billvon 3,121 #26 December 23, 2010 >My calculator says that $400 (40 hrs x $10) is higher than $345 (40 >hrs x $10 after taxes). Add the exemption and they're further ahead. Based on those numbers, yes. But if your goal is just "reduce taxes" then no need to go to a consumption based tax - just reduce taxes. Often a consumption tax is falsely sold as "a way to reduce taxes." It isn't. It's just another tax scheme. There is no magic in a consumption tax that means you pay less while getting the government the same amount - and if anyone claims that, they're lying. Consumption taxes are attractive because they are simpler to administer. That's it. No magical free money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 December 23, 2010 QuoteConsumption taxes are attractive because they are simpler to administer. That's it. No magical free money. The only person making the 'magical free money' claim seems to be you.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #28 December 23, 2010 Quote>My calculator says that $400 (40 hrs x $10) is higher than $345 (40 >hrs x $10 after taxes). Add the exemption and they're further ahead. Based on those numbers, yes. But if your goal is just "reduce taxes" then no need to go to a consumption based tax - just reduce taxes. Often a consumption tax is falsely sold as "a way to reduce taxes." It isn't. It's just another tax scheme. There is no magic in a consumption tax that means you pay less while getting the government the same amount - and if anyone claims that, they're lying. Consumption taxes are attractive because they are simpler to administer. That's it. No magical free money. Bill you seem to not see the other positive things with this tax system. You could lay off most of the IRS (it is easier to monitor the company's collections of the tax than almost 300 million people), those that don't pay tax now would on anything purchased (crooks, drug dealers illegals and even those evil rich with to many tax deductions). savings in millions on government, dismantleing most of the IRS, and everyone that puchases something will pay tax. Now what else do we have now that is more fair? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,156 #29 December 23, 2010 Quote Now what else do we have now that is more fair? There is no such thing as a "fair" tax. The concept of fairness is meaningless in the context of taxes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #30 December 23, 2010 Quote Quote Now what else do we have now that is more fair? There is no such thing as a "fair" tax. The concept of fairness is meaningless in the context of taxes. As you well know 'fairness' in this context means spreading the pain in an even fashion.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,156 #31 December 23, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Now what else do we have now that is more fair? There is no such thing as a "fair" tax. The concept of fairness is meaningless in the context of taxes. As you well know 'fairness' in this context means spreading the pain in an even fashion. A totally meaningless statement.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #32 December 23, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Now what else do we have now that is more fair? There is no such thing as a "fair" tax. The concept of fairness is meaningless in the context of taxes. As you well know 'fairness' in this context means spreading the pain in an even fashion. A totally meaningless statement. Well then I can see where you might be having problems grasping the concept.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,156 #33 December 23, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Now what else do we have now that is more fair? There is no such thing as a "fair" tax. The concept of fairness is meaningless in the context of taxes. As you well know 'fairness' in this context means spreading the pain in an even fashion. A totally meaningless statement. Well then I can see where you might be having problems grasping the concept. irony score 10/10... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #34 December 23, 2010 Quote Well then I can see where you might be having problems grasping the concept. the question, really, is why does he find it interesting to argue. It's about as pointless as debating the meaning or lack of meaning for the word safe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,156 #35 December 24, 2010 QuoteQuote Well then I can see where you might be having problems grasping the concept. the question, really, is why does he find it interesting to argue. It's about as pointless as debating the meaning or lack of meaning for the word safe. You agree, then, that "fair" in the context of taxes is not worth debating, because it means very different things to different people, just like "safe" does. I guess we're getting somewhere.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #36 December 24, 2010 Quoteirony score 10/10 Glad to see you are back Kallend. It hasn't been same without you here defending your points with nothing statements like "irony score". Glad you are back. I haven't had a good laugh in quite a while. ________________________________ "1981 to 1988 is 7 years"-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years,Kallend) The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #37 December 24, 2010 QuoteI haven't had a good laugh in quite a while. that's so sad... ...get out a bit morestay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #38 December 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteI haven't had a good laugh in quite a while. that's so sad... ...get out a bit more talk about irony score!! :)-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #39 December 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteI haven't had a good laugh in quite a while. that's so sad... ...get out a bit more talk about irony score!! :) give us your best then...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #40 December 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Well then I can see where you might be having problems grasping the concept. the question, really, is why does he find it interesting to argue. It's about as pointless as debating the meaning or lack of meaning for the word safe. You agree, then, that "fair" in the context of taxes is not worth debating, because it means very different things to different people, just like "safe" does. I guess we're getting somewhere. Well, you're not worth debating. Fair and Safe will always be a bit vague, with different interpretations. But with both, it's quite possible to make usable definitions for a given conversation. Skydiving with a parachute can be 'safe' within a conversation of jumpers. Skydiving without one can never be safe. A tax that only applies to whites can never be fair. One that progressively taxes per income can be. One that taxes 90% of the wealth of the top 10%, while the other 90% pay nothing...hard to come up with a definition that matches. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,156 #41 December 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Well then I can see where you might be having problems grasping the concept. the question, really, is why does he find it interesting to argue. It's about as pointless as debating the meaning or lack of meaning for the word safe. You agree, then, that "fair" in the context of taxes is not worth debating, because it means very different things to different people, just like "safe" does. I guess we're getting somewhere. Well, you're not worth debating. Feel free not to respond to my posts.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #42 December 26, 2010 >You could lay off most of the IRS (it is easier to monitor the company's >collections of the tax than almost 300 million people), Right. Which is why I said it would be simpler to administer. That's the one big advantage. >those that don't pay tax now would on anything purchased (crooks, drug >dealers illegals and even those evil rich with to many tax deductions) You honestly think there would be no one "getting around" a 30% sales tax? The ways to cheat would just change. >savings in millions on government, dismantleing most of the IRS . . . Right. Falls under "easier to administer." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
