make a sales tax

Re: Fair Tax (was: California tells online retailers ...)

Justin Scott wrote: > > Except that it already is, on a smaller scale, in several states. > Except that it's not. What you're forgetting, ignoring, or haven't considered is that the existing sales tax is *one part* of an individual's overall tax burden and the smallest part in many cases. If,

  1   2   >