I wish these people would find an OT group for their discussions.

In article , Dave Hall wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:39:14 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Dave Hall
wrote:

So I assume in this world there would be no deduction for wages paid
to employees, no deduction for the purchase price of items you then
sell, no deduction for your factory's utility costs, etc., etc. So the
grocery store that sells $1,000,000 worth of groceries would pay the
same tax as the jewelry stoe that sells $1,000,000 worth of crap, even
though the grocery store had $950,000 in costs while the jeweler had
$500,000 in costs. HMMM, seems wrong.

No reason at all to think that. You seem to be misundertanding what is meant
by a tax deduction -- which is something subtracted from adjusted gross income

to arrive at taxable income. In your example above, the grocery store's
adjusted gross income is $50K while the jewelry store's is $500K. What's the
problem?

So tell me, what goes in to computing "adjusted gross income"?

Look at your Form 1040.

It is
Gross income minus certain semi-specified DEDUCTIONS. Clearly many
will agree that cost of goods sold is a valid deduction, what about
labor? Yes? Then what about sales labor? Yes? Then what about payment
to sales people for when they take potential customers to strip
joints? Nevr mind... back to costs of goods sold. I assume we get to
deduct materials put into production? What about utilities to run the
shop equipment? What about shop overhead? What about say the truck the
foreman uses to go from location to location? The list of things to
ask whether they are "valid" deductions is endless and once you allow
a deduction you are back on the track of lobbyists paying off congress
persons to allow their favorite "deduction".

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

Han wrote:

snip

I agree about the unintended consequences. The wealthy will find
a
way. That does not make it right. Trying to save some oil was not
something that in hindsight the American public wanted. Now we
have
$90/barrel oil and .

The rest of the world also has $90/barrel oil so I don't see what
that has to do with "a raidly devaluing dollar, with vastly
increased
inflation just around the corner"

Do I really need to explain it? The value of the dollar vs the euro
started as about 1:1. The euro sank at first to about US$0.87.
Recently, it has risen to US$1.47. These differences in exchange
rate
approach a factor of 2. Europe has never been particularly cheap
(except maybe 40 years ago), and now things like simple restaurants
are just plain expensive. The exchange rate is 1 thing.

What does the exchange rate have to do with the price of oil?

While for us oil has gone up from $30/barrel, for Europeans it has
gone up less, taking the exchange rates into account.

Are you saying that 30 years ago OPEC charged Europe a different price
from the US? I'd like to see your documentation on that.

(Indeed, I
still do not understand why European rates for gasoline are close to
3 times what we pay in New Jersey).

It's called "tax", something with which you purport to be familiar.

The oil exporters have indeed seen that their revenues have
increased
because of their pricing, but they aren't quite getting the bang for
those bucks (US$) anymore if they buy European goods, so they raise
the price some more, or even worse will soon consider pricing
inother
currencies.

If they price in dollars or price in Euros the price is the same, it's
only the number that differs. In any case, I fail to see how oil
being priced in dollars benefits the US.

If our country's products are going to be cheap compared to European
products, we gain an advantage - our industries will profit from
increased business. But that will drive up prices here in general.

So we're going to be selling more and making more money and that's
going to drive up prices? Why would that be?

This class-envy stuff is going to kill the economy. We are
already
at a point where 10% of wage earners are paying 60% of all
income
taxes but only earn 42% of all income. Now, what is this about
not
paying their "fair share"?

Huh? If someone earns $10/hr, should he pay the same percentage
of
income in taxes as someone earning $100/hr? Or $1000/hr? Would
that
be fair?

Any system based in "give us money or we will confiscate your goods
and property and arrest you" is unfair. There is no such thing as
a
"fair" tax system. A single rate system at least has the benefit
of
being _simple_.

Yes it would be simple, but fair? There has to be a better
compromise
somewhere. I doubt that the politicians and accountants/lawyers
will
go for it, though. Rhetoric sells votes much better.

The current system is an attempt at that "better compromise". It's
easy to blame it all on the accountants and lawyers but most of the
changes in the tax code have come about because some group or other
made a good case that they were needed to make the code "fair", not
becuase lawyers and accountants lobbied for a windfall profit.

Congress is way out of line with special privileges, and the IRS
with their
What are you defining as special privileges?

I thought there were a few instances of Congress and the IRS
giving
some very narrowly delineated groups of people or businesses very
big
breaks on their taxes.

Sometimes very narrowly delineated groups of people or businesses
have special concerns that need to be addressed if the system is to
appear to be "fair".

Yes, indeed. That's where some kinds of compromise between flat
rate
and both extra taxes on some things and tax exemptions on others do
indeed come in. But now, that system has degenerated into giving
grants and or tax breaks to special interests. In other words, the
enhancement of the economy for certain sectors has gone from help
for
the poor industry to a give-away. I think the oil industry bonuses
and royalty give-aways for some explorations/productions are an
example. With $90/barrel oil, there should be no need to help the
oil companies get richer.

It seems to have escaped your notice that that $90 is what the oil
companies _pay_ for that oil.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Han wrote:

While for us oil has gone up from $30/barrel, for Europeans it has gone
up less, taking the exchange rates into account. (Indeed, I still do not
understand why European rates for gasoline are close to 3 times what we
pay in New Jersey).

Almost 2/3 of the price of European gasoline is tax.

"J. Clarke" wrote in news:fk3ehs01q55
@news3.newsguy.com:

What does the exchange rate have to do with the price of oil?

If you are the seller and the purchase power of your revenues is going
down, wouldn't you want to raise the price? Or would you be willing to get
paid for your work with money that will only buy 60% of what it used to
buy?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"J. Clarke" wrote in news:fk3ehs01q55
@news3.newsguy.com:

Are you saying that 30 years ago OPEC charged Europe a different price
from the US? I'd like to see your documentation on that.


see my other reply.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in news:fk3ehs01q55
@news3.newsguy.com:

What does the exchange rate have to do with the price of oil?

If you are the seller and the purchase power of your revenues is
going
down, wouldn't you want to raise the price? Or would you be willing
to get paid for your work with money that will only buy 60% of what
it used to buy?

The price of oil is a counter. If they price it in euros, dollars,
cowrie shells, or gold pressed latinum the price is still the same.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in news:fk3ehs01q55
@news3.newsguy.com:

Are you saying that 30 years ago OPEC charged Europe a different
price from the US? I'd like to see your documentation on that.


see my other reply.

I see no statement in your "other reply" that addresses the price of
oil in Europe vs the US.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:14:24 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Dave Hall wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:39:14 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Dave Hall
wrote:

So I assume in this world there would be no deduction for wages paid
to employees, no deduction for the purchase price of items you then
sell, no deduction for your factory's utility costs, etc., etc. So the
grocery store that sells $1,000,000 worth of groceries would pay the
same tax as the jewelry stoe that sells $1,000,000 worth of crap, even
though the grocery store had $950,000 in costs while the jeweler had
$500,000 in costs. HMMM, seems wrong.

No reason at all to think that. You seem to be misundertanding what is meant
by a tax deduction -- which is something subtracted from adjusted gross income

to arrive at taxable income. In your example above, the grocery store's
adjusted gross income is $50K while the jewelry store's is $500K. What's the
problem?

So tell me, what goes in to computing "adjusted gross income"?

Look at your Form 1040.

Last I looked income from a business is not computed on a 1040. Most
of the whining about deductions and most of the tax avoidance schemes
are business based and the only part that shows up on a 1040 is the
part AFTER the deductions were taken and the income shielded. Maybe
you ought to get a clue before you invest too much into your flat tax
schemes.

It is
Gross income minus certain semi-specified DEDUCTIONS. Clearly many
will agree that cost of goods sold is a valid deduction, what about
labor? Yes? Then what about sales labor? Yes? Then what about payment
to sales people for when they take potential customers to strip
joints? Nevr mind... back to costs of goods sold. I assume we get to
deduct materials put into production? What about utilities to run the
shop equipment? What about shop overhead? What about say the truck the
foreman uses to go from location to location? The list of things to
ask whether they are "valid" deductions is endless and once you allow
a deduction you are back on the track of lobbyists paying off congress
persons to allow their favorite "deduction".

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

The price of oil is a counter. If they price it in euros, dollars,
cowrie shells, or gold pressed latinum the price is still the same.


If I am in France, and have to buy oil, I have to convert my euros to
dollars and use them to pay whichever country is selling the oil. At
least, as I understand it the world market is priced in US$/barrel. See,
for instance (watch the wrap)
http://www.praguepost.com/articles/2...-hit-a-record-
high.php

That means that if I can get US$ for fewer units of my particular valuta, I
am ahead of the game.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Dave Hall wrote:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:14:24 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Dave Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:39:14 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Dave Hall
wrote:

So I assume in this world there would be no deduction for wages paid
to employees, no deduction for the purchase price of items you then
sell, no deduction for your factory's utility costs, etc., etc. So the
grocery store that sells $1,000,000 worth of groceries would pay the
same tax as the jewelry stoe that sells $1,000,000 worth of crap, even
though the grocery store had $950,000 in costs while the jeweler had
$500,000 in costs. HMMM, seems wrong.

No reason at all to think that. You seem to be misundertanding what is
meant by a tax deduction -- which is something subtracted from adjusted
gross income

to arrive at taxable income. In your example above, the grocery store's
adjusted gross income is $50K while the jewelry store's is $500K. What's
the problem?

So tell me, what goes in to computing "adjusted gross income"?

Look at your Form 1040.

Last I looked income from a business is not computed on a 1040. Most
of the whining about deductions and most of the tax avoidance schemes
are business based and the only part that shows up on a 1040 is the
part AFTER the deductions were taken and the income shielded. Maybe
you ought to get a clue before you invest too much into your flat tax
schemes.


So, what exactly is this idea of "shielding" income in relation to
legitimately computing the profit relative to a product? Just because a
business sells an item for $1000 does not mean that business has made
$1000. If the cost of the raw good was $500, the cost of the sales staff
to sell it was $250, the cost of the building and utilities $200, and the
cost to advertise the good to get it out the door $100, the business has
not made an income of $1000,but has a loss of $50. Has nothing to do
with "deductions" or some nefarious scheming -- its simply a fact of
business life.






--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

The price of oil is a counter. If they price it in euros, dollars,
cowrie shells, or gold pressed latinum the price is still the same.


If I am in France, and have to buy oil, I have to convert my euros
to
dollars and use them to pay whichever country is selling the oil.
At
least, as I understand it the world market is priced in US$/barrel.
See, for instance (watch the wrap)
http://www.praguepost.com/articles/2...-hit-a-record-
high.php

That means that if I can get US$ for fewer units of my particular
valuta, I am ahead of the game.

The world market has to be priced in some currency. If it was priced
in gold presse latinum do you really think that the world would be a
substantially different place? No matter what currency you choose,
the exchange rate is going to fluctuate. In some cases it's going to
be good for one country, in some cases it's going to be good for
another.

Regardless of the currenty the prices will continue to increase so I
don't see what you're so alarmed about.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article , Dave Hall wrote:

Last I looked income from a business is not computed on a 1040. Most
of the whining about deductions and most of the tax avoidance schemes
are business based and the only part that shows up on a 1040 is the
part AFTER the deductions were taken and the income shielded. Maybe
you ought to get a clue before you invest too much into your flat tax
schemes.

You're missing the point, which is that the deductions which would be
eliminated under a flat tax scheme are things that have no relationship
whatsoever to producing income: mortgage interest, medical expenses,
charitable contributions, state and local taxes, and so forth.

Income = gross revenue minus costs of producing it.

Taxable income = income minus deductions such as those listed above.

*Not* the same situation at all.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "J. Clarke" wrote:

Are you saying that 30 years ago OPEC charged Europe a different price
from the US? I'd like to see your documentation on that.

Point is, oil is priced in US dollars. If you're paying in Euros, when the
value of a Euro in US dollars goes up, it costs you less.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:32:01 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Dave Hall wrote:

Last I looked income from a business is not computed on a 1040. Most
of the whining about deductions and most of the tax avoidance schemes
are business based and the only part that shows up on a 1040 is the
part AFTER the deductions were taken and the income shielded. Maybe
you ought to get a clue before you invest too much into your flat tax
schemes.

You're missing the point, which is that the deductions which would be
eliminated under a flat tax scheme are things that have no relationship
whatsoever to producing income: mortgage interest, medical expenses,
charitable contributions, state and local taxes, and so forth.

Income = gross revenue minus costs of producing it.

Taxable income = income minus deductions such as those listed above.

*Not* the same situation at all.

Yeah, I get the point. However just about every significant abusive
tax dodge that I know of has something to do with computing business
income. Be that depletion allowances. accelerated depreciation,
business charitable deductions, or some of the many dodges that Enron
played, the bottom line is they showed up on the business tax forms,
not a 1040.Doesn't matter whether the business forms relate to
corporations, partnerships or proprietors - whether it is a separate
corporate form or a simple Schedule C or even a Trust return - income
computations are the easiest means to develope an abusive tax
position. Certainly get a lot closer to a "fair" tax by eliminating
the many abusive business tax income determination dodges than by
eliminating mortgage interest deductions. In any case, it won't be a
"flat" tax because some kind of "deductions"(even as simple as cost of
goods sold) will always exist and lawyers, accountants and lobbyists
will always "help" legislators "decide" what those deductions will be.

Dave Hall

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Are you saying that 30 years ago OPEC charged Europe a different price
from the US? I'd like to see your documentation on that.

Point is, oil is priced in US dollars. If you're paying in Euros, when the
value of a Euro in US dollars goes up, it costs you less.


But as a tourist, we convert to Euros and the price of gas is up in
addition. I paid $6.40 a gallon in April but it was $10 in November. That
is liters converted to gallons and Euros converted to dollars.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Are you saying that 30 years ago OPEC charged Europe a different
price from the US? I'd like to see your documentation on that.

Point is, oil is priced in US dollars. If you're paying in Euros,
when the value of a Euro in US dollars goes up, it costs you less.


But as a tourist, we convert to Euros and the price of gas is up in
addition. I paid $6.40 a gallon in April but it was $10 in
November.
That is liters converted to gallons and Euros converted to dollars.

Which has zip all to do with the spot market price of Saudi Arabian
Light Crude.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Hank wrote:
Charlie Self wrote in
news:4b1c3f02-e534-488c-b0dd-
:

On Dec 14, 9:35 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
And therein lies the problem. The public has somehow gotten the
notion that government-provided services are "free" because
there's no direct charge for them.



Who is the ephemeral "they" that doesn't know any of this costs
money? I don't know anyone who doesn't realize that, with the
exception of a couple of mentally ill people. And yes, almost
everyone realizes that more "largesse" as you guys love to call it,
will cost them more taxes. Thus there's a never ending search for
not only doing more, but doing it more effectively and efficiently,
something that bureaucracy tends to make very, very difficult,
especially when the clerks have politicians stepping all over their
toes with new, and overly complex, regulations on a weekly basis.


Here in the Albany NY area that doesn't seem to be true. There must
be at least a hundred thousand people that must be mentally ill. Of
course, most of them don't pay much in taxes. Clerks are clerks.
Whatever the directive is, they enforce it. That is the way it
should
be. Politicians don't make laws, regulations etc. Our elected
officials do.

Huh? When did "elected officials" cease to be "politicians"?

Did you ever notice that almost all of our elected
officials have law degrees? That should tell us something.
Gov. Spitzer, a great AG.


C'mon John.

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Hank wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in
:


"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

Not completely true. The flat tax proposals usually have an
exemption for the lowest wage earners and even steps for others.
What is eliminated is all deductions. Why it won't pass is
simple.
You no longer need tax lawyers and accountants

If you have exemptions, then it is no longer a flat tax, and tax
lawyers and accountants will still be employed.

Lew



Where did I once read; "first we kill all the lawyers"?

Shakespeare, Henry VI, Act 4 Scene 2. And it wasn't a good thing.



Again, C'mon John.

Hank wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Hank wrote:
Charlie Self wrote in
news:4b1c3f02-e534-488c-b0dd-
:

On Dec 14, 9:35 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
And therein lies the problem. The public has somehow gotten
the
notion that government-provided services are "free" because
there's no direct charge for them.



Who is the ephemeral "they" that doesn't know any of this costs
money? I don't know anyone who doesn't realize that, with the
exception of a couple of mentally ill people. And yes, almost
everyone realizes that more "largesse" as you guys love to call
it,
will cost them more taxes. Thus there's a never ending search for
not only doing more, but doing it more effectively and
efficiently,
something that bureaucracy tends to make very, very difficult,
especially when the clerks have politicians stepping all over
their
toes with new, and overly complex, regulations on a weekly basis.


Here in the Albany NY area that doesn't seem to be true. There
must
be at least a hundred thousand people that must be mentally ill.
Of
course, most of them don't pay much in taxes. Clerks are clerks.
Whatever the directive is, they enforce it. That is the way it
should
be. Politicians don't make laws, regulations etc. Our elected
officials do.

Huh? When did "elected officials" cease to be "politicians"?

Did you ever notice that almost all of our elected
officials have law degrees? That should tell us something.
Gov. Spitzer, a great AG.


C'mon John.

If you think that "politicians" means something other than "elected
officials" you're sufficiently out of touch with reality that there's
no point in wasting more time on you.

plonk

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:


Your statement was to the effect that if the people want something,
the government has a responsibility to give it to them.


Indeed...and notice you didn't say person. Why would anyone have a problem
with a responsive, attentive and responsible Government? Rod


Because it often is not possible for government to be both responsive and
responsible. Which is one reason why such a huge portion of the federal budget
is for so-called "entitlements."

Han wrote:

If someone earns $10/hr, should he pay the same percentage of
income in taxes as someone earning $100/hr? Or $1000/hr? Would that be
fair?


This example is overly simplistic to illustrate a simple point. Suppose a 10%
flat tax. A earns $10K a year, B earns $100K, and C earns $1M.
A pays $1,000 in taxes, B pays $10,000, and C pays $100,000. A also qualifies
for many government "entitlement" programs that B and C don't qualify for, which
give C $8,000 in benefits in addition to his $10K wage. Does C get a hundred
times more back in the way of government services and benefits than does A? No,
he doesn't, he's still subsidizing the cost of services and benefits provided to
A. What's unfair about A paying for a fraction of what he gets, rather than
paying nothing at all? What did B or C do that they should be punished by
having their money taken away from them and giving it to A?

J. Clarke wrote:


If you think that "politicians" means something other than "elected
officials" you're sufficiently out of touch with reality that there's
no point in wasting more time on you.


"Politics" taken from "poli" or "poly", meaning many, and "tics", meaning
bothersome blood-sucking vermin.

On Dec 17, 1:14 am, Just Wondering wrote:
Han wrote:
If someone earns $10/hr, should he pay the same percentage of
income in taxes as someone earning $100/hr? Or $1000/hr? Would that be
fair?

This example is overly simplistic to illustrate a simple point. Suppose a 10%
flat tax. A earns $10K a year, B earns $100K, and C earns $1M.
A pays $1,000 in taxes, B pays $10,000, and C pays $100,000. A also qualifies
for many government "entitlement" programs that B and C don't qualify for, which
give C $8,000 in benefits in addition to his $10K wage. Does C get a hundred
times more back in the way of government services and benefits than does A? No,
he doesn't, he's still subsidizing the cost of services and benefits provided to
A. What's unfair about A paying for a fraction of what he gets, rather than
paying nothing at all? What did B or C do that they should be punished by
having their money taken away from them and giving it to A?

Maybe they (B&C here) lived in a country that made it possible for
certain members, with specific advantages, to make 100K or 1,000K,
while A, livingin the same country, but missing the advantages, simply
can't do it? Not won't, as so many of you infer. Can't.

In article , Dave Hall wrote:
Yeah, I get the point. However just about every significant abusive
tax dodge that I know of has something to do with computing business
income.

[snip numerous valid examples]

Yes, but now we get into an entirely different issue. The tax on business
income is a convenient fiction, nothing more. Congress loves to tell us how
they're going to make corporations "pay their fair share" -- but the fact is
that corporations do not pay taxes. Their customers pay them, in the form of
higher prices for the goods or services that the corporations provide. The
corporations only collect and remit the tax, they do not actually pay it. Like
raw materials, wages and salaries, capital equipment, repair and maintenance,
and so on, the so-called corporate income tax is simply another cost of doing
business, and is passed on to the customers just like all the other costs.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 17, 1:14 am, Just Wondering wrote:
Han wrote:
If someone earns $10/hr, should he pay the same percentage of
income in taxes as someone earning $100/hr? Or $1000/hr? Would that be
fair?
This example is overly simplistic to illustrate a simple point. Suppose a 10%
flat tax. A earns $10K a year, B earns $100K, and C earns $1M.
A pays $1,000 in taxes, B pays $10,000, and C pays $100,000. A also qualifies
for many government "entitlement" programs that B and C don't qualify for, which
give C $8,000 in benefits in addition to his $10K wage. Does C get a hundred
times more back in the way of government services and benefits than does A? No,
he doesn't, he's still subsidizing the cost of services and benefits provided to
A. What's unfair about A paying for a fraction of what he gets, rather than
paying nothing at all? What did B or C do that they should be punished by
having their money taken away from them and giving it to A?

Maybe they (B&C here) lived in a country that made it possible for
certain members, with specific advantages, to make 100K or 1,000K,
while A, livingin the same country, but missing the advantages, simply
can't do it? Not won't, as so many of you infer. Can't.

This is also known as the "Improving Outcomes At The Point Of A Gun"
theory. Even if what you say is true, you still have to contend
with the moral question you are conveniently evading: Why is A
more entitled to the time of B & C, and what justifies using the
threat of force (if not actual force) to make them pony up?

One more time: It is NOT virtuous/charitable/honorable/noble/good
to do positive things for one person or group at the expense of
another against their will. This is morally wrong and no amount
of do-gooding tap dance can make it anything else...

P.S. Even if A *cannot* achieve some artificial threshold of
accomplishment you think is "normal", in what universe is
equality of outcomes guaranteed? Setting aside the profoundly
handicapped and children unable to care for themselves, I cannot
see any moral or just reason to "make things more equal" at the
point of a gun.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Charlie Self wrote:

On Dec 17, 1:14 am, Just Wondering wrote:
Han wrote:
If someone earns $10/hr, should he pay the same percentage of
income in taxes as someone earning $100/hr? Or $1000/hr? Would that
be fair?

This example is overly simplistic to illustrate a simple point. Suppose
a 10%
flat tax. A earns $10K a year, B earns $100K, and C earns $1M.
A pays $1,000 in taxes, B pays $10,000, and C pays $100,000. A also
qualifies for many government "entitlement" programs that B and C don't
qualify for, which
give C $8,000 in benefits in addition to his $10K wage. Does C get a
hundred
times more back in the way of government services and benefits than does
A? No, he doesn't, he's still subsidizing the cost of services and
benefits provided to
A. What's unfair about A paying for a fraction of what he gets, rather
than
paying nothing at all? What did B or C do that they should be punished
by having their money taken away from them and giving it to A?

Maybe they (B&C here) lived in a country that made it possible for
certain members, with specific advantages, to make 100K or 1,000K,
while A, livingin the same country, but missing the advantages, simply
can't do it? Not won't, as so many of you infer. Can't.

Maybe if that were the case, this might be worthy of discussion. Since
the topic under discussion is life in the US, then this argument really
doesn't get off the ground. From observation, in most cases, the reason A
can't do more (note, I said, "in most cases". There may be some smaller
subset where this does not apply) is because of poor choices made earlier
in life. So, why should B and C struggle to put themselves into positions
that provide that amount of compensation, working 11 hour days to get there
only to have the government decide that they have "benefited" from life's
lottery and need to provide a "fair amount" of their rewards from society
so that A can have more?


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 17, 1:14 am, Just Wondering wrote:

Han wrote:

If someone earns $10/hr, should he pay the same percentage of
income in taxes as someone earning $100/hr? Or $1000/hr? Would that be
fair?

This example is overly simplistic to illustrate a simple point. Suppose a 10%
flat tax. A earns $10K a year, B earns $100K, and C earns $1M.
A pays $1,000 in taxes, B pays $10,000, and C pays $100,000. A also qualifies
for many government "entitlement" programs that B and C don't qualify for, which
give C $8,000 in benefits in addition to his $10K wage. Does C get a hundred
times more back in the way of government services and benefits than does A? No,
he doesn't, he's still subsidizing the cost of services and benefits provided to
A. What's unfair about A paying for a fraction of what he gets, rather than
paying nothing at all? What did B or C do that they should be punished by
having their money taken away from them and giving it to A?


Maybe they (B&C here) lived in a country that made it possible for
certain members, with specific advantages, to make 100K or 1,000K,
while A, livingin the same country, but missing the advantages, simply
can't do it? Not won't, as so many of you infer. Can't.


Suppose that's true. How would that answer my questions?

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

[snip]
The list of things to
ask whether they are "valid" deductions is endless and once you allow
a deduction you are back on the track of lobbyists paying off congress
persons to allow their favorite "deduction".

Not at all -- there well-established accounting rules for determining costs
of production, and they have little to do with other special entitlements
that may come from Congress.

Accountants do an audit and one of their decisions is whether the accounting
in use meets the generally accepted practices.

You haven't differentiated between generally accepted accounting practices
and special circumstances that Congress may have been lobbied to approve, to
meet purported special circumstances of the industry in question. In
reality, it's an accountant's job to figure out what costs go into the costs
of production, and that includes most of the things you mentioned, although
by lumping utilities and overhead you're double-counting the same costs.

What Congress may do is help define some of the details, such as permitting
the IRS code to use a three-year schedule vice 5 years for depreciation, or
(as they did for baseball) make an industry exempt from anti-trust
concerns --

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...

[snip]

You're missing the point, which is that the deductions which would be
eliminated under a flat tax scheme are things that have no relationship
whatsoever to producing income: mortgage interest, medical expenses,
charitable contributions, state and local taxes, and so forth.


This is a favorite argument of the flat-taxers, but I think it has misstated
some important complications:

Personal Income tax rates were graduated because of a basic assumption that
people with lower income needed to use more of their income for normal
living expenses, and therefore needed a lower tax rate to keep from cutting
into their "living expenses." Gradually those living expenses became better
defined, so that differences in living expenses resulted in differences in
taxable income. Some of the expenses which Congress felt should be included
in normal living became mortgage interest, city and state taxes, medical
expenses, charitable giving, etc. -- each of which varied from person to
person.

A flat tax would not differentiate between someone making $50,000 with a
paid up mortgage and no medical expenses, and someone with high mortgage
expenses and $20-30K of medical expenses. In the view of many the person
with high medical expenses should pay a lower income tax, as a matter of
government compassion and policy.

I've lived in places with a flat personal tax rate, and for those areas it
has always worked well. OTOH, in the U.S., too many of us have made
long-term decisions on our life that included the tax impact of those
decisions, such as which house to buy and how much of a mortgage to sign up
for. To change the tax rules now in mid-stream would have an unfair impact
on many, just as changing the overall business tax structure would be unfair
to those who have already made long-term business commitments.

A flat tax is not necessarily a fair tax, and major upheavals in tax policy
will not inspire confidence in those being taxed. This will instead drive
major businesses to move to locations where the business climate is more
favorable and predictable.

JimR wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...

[snip]

You're missing the point, which is that the deductions which would be
eliminated under a flat tax scheme are things that have no relationship
whatsoever to producing income: mortgage interest, medical expenses,
charitable contributions, state and local taxes, and so forth.


This is a favorite argument of the flat-taxers, but I think it has misstated
some important complications:

Personal Income tax rates were graduated because of a basic assumption that
people with lower income needed to use more of their income for normal
living expenses, and therefore needed a lower tax rate to keep from cutting
into their "living expenses." Gradually those living expenses became better
defined, so that differences in living expenses resulted in differences in
taxable income. Some of the expenses which Congress felt should be included
in normal living became mortgage interest, city and state taxes, medical
expenses, charitable giving, etc. -- each of which varied from person to
person.

A flat tax would not differentiate between someone making $50,000 with a
paid up mortgage and no medical expenses, and someone with high mortgage
expenses and $20-30K of medical expenses. In the view of many the person
with high medical expenses should pay a lower income tax, as a matter of
government compassion and policy.

I've lived in places with a flat personal tax rate, and for those areas it
has always worked well. OTOH, in the U.S., too many of us have made
long-term decisions on our life that included the tax impact of those
decisions, such as which house to buy and how much of a mortgage to sign up
for. To change the tax rules now in mid-stream would have an unfair impact
on many, just as changing the overall business tax structure would be unfair
to those who have already made long-term business commitments.

A flat tax is not necessarily a fair tax, and major upheavals in tax policy
will not inspire confidence in those being taxed. This will instead drive
major businesses to move to locations where the business climate is more
favorable and predictable.



Many good points noted above, but:

1) Ideas like "Fair Tax" take into account that people with less income
should pay less (or no) taxes, and yet are also a VAT/Flat Tax system.

2) For all but the homeless poor at the bottom of the economic ladder,
there is some opportunity of all the rest of us to decide what
we will buy. Even the poor have a surprisingly significant
amount of "discretionary expenditure". See this for a summary of what
"poor" includes in the US:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...WM0YWNlM2JhOTg

In some degree, then, almost all of us have some choice how deeply
we wish to be taxed in a consumption tax system.


3) Major upheavals in tax policy is *exactly* what we need, notwithstanding
the planning we've all done based on today's debauched system. The
existing system benefits only two classes of people: A)The tax professionals
(lawyers and accountants) who benefit richly from the byzantine system
that exists, but at the expense of having a highly inefficient taxation
mechanisms, and B) The various political scoundrels (i.e., Almost
all of them) who wish to use taxation to either perform acts of
social engineering and/or buy votes with Other People's Money.

4) A properly designed consumption flat tax will lay levies against the
so-called "underground" economy. Drug dealers, gamblers with big
winnings, organized crime, and so on all make money precisely because
they want to *spend* it. Today, much of that is untaxed. But in
a flat consumption tax universe, their ill gotten gains translate
into a more equitable distribution of the tax burden.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

JimR wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

[snip]
The list of things to
ask whether they are "valid" deductions is endless and once you
allow
a deduction you are back on the track of lobbyists paying off
congress persons to allow their favorite "deduction".

Not at all -- there well-established accounting rules for
determining
costs of production, and they have little to do with other special
entitlements that may come from Congress.

Accountants do an audit and one of their decisions is whether the
accounting in use meets the generally accepted practices.

So you're going to leave what's allowable up to the accountants to
decide? Then what happens if they decide that everything is
deductible? Are you then going to have a long, drawn out court case
to determine whether they were following "generally accepted
practices"? And what happens when the Supreme Court, having found
that the District Courts of Appeals have decided in mutually
incompatible ways what constituted "generally accepted practices",
decides that the statute is "unconstitutionally vague" and throws out
your entire tax code?

You haven't differentiated between generally accepted accounting
practices and special circumstances that Congress may have been
lobbied to approve, to meet purported special circumstances of the
industry in question. In reality, it's an accountant's job to
figure
out what costs go into the costs of production, and that includes
most of the things you mentioned, although by lumping utilities and
overhead you're double-counting the same costs.

What Congress may do is help define some of the details, such as
permitting the IRS code to use a three-year schedule vice 5 years
for
depreciation, or (as they did for baseball) make an industry exempt
from anti-trust
concerns --

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Hank wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Hank wrote:
Charlie Self wrote in
news:4b1c3f02-e534-488c-b0dd-
:

On Dec 14, 9:35 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
And therein lies the problem. The public has somehow gotten
the
notion that government-provided services are "free" because
there's no direct charge for them.



Who is the ephemeral "they" that doesn't know any of this costs
money? I don't know anyone who doesn't realize that, with the
exception of a couple of mentally ill people. And yes, almost
everyone realizes that more "largesse" as you guys love to call
it,
will cost them more taxes. Thus there's a never ending search for
not only doing more, but doing it more effectively and
efficiently,
something that bureaucracy tends to make very, very difficult,
especially when the clerks have politicians stepping all over
their
toes with new, and overly complex, regulations on a weekly basis.


Here in the Albany NY area that doesn't seem to be true. There
must
be at least a hundred thousand people that must be mentally ill.
Of
course, most of them don't pay much in taxes. Clerks are clerks.
Whatever the directive is, they enforce it. That is the way it
should
be. Politicians don't make laws, regulations etc. Our elected
officials do.

Huh? When did "elected officials" cease to be "politicians"?

Did you ever notice that almost all of our elected
officials have law degrees? That should tell us something.
Gov. Spitzer, a great AG.


C'mon John.

If you think that "politicians" means something other than "elected
officials" you're sufficiently out of touch with reality that there's
no point in wasting more time on you.

plonk


I'm so sorry John. I should have put little ****ing smilie faces and VBGs
all over. I take it 'plonk' means '**** you'. Well plonk you if can't
take a joke.

Hank wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in

plonk


I'm so sorry John. I should have put little ****ing smilie faces and VBGs
all over. I take it 'plonk' means '**** you'. Well plonk you if can't
take a joke.


This is a public service announcement.

plonk usually means the poster added you to his kill file.

If that's what J. Clarke actually meant, he won't see your reply, or for that
matter anything else you post from now on.
'

Just Wondering wrote in
:

Hank wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in

plonk


I'm so sorry John. I should have put little ****ing smilie faces and
VBGs all over. I take it 'plonk' means '**** you'. Well plonk you if
can't take a joke.


This is a public service announcement.

plonk usually means the poster added you to his kill file.

If that's what J. Clarke actually meant, he won't see your reply, or
for that matter anything else you post from now on.
'


Thank you Mr. Wondering for defining plonk. Seems like it still means
**** you. Like I said to John; "Plonk you if you can't take a joke". What I
should have said is "plonk you if you're too dense to recognize a joke".
Fondest regards to you and yours in this joy filled season.

Hank

On Dec 9, 6:38 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
...

Not sure why you want to exclude those who exceed a certain income
threshold from voting. That kind of shows a certain amount of dedication
and success capability. In truth, they don't have enough numbers to
significantly influence election results by much anyway.

What should be required is that people who are living from government
benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the people voting
themselves the treasury that the founders were warned against. You have a
dependency class voting for those who promise to take money from the people
who are working and provide it those who are not. Self-support should be a
pre-requisite for the franchise.

You mean like, no government contractor personel
would vote?

Wouldn't do any good because they would still
lobby.

--

FF

On Dec 10, 1:39 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.

Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come
from
a
million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from Microsoft
contributing 10 million.

...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.
Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer". Geezer
Power!!!!

And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you to.

Right, but the geezers are now beginning to demand that government
do things for them that: a) They should have done for themselves,
b) Will be borne on the backs of their children and grandchidren,
and c) The government has no legal right to do.

"Now beginning"? Social Security went in before WWII.

I have NO problem with PACS - I am a life NRA member which is the
2nd largest lobbying group in D.C. (next to the AARP). I have
a problem with PACs/lobbies demanding *illegal* activity from
the Federal government. The NRA affirms our laws. The AARP
attacks them.

You say "The NRA affirms our laws". Others disagree. And guess what,
they have just as much basis for their opinion as you do for your
opinion that legislation intended to aid the economy is "illegal".

No they don't. The 2nd Amendment is a part of our legal code and
provides positive affirmation of a particular right. "Aid for the
economy" is not an enumerated power. There is a huge difference
between the two.



It is part of the Constitution, which is distinct from,
and in law here in the US superior to, our legal
code.

--

FF

On Dec 10, 2:53 pm, Renata wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 08:32:51 -0500, "J. Clarke"

wrote:

-snip-

If you don't like the current government, consider the alternative.

-snip

What a cowardly statement!

Consider instead...

"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its
government."
Thomas Paine

He had it almost right. If you don't like the current
government, consider the alternatives.. If any are
better, work toward them.

--

FF

On Dec 11, 12:17 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

Wrong. There is a considerable body of scholarship that supports
the individual rights centricity in the 2nd Amendment as being the
intent of the Framers. There is *no mention* of Federal intervention
into the economy *at all* in the Constitution.

Wrong.

There is the ICC.

It is not the only example, just the most obvious.

--

FF

On Dec 11, 6:07 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

SNIP

So the boom during WWII was due to ther governmnent forcing the
private sector to produce more?

Clearly, even when government acts *within* its proper domain, it can
have economic effect. It simply has no permission to act to *specifically*
achieve economic outcomes.

Nah, motive does not determine the government's
proper domain.

For instance, the government has athority to lift or
levy tariffs and taxes. If the government chooses to
tax white phosphorous in matches so as to eliminate
jaw necrosis in matchmakers, that just as constitu-
tional as doing so to raise revenue because the
Constitution does not restrict those powers on a
basis of motive.

--

FF