OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen

(Yeah it's useless to complain about death or taxes, thanks for letting me
rant)

Mark



TAX FAIRNESS ACT of 2012



The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local governments from
imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For example, a taxpayer should
not have to pay taxes to the Federal government on a dollars that are paid
to the state or local governments. This example is already true, state and
local taxes ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends
this to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.



1) Federal income taxes must not be levied on the following:

States Income tax payments

Local income tax payments

Real Estate and school tax payments

Sales tax payments

Charges by municipalities for water sewer garbage collection or
other fees

Fees for using roads and bridges i.e. tolls

Fees paid to park on a public street



2) State income taxes must not be levied on the following:

Federal Income tax payments

Local income tax payments

Real Estate and school tax payments

Sales tax payments

Charges by municipalities for water sewer garbage collection or
other fees

Fees for using roads and bridges i.e. tolls

Fees paid to park on a public street







3) Local income taxes must not be levied on the following:

Federal Income tax payments

State income tax payments

Sales tax payments

Fees for using roads and bridges i.e. tolls

Fees paid to park on a public street

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

Seems Mark wants to pay less in taxes. Admirable.
However, you would first have to set priorities where the diverse
governments would cut their expenditures. Without doing that you can't cut
taxes. So far NO ONE in or outside of Congress or government has set
anything like a useful baseline for discussions, except perhaps the failed
gang of six plan that (irresponsibly) was canned by both left and right.

If you want more deductions from federal taxes for taxes paid to other
levels of government, or vice versa, you would have to raise rates to keep
tax receipts at an "appropriate" level. Appropriate is of course a
laughable term here.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

"MarkK" writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
....
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local governments from
imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For example, a taxpayer should
not have to pay taxes to the Federal government on a dollars that are paid
to the state or local governments. This example is already true, state and
local taxes ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends
this to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

How will this help others with their home repair projects?

--
Dan Espen

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

Dan Espen wrote in :

"MarkK" writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local governments from
imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For example, a taxpayer should
not have to pay taxes to the Federal government on a dollars that are paid
to the state or local governments. This example is already true, state and
local taxes ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends
this to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th Amendment, and institute a
sales tax instead.

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

Doug Miller writes:

Dan Espen wrote in :

"MarkK" writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local governments from
imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For example, a taxpayer should
not have to pay taxes to the Federal government on a dollars that are paid
to the state or local governments. This example is already true, state and
local taxes ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends
this to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th Amendment, and institute a
sales tax instead.

And this advanced economic theory is based on what?
And what is it supposed to accomplish?

Sorry Doug, but the recent trend in American thinking to just say
everything is screwed up and we have to change things rubs me the wrong
way. Sounds like a perfect prescription for making things much, much worse.

--
Dan Espen

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:15:36 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Dan Espen wrote in :

"MarkK" writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local governments from
imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For example, a taxpayer should
not have to pay taxes to the Federal government on a dollars that are paid
to the state or local governments. This example is already true, state and
local taxes ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends
this to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th Amendment, and institute a
sales tax instead.

It will never happen. Best is a flat income tax or even something like Cain's
9-9-9. At least there is a way of getting there from here.

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

MarkK wrote:
Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen

(Yeah it's useless to complain about death or taxes, thanks for
letting me rant)


Good idea. In that vein, I'd like to repeat my "Flat-Flat Tax" idea.

Assuming, in round numbers, the federal government needs $3.5 trillion.
Assuming, again in round numbers, there are 350 million people in the U.S.,
then each person should pay $10,000 and that's the end of it.

Think of the simplicity!

"But," you might say, "what about the person who doesn't HAVE ten thousand
dollars?"

They could donate one unit of blood plasma per month for which the
government would credit $1,000 per unit (I call this the Federal Withdrawing
Plan). In ten months each person could eliminate his or her liability.

"But, but, but..." you might complain, "what about the 18-year old mother of
four precious snowflakes? She would be responsible for $50,000/year. Are you
suggesting we draw blood from infants and toddlers?"

Of course not. That would be absurd, not to mention cruel. It's true that
mom is on the hook for fifty large, and we certainly can't expect her to
provide five units of blood plasma per month. But what she could do is
contribute a kidney.

A kidney could replace a dialysis machine and is easily worth $250,000. One
kidney would pay up her tax bill for FIVE YEARS!

"And at the end of five years, what would you do? Take her OTHER kidney?"

Absolutely not. That would be silly. She can't function without a kidney!.
What she COULD do, is contribute a cornea.

Assuming a cornea is roughly the same value as a kidney, she'd have her tax
liability controled for ANOTHER five years.

These two marketable items, coupled with the aforementioned blood platelets,
would totally solve her tax problem for twelve, thirteen, or more years. By
then, her children would be out on their own (or in jail), and she could go
back to being a single taxpayer.

Now I know the above is not a COMPLETE solution, we may have to make
exceptions for members of the military or those in necessary professions,
like members of Congress.

I'm sure there will be tweaks.

But it's a starting point.

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

Doug Miller wrote:
Dan Espen wrote in :

"MarkK" writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local
governments from imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For
example, a taxpayer should not have to pay taxes to the Federal
government on a dollars that are paid to the state or local
governments. This example is already true, state and local taxes
ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends this
to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th
Amendment, and institute a sales tax instead.

Right. Move the tax burden over to the working class, and give the poor starving
billionaires a break.

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

HeyBub wrote:
MarkK wrote:
Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen

(Yeah it's useless to complain about death or taxes, thanks for
letting me rant)


Good idea. In that vein, I'd like to repeat my "Flat-Flat Tax" idea.

Assuming, in round numbers, the federal government needs $3.5
trillion. Assuming, again in round numbers, there are 350 million
people in the U.S., then each person should pay $10,000 and that's
the end of it.
Think of the simplicity!

"But," you might say, "what about the person who doesn't HAVE ten
thousand dollars?"

They could donate one unit of blood plasma per month for which the
government would credit $1,000 per unit (I call this the Federal
Withdrawing Plan). In ten months each person could eliminate his or
her liability.
"But, but, but..." you might complain, "what about the 18-year old
mother of four precious snowflakes? She would be responsible for
$50,000/year. Are you suggesting we draw blood from infants and
toddlers?"
Of course not. That would be absurd, not to mention cruel. It's true
that mom is on the hook for fifty large, and we certainly can't
expect her to provide five units of blood plasma per month. But what
she could do is contribute a kidney.

A kidney could replace a dialysis machine and is easily worth
$250,000. One kidney would pay up her tax bill for FIVE YEARS!

"And at the end of five years, what would you do? Take her OTHER
kidney?"
Absolutely not. That would be silly. She can't function without a
kidney!. What she COULD do, is contribute a cornea.

Assuming a cornea is roughly the same value as a kidney, she'd have
her tax liability controled for ANOTHER five years.

These two marketable items, coupled with the aforementioned blood
platelets, would totally solve her tax problem for twelve, thirteen,
or more years. By then, her children would be out on their own (or in
jail), and she could go back to being a single taxpayer.

Now I know the above is not a COMPLETE solution, we may have to make
exceptions for members of the military or those in necessary
professions, like members of Congress.

I'm sure there will be tweaks.

But it's a starting point.

Sounds like "good" Republicon thinking. That's certainly the direction they're
taking us.

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

"Bob F" writes:

HeyBub wrote:
MarkK wrote:
Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
....
Now I know the above is not a COMPLETE solution, we may have to make
exceptions for members of the military or those in necessary
professions, like members of Congress.

I'm sure there will be tweaks.

But it's a starting point.

Sounds like "good" Republicon thinking. That's certainly the direction they're
taking us.

Every single one of these plans has "unspecified offsets"
(don't worry, everything will be okay, just vote for me).

Someone will be along shortly to explain this to you.

--
Dan Espen

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

"Bob F" wrote in :

Doug Miller wrote:
Dan Espen wrote in :

"MarkK" writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local
governments from imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For
example, a taxpayer should not have to pay taxes to the Federal
government on a dollars that are paid to the state or local
governments. This example is already true, state and local taxes
ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends this
to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th
Amendment, and institute a sales tax instead.

Right. Move the tax burden over to the working class, and give the poor starving
billionaires a break.

Ummmm.... no, actually it would have exactly the opposite effect. Think it through: who
spends more, the rich or the poor?

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

In the case of the over taxed people of the US.

Tax cuts lead to prosperity, and growth. Reduces
the stifling effect of over taxation.

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

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...

Sounds like "good" Republicon thinking. That's certainly the direction
they're
taking us.

Every single one of these plans has "unspecified offsets"
(don't worry, everything will be okay, just vote for me).

Someone will be along shortly to explain this to you.

--
Dan Espen

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

Doug Miller writes:

"Bob F" wrote in :

Doug Miller wrote:
Dan Espen wrote in :

"MarkK" writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local
governments from imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For
example, a taxpayer should not have to pay taxes to the Federal
government on a dollars that are paid to the state or local
governments. This example is already true, state and local taxes
ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends this
to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th
Amendment, and institute a sales tax instead.

Right. Move the tax burden over to the working class, and give the poor starving
billionaires a break.

Ummmm.... no, actually it would have exactly the opposite
effect. Think it through: who spends more, the rich or the poor?

Ummmm, yes.

This is basic tax theory, I shouldn't have to explain it.

Current income taxes are on a graduated scale.
The more you make, the more you pay as a percentage.

With a sales tax that percentage difference goes away.
Everyone pays the same rate. Big benefit number 1 to the rich.

Add to that, the poor are likely to spend 100% of their income.
The rich are likely to save a good percentage of their income,
thereby deferring any sales tax paid.

--
Dan Espen

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

Ummmm, yes.

This is basic tax theory, I shouldn't have to explain it.

Current income taxes are on a graduated scale.
The more you make, the more you pay as a percentage.

With a sales tax that percentage difference goes away.
Everyone pays the same rate. Big benefit number 1 to the rich.

Depends on how it is structured, although that causes additional
problems of its own. For instance most state sales taxes don't include
most food, housing, health care, etc. This addresses these issues to a
certain extent.



--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

With a flat tax, I suspect there will be more economic activity. And the
rich folks will do more spending. So, the increased number of transactions
will make up for the lack of percentage points.

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

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...

Ummmm, yes.

This is basic tax theory, I shouldn't have to explain it.

Current income taxes are on a graduated scale.
The more you make, the more you pay as a percentage.

With a sales tax that percentage difference goes away.
Everyone pays the same rate. Big benefit number 1 to the rich.

Add to that, the poor are likely to spend 100% of their income.
The rich are likely to save a good percentage of their income,
thereby deferring any sales tax paid.

--
Dan Espen

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

Kurt Ullman writes:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

Ummmm, yes.

This is basic tax theory, I shouldn't have to explain it.

Current income taxes are on a graduated scale.
The more you make, the more you pay as a percentage.

With a sales tax that percentage difference goes away.
Everyone pays the same rate. Big benefit number 1 to the rich.

Depends on how it is structured, although that causes additional
problems of its own. For instance most state sales taxes don't include
most food, housing, health care, etc. This addresses these issues to a
certain extent.

Agreed.

Reminds me of every proposed flat tax plan.
They all have "unspecified offsets".

Specify the offsets and we can talk. Until then
it's a huge benefit to the rich.

--
Dan Espen

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

"Stormin Mormon" writes:

With a flat tax, I suspect there will be more economic activity. And the
rich folks will do more spending. So, the increased number of transactions
will make up for the lack of percentage points.

You suspect?

Don't you really mean you pulled that out of your nether orifice?

And I guess you completely missed the current graduated tax part.

--
Dan Espen

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

Is that a bad thing? After all, rich people buy stuff, and hire others.

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

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...

Specify the offsets and we can talk. Until then
it's a huge benefit to the rich.

--
Dan Espen

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

"Bob F" wrote in message
...
Doug Miller wrote:
Dan Espen wrote in :

"MarkK" writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local
governments from imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For
example, a taxpayer should not have to pay taxes to the Federal
government on a dollars that are paid to the state or local
governments. This example is already true, state and local taxes
ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends this
to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th
Amendment, and institute a sales tax instead.

Right. Move the tax burden over to the working class, and give the poor
starving billionaires a break.



Some people are much too stupid AND ignorant to express anything but
nonsense on the subject
Which is why such idiots constantly appeal to emotion instead of arguing the
subject rationally

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

"Stormin Mormon" writes:

Is that a bad thing? After all, rich people buy stuff, and hire others.

I suppose that makes sense... To you.

--
Dan Espen

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

"Stormin Mormon" writes:

One of the problems wtih the current tax code. By giving loopholes and
exemptions to certain behaviours, the tax people can reward and punish what
behaviours they want. Changing behaviour, isn't the Constitutional reason
for the tax system. The reason is to fund the (minimal) needs of the
government.

And when those loopholes were created, they did encourage the desired
behavior. All perfectly legitimate under "encouraging the common
welfare".

This "constitutional issue" is a figment of your imagination.

But when it comes to repealing one of these loop holes when it's no
longer needed we run up against ideologues that have signed the Grover
Norquist pledge. So now we have irrevocable welfare for oil companies
and banks.

--
Dan Espen

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
MarkK wrote:
Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen

(Yeah it's useless to complain about death or taxes, thanks for
letting me rant)


Good idea. In that vein, I'd like to repeat my "Flat-Flat Tax" idea.

Assuming, in round numbers, the federal government needs $3.5 trillion.
Assuming, again in round numbers, there are 350 million people in the
U.S., then each person should pay $10,000 and that's the end of it.

Think of the simplicity!

"But," you might say, "what about the person who doesn't HAVE ten thousand
dollars?"

They could donate one unit of blood plasma per month for which the
government would credit $1,000 per unit (I call this the Federal
Withdrawing Plan). In ten months each person could eliminate his or her
liability.

"But, but, but..." you might complain, "what about the 18-year old mother
of four precious snowflakes? She would be responsible for $50,000/year.
Are you suggesting we draw blood from infants and toddlers?"

Of course not. That would be absurd, not to mention cruel. It's true that
mom is on the hook for fifty large, and we certainly can't expect her to
provide five units of blood plasma per month. But what she could do is
contribute a kidney.

A kidney could replace a dialysis machine and is easily worth $250,000.
One kidney would pay up her tax bill for FIVE YEARS!

"And at the end of five years, what would you do? Take her OTHER kidney?"

Absolutely not. That would be silly. She can't function without a kidney!.
What she COULD do, is contribute a cornea.

Assuming a cornea is roughly the same value as a kidney, she'd have her
tax liability controled for ANOTHER five years.

These two marketable items, coupled with the aforementioned blood
platelets, would totally solve her tax problem for twelve, thirteen, or
more years. By then, her children would be out on their own (or in jail),
and she could go back to being a single taxpayer.

Now I know the above is not a COMPLETE solution, we may have to make
exceptions for members of the military or those in necessary professions,
like members of Congress.

I'm sure there will be tweaks.

But it's a starting point.



Somewhere along the line, she should give up her ovaries.
If she can't afford having children, she shouldn't be popping them out like
zits

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

"Bob F" wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:
MarkK wrote:
Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen

(Yeah it's useless to complain about death or taxes, thanks for
letting me rant)


Good idea. In that vein, I'd like to repeat my "Flat-Flat Tax" idea.

Assuming, in round numbers, the federal government needs $3.5
trillion. Assuming, again in round numbers, there are 350 million
people in the U.S., then each person should pay $10,000 and that's
the end of it.
Think of the simplicity!

"But," you might say, "what about the person who doesn't HAVE ten
thousand dollars?"

They could donate one unit of blood plasma per month for which the
government would credit $1,000 per unit (I call this the Federal
Withdrawing Plan). In ten months each person could eliminate his or
her liability.
"But, but, but..." you might complain, "what about the 18-year old
mother of four precious snowflakes? She would be responsible for
$50,000/year. Are you suggesting we draw blood from infants and
toddlers?"
Of course not. That would be absurd, not to mention cruel. It's true
that mom is on the hook for fifty large, and we certainly can't
expect her to provide five units of blood plasma per month. But what
she could do is contribute a kidney.

A kidney could replace a dialysis machine and is easily worth
$250,000. One kidney would pay up her tax bill for FIVE YEARS!

"And at the end of five years, what would you do? Take her OTHER
kidney?"
Absolutely not. That would be silly. She can't function without a
kidney!. What she COULD do, is contribute a cornea.

Assuming a cornea is roughly the same value as a kidney, she'd have
her tax liability controled for ANOTHER five years.

These two marketable items, coupled with the aforementioned blood
platelets, would totally solve her tax problem for twelve, thirteen,
or more years. By then, her children would be out on their own (or in
jail), and she could go back to being a single taxpayer.

Now I know the above is not a COMPLETE solution, we may have to make
exceptions for members of the military or those in necessary
professions, like members of Congress.

I'm sure there will be tweaks.

But it's a starting point.

Sounds like "good" Republicon thinking. That's certainly the direction
they're taking us.


Fools can only respond with stupid labels, instead of actually trying to
address the issue discussed.

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

Reading your last several posts, you appear to be a dyed in the wool liberal
socialist.

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

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...

So now we have irrevocable welfare for oil companies
and banks.

--
Dan Espen

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" writes:

One of the problems wtih the current tax code. By giving loopholes and
exemptions to certain behaviours, the tax people can reward and punish what
behaviours they want. Changing behaviour, isn't the Constitutional reason
for the tax system. The reason is to fund the (minimal) needs of the
government.

And when those loopholes were created, they did encourage the desired
behavior. All perfectly legitimate under "encouraging the common
welfare".
Yes and no. They encouraged the desired behavior (sometimes, I have
all sorts of instances where changes in the tax code resulted in really
bad behaviors and others where the outcomes were pretty much the exact
opposite of what they were touted to do), but only for a certain period
of time. Then the system regained equilibrium under the new order and
carried on w/ relatively little impact.


But when it comes to repealing one of these loop holes when it's no
longer needed we run up against ideologues that have signed the Grover
Norquist pledge. So now we have irrevocable welfare for oil companies
and banks.

If you look at the top tax expenditures (that is Washington for
loopholes) you have to get to number 7 before you get to one that might
be beneficial to only people in the top brackets and it is out of the
top 10 before you get one that is exclusively for business. We spend a
lot more on loopholes for everyone (like IRAs, healthcare-- the single
biggest--, and mortgage deductions-- the second biggest).

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:05:46 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" writes:

One of the problems wtih the current tax code. By giving loopholes and
exemptions to certain behaviours, the tax people can reward and punish what
behaviours they want. Changing behaviour, isn't the Constitutional reason
for the tax system. The reason is to fund the (minimal) needs of the
government.

And when those loopholes were created, they did encourage the desired
behavior. All perfectly legitimate under "encouraging the common
welfare".

"common welfare" individual welfare

This "constitutional issue" is a figment of your imagination.

But when it comes to repealing one of these loop holes when it's no
longer needed we run up against ideologues that have signed the Grover
Norquist pledge. So now we have irrevocable welfare for oil companies
and banks.

Nonsense.

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

"Stormin Mormon" writes:

Reading your last several posts, you appear to be a dyed in the wool liberal
socialist.

As long as you can fall back on what amounts to name calling,
you don't even need to put together logical sentences.

--
Dan Espen

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

Kurt Ullman writes:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" writes:

One of the problems wtih the current tax code. By giving loopholes and
exemptions to certain behaviours, the tax people can reward and punish what
behaviours they want. Changing behaviour, isn't the Constitutional reason
for the tax system. The reason is to fund the (minimal) needs of the
government.

And when those loopholes were created, they did encourage the desired
behavior. All perfectly legitimate under "encouraging the common
welfare".
Yes and no. They encouraged the desired behavior (sometimes, I have
all sorts of instances where changes in the tax code resulted in really
bad behaviors and others where the outcomes were pretty much the exact
opposite of what they were touted to do), but only for a certain period
of time. Then the system regained equilibrium under the new order and
carried on w/ relatively little impact.


But when it comes to repealing one of these loop holes when it's no
longer needed we run up against ideologues that have signed the Grover
Norquist pledge. So now we have irrevocable welfare for oil companies
and banks.

If you look at the top tax expenditures (that is Washington for
loopholes) you have to get to number 7 before you get to one that might
be beneficial to only people in the top brackets and it is out of the
top 10 before you get one that is exclusively for business. We spend a
lot more on loopholes for everyone (like IRAs, healthcare-- the single
biggest--, and mortgage deductions-- the second biggest).

I did mention banks. Mortgage deductions serve multiple purposes
but one of them is welfare for banks.

--
Dan Espen

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:00:41 -0400, Dan Espen
wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" writes:

Is that a bad thing? After all, rich people buy stuff, and hire others.

I suppose that makes sense... To you.

It makes sense to a lot of us.

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:06:15 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...
MarkK wrote:
Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen

(Yeah it's useless to complain about death or taxes, thanks for
letting me rant)


Good idea. In that vein, I'd like to repeat my "Flat-Flat Tax" idea.

Assuming, in round numbers, the federal government needs $3.5 trillion.
Assuming, again in round numbers, there are 350 million people in the
U.S., then each person should pay $10,000 and that's the end of it.

Think of the simplicity!

"But," you might say, "what about the person who doesn't HAVE ten thousand
dollars?"

They could donate one unit of blood plasma per month for which the
government would credit $1,000 per unit (I call this the Federal
Withdrawing Plan). In ten months each person could eliminate his or her
liability.

"But, but, but..." you might complain, "what about the 18-year old mother
of four precious snowflakes? She would be responsible for $50,000/year.
Are you suggesting we draw blood from infants and toddlers?"

Of course not. That would be absurd, not to mention cruel. It's true that
mom is on the hook for fifty large, and we certainly can't expect her to
provide five units of blood plasma per month. But what she could do is
contribute a kidney.

A kidney could replace a dialysis machine and is easily worth $250,000.
One kidney would pay up her tax bill for FIVE YEARS!

"And at the end of five years, what would you do? Take her OTHER kidney?"

Absolutely not. That would be silly. She can't function without a kidney!.
What she COULD do, is contribute a cornea.

Assuming a cornea is roughly the same value as a kidney, she'd have her
tax liability controled for ANOTHER five years.

These two marketable items, coupled with the aforementioned blood
platelets, would totally solve her tax problem for twelve, thirteen, or
more years. By then, her children would be out on their own (or in jail),
and she could go back to being a single taxpayer.

Now I know the above is not a COMPLETE solution, we may have to make
exceptions for members of the military or those in necessary professions,
like members of Congress.

I'm sure there will be tweaks.

But it's a starting point.



Somewhere along the line, she should give up her ovaries.
If she can't afford having children, she shouldn't be popping them out like
zits


That's a fantastic idea! That could be your first tweak, HeyBub. Put
that in there just before the kidney then the lazy slut may be
inclined to contribute to society rather than being a burden to it.

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:


I did mention banks. Mortgage deductions serve multiple purposes
but one of them is welfare for banks.

You gotta explain that one to me. How does a deduction I get for taking
out a mortgage work as welfare to the banks?

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

On Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:37:33 PM UTC-4, net cop wrote:
It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th Amendment, and institute a
sales tax instead.

And this advanced economic theory is based on what?

Everybody spends money, but not everybody "makes" money (on the books).

And what is it supposed to accomplish?

For one thing it would ensure that everyone paid their "fair share." Everyone would pay the same rate, but the rich spend more money so they would end up paying more taxes.

The overall rate would be lower because every dollar spent would be taxed.

It would encourage saving.

It would eliminate complex annual tax returns.

The infrastructure to collect the tax is already in place in most states.

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:53:29 AM UTC-4, net cop wrote:
Reminds me of every proposed flat tax plan.
They all have "unspecified offsets".

Specify the offsets and we can talk. Until then
it's a huge benefit to the rich.

No it is not.

Right now the rich have loopholes and tax shelters and all kids of places to hide their money. They can earn it and spend it without paying a dime in taxes.

You can't hide the money you SPEND.

Even if a poor person spends every dime he earns, a rich person will still spend MORE DOLLARS, period.

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

Kurt Ullman writes:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:


I did mention banks. Mortgage deductions serve multiple purposes
but one of them is welfare for banks.

You gotta explain that one to me. How does a deduction I get for taking
out a mortgage work as welfare to the banks?

Makes the mortgage more affordable.
In effect the mortgagee can pay more to the bank than he could
otherwise and the banks asset (the house) is more valuable.

I repeat, "Mortgage deductions serve multiple purposes
but one of them is welfare for banks."

Why do I have to explain such simple things?

--
Dan Espen

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

Gordon Shumway wrote:

Somewhere along the line, she should give up her ovaries.
If she can't afford having children, she shouldn't be popping them
out like zits


That's a fantastic idea! That could be your first tweak, HeyBub. Put
that in there just before the kidney then the lazy slut may be
inclined to contribute to society rather than being a burden to it.

But, but, but...that's, that's, that's EUGENICS!

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

On Apr 17, 3:10*pm, wrote:
On Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:37:33 PM UTC-4, net cop wrote:
It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th Amendment, and institute a
sales tax instead.

And this advanced economic theory is based on what?

Everybody spends money, but not everybody "makes" money (on the books).

That's true. One benefit of a national sales tax or a VAT
tax is that it's harder to avoid.




And what is it supposed to accomplish?

For one thing it would ensure that everyone paid their "fair share." Everyone would pay the same rate, but the rich spend more money so they would end up paying more taxes.

The problem is that the rich would pay a lot less than
they do under the current system or with a flat income tax.
The rich do spend more, but I think very few are
spending enough to come anywhere close to making
up the income tax that would be lost.

Take Warren Buffet for example. He's paying around
18%. Even if he spent everything he makes, you'd
have to have an 18% sales tax to equal it. And Buffet
lives relatively modestly. I'll bet he doesn't spend 5%
of what he earns.

And the tax would hit the poor, who pay no tax at all
the hardest. You could partly offset that by making
food, housing up to a certain point, etc exempt.

It's interesting, but I believe it would shift a lot more
of the tax burden to the poor and middle class.



The overall rate would be lower because every dollar spent would be taxed..

It would encourage saving.

Yes, but with an economy just barely moving, it could also
put us in a depression when people reduce buying.



It would eliminate complex annual tax returns.

The infrastructure to collect the tax is already in place in most states.

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

On Apr 17, 3:20*pm, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:53:29 AM UTC-4, net cop wrote:
Reminds me of every proposed flat tax plan.
They all have "unspecified offsets".

Specify the offsets and we can talk. *Until then
it's a huge benefit to the rich.

No it is not.

Right now the rich have loopholes and tax shelters and all kids of places to hide their money. They can earn it and spend it without paying a dime in taxes.

You can't hide the money you SPEND.

There is no guarantee that a national sales tax would not
have similar loopholes. I highly doubt you'd get one passed without
the usual special interests getting their
particular segment exempt. Housing would be one good
example and with good argument. If you buy a house and
decide to move in 3 years, take a new job, do you keep
paying sales tax? Does it apply to used goods or just new?

And while I agree a national sales tax would be harder
to avoid, it can still be done. The very rich can buy
stuff overseas, for example. But that new Gulfstream
in the Bahamas and base it there.



Even if a poor person spends every dime he earns, a rich person will still spend MORE DOLLARS, period.

Yes, but most aren't going to spend anywhere near
enough to make up for the lost income tax revenue.
Hence more of the tax burder will fall on the middle
class and a lot of it will fall on those that pay no taxes
at all right now.

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

On 4/15/2012 11:36 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local governments from
imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For example, a taxpayer should
not have to pay taxes to the Federal government on a dollars that are paid
to the state or local governments. This example is already true, state and
local taxes ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends
this to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

How will this help others with their home repair projects?


I once heard that there is more effort expended in tax preparation using
professionals then there is in producing cars in the US.

The tax code is in need of vast reform, but then there would be all of
those unemployed accountants ;)

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

Frank writes:

On 4/15/2012 11:36 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local governments from
imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For example, a taxpayer should
not have to pay taxes to the Federal government on a dollars that are paid
to the state or local governments. This example is already true, state and
local taxes ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends
this to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

How will this help others with their home repair projects?


I once heard that there is more effort expended in tax preparation
using professionals then there is in producing cars in the US.

I doubt it. Even including the large staffs most corporations acquire
to avoid paying taxes.

The tax code is in need of vast reform, but then there would be all of
those unemployed accountants ;)

The nature of taxes is such that no matter what the system is,
everyone will complain about it.

Why do we get deductions for dependents? Each dependent costs the
government more to educate. Especially true for my property taxes.
The bulk goes to schools but I haven't had a child in our local schools
for 30 years.

--
Dan Espen

OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012
 

In article
3466611.154.1334689829036.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynje10,
wrote:

For one thing it would ensure that everyone paid their "fair share." Everyone
would pay the same rate, but the rich spend more money so they would end up
paying more taxes.

I'd be a little more supportive if someone could give me a definition
of "fair share" that did not, in essence, boil down to "what offends me
personally".



--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz