Rep vs. Dem Differences

"Jim Weir" wrote in message
...
You idiots that post a two-line answer without bothering to snip the top
fifty
lines of repetitive drivel are wasting bandwidth, don't you?


How about top posting? Some don't like that either. But, you must admit,
with more and more broadband, and disk space close to free, bandwidth here
isn't the issue it used to be.

In article , vincent p. norris
writes:


I understand that when ALL taxes are considered, we in the USA have a
*regressive* tax system.


For details on just how regressive it is, go to Fairtax.org and click the
Research tab and then take the link to "Current System"

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article , "Peter Gottlieb"
writes:

But just how to you plan on getting the government to release itself from
the public teet? Our two significant parties don't seem differentiable from
one another when it comes to spending money, they only argue about where.

You can shift around who pays the biggest tax burden, you can shift around
programs, but the only way to fix things is to reduce how much is spent and
this is an enormously difficult problem to tackle.


That is, of course, the point. We spend so much only because the majority of
the electorate PERCEIVES federal spending as "free" to them. The vast majority
of the tax burden is concealed in imbedded taxes in the cost of goods and
services. Add to that the "employer contribution" to FICA and FUTA, and the
painless nature of witholding taxes from gross pay and the result is that
people vote for spendthrift politicians because they buy into the illusion that
someone else is paying for it.

What the FairTax does, more than anything else, is to dispel that illusion and
make the cost of government visible othose who are paying for it. When the
hardworking low and middle income taxpayers, who currently think they get all
their tax back when they file their return, see the true cost of government on
every grocery receipt, they will be less inclined to vote for politicians who
fund $50 million domed ranforests in Iowa.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article , "CB"
writes:


Shift the sales taxes away from the things people need to have to live and
put tax on the things that are not essentials to live.


THe FairTax addresses this not by exempting certain goods, but by rebating the
sales tax paid on spending up to the level determined as needed to cover basic
expenses.

Using a formula very similar to that currently used to determine the poverty
line, the tax paid on necessities for a given family size is determined and
each month you get a check (or more likely, an electronic deposit) to reimburse
you for that tax. The effect is that basic living spending is tax free to
everyone, rich or poor alike.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Wdtabor" wrote

snip

THe FairTax addresses this not by exempting certain goods, but by rebating
the
sales tax paid on spending up to the level determined as needed to cover
basic
expenses.

The FairTax interests me, but I've been wondering why tax food and clothing
at all in the first place, instead of sending out rebate checks (or
deposits)? Is it because it is hard to classify certain items as "necessary"
and a rebate is just easier?

-Trent
PP-ASEL

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
so every K you post adds up to thousand K, and every megabyte adds up to
1000
megabytes.

This is silly. There is SO much capacity that whether we diligently trim or
not is inconsequential. A 200 *GIGA*byte drive is now $80. Retail. Let's
see now... the post referenced might possibly by 1k byte, so now the cost
per newsgroup server for this eggregious act of non-trimming would be a
whopping $0.0000004, or anotherwords, it would take 25,000 untrimmed
messages of that size to fill up 1 cent of disk capacity per server.

In article , "Trent Moorehead"
writes:


The FairTax interests me, but I've been wondering why tax food and clothing
at all in the first place, instead of sending out rebate checks (or
deposits)? Is it because it is hard to classify certain items as "necessary"
and a rebate is just easier?


The FairTax will be collected by the States, which will get a commission for
collecting it. There will be no federal taxing authority. The States have their
own sales taxes already, and they differ from state to state as to what item
are taxable or not. To add a federal list of taxable and non-taxable items
would be very complicated to adminster.

It is adminstratively simpler, and equally fair, to simply estimate the cost of
essentials and allow for them uniformly.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article , "CB"

writes:


Shift the sales taxes away from the things people need to have to live and
put tax on the things that are not essentials to live.


THe FairTax addresses this not by exempting certain goods, but by rebating
the
sales tax paid on spending up to the level determined as needed to cover
basic
expenses.

Using a formula very similar to that currently used to determine the
poverty
line, the tax paid on necessities for a given family size is determined
and
each month you get a check (or more likely, an electronic deposit) to
reimburse
you for that tax. The effect is that basic living spending is tax free to
everyone, rich or poor alike.


The trouble with all these great ideas is that the cost of administering the
taxes can out weight the tax benefit. In theory your idea sounds great, but
the beauracracy involved would be immense.

"CB" writes:

The trouble with all these great ideas is that the cost of administering the
taxes can out weight the tax benefit. In theory your idea sounds great, but
the beauracracy involved would be immense.

How would it compare to the current bureaucracy?

-jav

In article , "CB"
writes:


The trouble with all these great ideas is that the cost of administering the
taxes can out weight the tax benefit. In theory your idea sounds great, but
the beauracracy involved would be immense.



??

What bureaucracy? Other than those which already exist?

The tax will be collected by the States using their existing sales tax
bureaucracy, and the States will receive a commission to cover their small
costs for doing so.

The rebates will be sent out by the existing Social Security mechanisms, at the
cost of a bit more paper.

In return, the IRS will cease to exist. The day the FairTax goes into effect,
they turn off the lights at the IRS, and all of their records, other than those
needed for collection actions in progress, will be destroyed. That will save us
the $100Billion it costs us each year to operate the IRS, PLUS the $400 Billion
spent by businesses and individuals to comply with the IRS code.

The FairTax will reduce the total state and federal tax bureacracy by by at
least 90% over all, and the cost of collection will be built into the
collection mechanism.

Your personal tax compliance effort will be to send in a form once a year
telling the SS folks how many people are in your family and what their SS
numbers are.

Retail businesses will collect the tax as they do with sales taxes now and turn
them into the state, just as they do now. They will no longer have to withold
taxes from employees, calculate depreciation, or any of the other accounting
that is otherwise not needed in operating the business. Their monthly tax
return will look something like

Retail Sales X Tax Rate = Amount enclosed.

That's it.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG