In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

local
tradesmen, who will suddenly learn that they no longer work in a "cash
business.

You mean, they'll suddenly be reminded that they aren't exempt from
paying their fair share of taxes. Sounds good to me.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

local
tradesmen, who will suddenly learn that they no longer work in a "cash
business.

You mean, they'll suddenly be reminded that they aren't exempt from
paying their fair share of taxes. Sounds good to me.

No, it means there will be a lot of fake invoices
given out for repair work and a lot of fake tax ID
numbers. Of course the IRS will go after the small
landlord and waste more taxpayer dollars. It's not
unusual for the government to spend $100,000.00 to
go after $100.00. More nonsense from the BeeHO
administration.

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

local tradesmen, who will suddenly learn that they no longer work in
a "cash business.

You mean, they'll suddenly be reminded that they aren't exempt from
paying their fair share of taxes. Sounds good to me.

No, it means there will be a lot of fake invoices
given out for repair work and a lot of fake tax ID
numbers. Of course the IRS will go after the small
landlord and waste more taxpayer dollars. It's not
unusual for the government to spend $100,000.00 to
go after $100.00. More nonsense from the BeeHO
administration.

TDD

So are you saying if they object to paying taxes it is OK to be a tax
cheat? I happen to think the way to address that is to turn off American
idol, pay attention and fire anyone on election day who has wasted our
money and refuse to hire others who wish to do so. People who voted yes
for the current politicians because they were going to do everything for
them need to realize that means they need to pay for the "free stuff"
the government will give them.

George wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

local tradesmen, who will suddenly learn that they no longer work in
a "cash business.

You mean, they'll suddenly be reminded that they aren't exempt from
paying their fair share of taxes. Sounds good to me.

No, it means there will be a lot of fake invoices
given out for repair work and a lot of fake tax ID
numbers. Of course the IRS will go after the small
landlord and waste more taxpayer dollars. It's not
unusual for the government to spend $100,000.00 to
go after $100.00. More nonsense from the BeeHO
administration.

TDD

So are you saying if they object to paying taxes it is OK to be a tax
cheat? I happen to think the way to address that is to turn off American
idol, pay attention and fire anyone on election day who has wasted our
money and refuse to hire others who wish to do so. People who voted yes
for the current politicians because they were going to do everything for
them need to realize that means they need to pay for the "free stuff"
the government will give them.

A simple tax like "The Fair Tax" that's being touted
would eliminate all the nonsense that goes on but it
would take control away from politicians, which is
why most politicians are against it.

TDD

On May 12, 10:17*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,

*"HeyBub" wrote:
local
tradesmen, who will suddenly learn that they no longer work in a "cash
business.

You mean, they'll suddenly be reminded that they aren't exempt from
paying their fair share of taxes. Sounds good to me.

Right, and next thing the government will force you to do is provide
that same 1099 for every waitress you delt with everytime you go out
to eat. Can't let them get away without paying taxes on that tip
income.

The Daring Dufas wrote:

A simple tax like "The Fair Tax" that's being touted
would eliminate all the nonsense that goes on but it
would take control away from politicians, which is
why most politicians are against it.


What's fair for one is thought to be unfair to another. One proposal is the
"flat" tax.

I have a better proposal that everybody can get behind.

I propose a "flat-flat tax." Here's how it works. Assume the national budget
is $3 trillion and
that there are 300 million folks in the country. Each person, then, is
responsible for $10,000. That's their tax. Period. End of discussion.

There are problems associated with this plan, I admit. For example, what
about the poor person who doesn't HAVE $10,000?

Well, he could contribute one unit of blood platelets per month and get a
$1,000 credit toward the current tax year - sort of like withholding.

But, you say, what about the poor single mother who has four kids under the
age of six? We can't drain FIVE units of blood from her each month and
certainly we aren't going to vampire the toddlers! Absolutely correct. She's
responsible for the taxes on her children, but we can't take that much
blood. It would be silly to even contemplate such. What she CAN contribute
is a kidney. A kidney is worth about $100,000 on the open market. That, plus
the platelets, would mean her family's taxes would be paid for about three
years.

Now I know what you're thinking. After three years, what? Do we take her
OTHER kidney? No, silly person... we insist she donate a cornea. That should
be good for another three or four years, by which time her litter will be
off having babies of their own and her tax liability would fall back to the
normal range. In the event the kids aren't out having babies or selling
crack, we then fall back to liver aliquots or bone marrow.

This plan has several subordinate benefits. First it discourages having
children on the dole, cause momma has to have her teeth extracted for
transplantation. Secondly, it encourages marital fidelity since a two-income
family can better afford the taxes.

Absent approval of the foregoing, the "fairest" tax is the
"anti-progressive" tax. That is, rich people should pay a smaller percentage
of their income than the lower classes since they use fewer government
services. The well-to-do should pay SOMETHING - after all they do benefit
from the protection our military affords and they do drive (or are
chauffeured) on public roads. But they don't (generally) use public
hospitals, public schools, or get free treatment for VD. They don't use
public libraries or public parks (they have their own). No, the rich don't
use a proportionate amount of public services, so they should pay only what
their class consumes.

As an aside, I sent both these ideas to George McGovern back when he was
running for president. Just like all politicians, he didn't even deign to
respond. One day I'll tell you my plan for integrating the schools. He
evidently didn't like that plan either. Bad McGovern.

The Daring Dufas wrote in news:guc97h$qo6$4
@news.motzarella.org:

A simple tax like "The Fair Tax" that's being touted
would eliminate all the nonsense that goes on but it
would take control away from politicians, which is
why most politicians are against it.


I still think that taxpayer compliance with the law is paramount. The
paperwork is bothersome, but if too many people just cash a check or take
$$ as payment for services without paying tax, it means that salaried
people take the brunt of paying taxes, and the cheats go free. That's not
fair, the taxing method is immaterial.

If "Fair Tax" means cutting out loopholes then I'm all for it. Take away
exceptions, credits for this and that is fine with me.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

A simple tax like "The Fair Tax" that's being touted
would eliminate all the nonsense that goes on but it
would take control away from politicians, which is
why most politicians are against it.


What's fair for one is thought to be unfair to another. One proposal
is the "flat" tax.

I have a better proposal that everybody can get behind.

I propose a "flat-flat tax." Here's how it works. Assume the national
budget is $3 trillion and
that there are 300 million folks in the country. Each person, then, is
responsible for $10,000. That's their tax. Period. End of discussion.

There are problems associated with this plan, I admit. For example,
what about the poor person who doesn't HAVE $10,000?

Well, he could contribute one unit of blood platelets per month and
get a $1,000 credit toward the current tax year - sort of like
withholding.

But, you say, what about the poor single mother who has four kids
under the age of six? We can't drain FIVE units of blood from her each
month and certainly we aren't going to vampire the toddlers!
Absolutely correct. She's responsible for the taxes on her children,
but we can't take that much blood. It would be silly to even
contemplate such. What she CAN contribute is a kidney. A kidney is
worth about $100,000 on the open market. That, plus the platelets,
would mean her family's taxes would be paid for about three years.

Now I know what you're thinking. After three years, what? Do we take
her OTHER kidney? No, silly person... we insist she donate a cornea.
That should be good for another three or four years, by which time her
litter will be off having babies of their own and her tax liability
would fall back to the normal range. In the event the kids aren't out
having babies or selling crack, we then fall back to liver aliquots or
bone marrow.

This plan has several subordinate benefits. First it discourages
having children on the dole, cause momma has to have her teeth
extracted for transplantation. Secondly, it encourages marital
fidelity since a two-income family can better afford the taxes.

Absent approval of the foregoing, the "fairest" tax is the
"anti-progressive" tax. That is, rich people should pay a smaller
percentage of their income than the lower classes since they use fewer
government services. The well-to-do should pay SOMETHING - after all
they do benefit from the protection our military affords and they do
drive (or are chauffeured) on public roads. But they don't (generally)
use public hospitals, public schools, or get free treatment for VD.
They don't use public libraries or public parks (they have their own).
No, the rich don't use a proportionate amount of public services, so
they should pay only what their class consumes.

As an aside, I sent both these ideas to George McGovern back when he
was running for president. Just like all politicians, he didn't even
deign to respond. One day I'll tell you my plan for integrating the
schools. He evidently didn't like that plan either. Bad McGovern.

Flat tax is nonsense as described. Tax rates are fine - zero tax on the
first so much, 15% on the next so much, etc. Perhaps a credit (negative
tax) for real poor people. But certainly a good tax on "rich" people, or
blood sucking (fill in).

But no exceptions this or exceptions that. No accounting gimmicks
allowed.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On May 13, 10:17*am, wrote:
On 13 May 2009 11:04:38 GMT, Han wrote:

Flat tax is nonsense as described. *Tax rates are fine - zero tax on the
first so much, 15% on the next so much, etc. *Perhaps a credit (negative
tax) for real poor people. *But certainly a good tax on "rich" people, or
blood sucking (fill in).

But no exceptions this or exceptions that. *No accounting gimmicks
allowed.

The real problem is the politicians use the tax code to reward
politically correct things and punish things they consider not
politically correct. They are not likely to give up this power.

You mean they are not likely to give up the power to buy the votes of
the masses.

I'll agree with that. The power to tax or taxrelief gives
them great ability to shape the direction of the nation.

Look at our present direction. A hard working contractor
gets audited while a pregnant border criminal gets buckets
of taxpayer dollars.

Instead of getting angry at border criminals, maybe we
should figure out who is giving away all the tax monies?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...

The real problem is the politicians use the tax code to
reward
politically correct things and punish things they consider
not
politically correct. They are not likely to give up this
power.