NO APPLE CRITICISM ALLOWED!!
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Wes Groleau on 19 Jul 2010 23:47 On 07-19-2010 10:18, -hh wrote: > To illustrate by way of an example, assume a nation with only two > taxpayers: > > Joe Sixpack, who earns $290 > Richard OnePercenter, who earns $710 > > Total national income that is subject to taxation: $1,000 > > (Note that Rich has $710/$1,000 = 71% of the wealth ... matches that > statistic) > > Now income taxes are applied: > > Joe pays $59.60 in taxes > Rich pays $40.40 in taxes > > Total Taxes paid: $100 > > (Note that Rich pays $40.40/$100 = 40.4% ... matches that statistic) > > From the above: > > Joe's tax rate is: ($59.60 / $290) = 20.55% > Rich's tax rate is: ($40.40 / $710) = 5.69% > > YMMV, but most people would say that 5.69% is a lower tax_rate_ than > 20.55% is. And a flat ten percent would benefit Joe (but not as much as he thinks, because Rich will just get it back in the prices of the goods he sells to Joe. But it would increase the money the government has to work with. Before you say "not so," consider that a flat ten percent would not require hundreds of pages of incomprehensible "explanations" from the IRS. -- Wes Groleau The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson
From: Steve Hix on 20 Jul 2010 18:18 In article <i2367s$a6t$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > And a flat ten percent would benefit Joe (but not as much as he thinks, > because Rich will just get it back in the prices of the goods he sells > to Joe. > > But it would increase the money the government has to work with. > Before you say "not so," consider that a flat ten percent would > not require hundreds of pages of incomprehensible "explanations" > from the IRS. There you hit one major factor mitigating against a flat tax system ever being adopted; a huge number of federal employees (and union and bureaucracy) would be excess to need. Watch out for calls for a VAT, too, especially if it's to be added to the current tax structure, rather than replacing, for example, personal income taxes.
From: VAXman- on 20 Jul 2010 19:01 In article <sehix-FE132D.15184820072010(a)5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>, Steve Hix <sehix(a)NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> writes: >In article <i2367s$a6t$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > >> And a flat ten percent would benefit Joe (but not as much as he thinks, >> because Rich will just get it back in the prices of the goods he sells >> to Joe. >> >> But it would increase the money the government has to work with. >> Before you say "not so," consider that a flat ten percent would >> not require hundreds of pages of incomprehensible "explanations" >> from the IRS. > >There you hit one major factor mitigating against a flat tax system ever being >adopted; a huge number of federal employees (and union and bureaucracy) would be >excess to need. > >Watch out for calls for a VAT, too, especially if it's to be added to the >current tax structure, rather than replacing, for example, personal income taxes. 99.9% of the gov't is a waste anyway. Nobody would miss 'em. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day. All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.
From: Wes Groleau on 20 Jul 2010 19:35 On 07-20-2010 19:01, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: > Steve Hix<sehix(a)NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> writes: >> Wes Groleau<Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: >>> And a flat ten percent would benefit Joe (but not as much as he thinks, >>> because Rich will just get it back in the prices of the goods he sells >>> to Joe. >>> >>> But it would increase the money the government has to work with. >>> Before you say "not so," consider that a flat ten percent would >>> not require hundreds of pages of incomprehensible "explanations" >>> from the IRS. >> >> There you hit one major factor mitigating against a flat tax system ever being >> adopted; a huge number of federal employees (and union and bureaucracy) would be >> excess to need. > > 99.9% of the gov't is a waste anyway. Nobody would miss 'em. Ah, but Joe is going to have more money to spend, meaning more jobs to make whatever he might spend it on. So the "huge number" would be able to get real jobs. At least some of them. -- Wes Groleau Hillary Insults Virgen de Guadalupe? http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1531
From: George Kerby on 20 Jul 2010 20:18
On 7/20/10 5:18 PM, in article sehix-FE132D.15184820072010(a)5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com, "Steve Hix" <sehix(a)NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote: > In article <i2367s$a6t$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > >> And a flat ten percent would benefit Joe (but not as much as he thinks, >> because Rich will just get it back in the prices of the goods he sells >> to Joe. >> >> But it would increase the money the government has to work with. >> Before you say "not so," consider that a flat ten percent would >> not require hundreds of pages of incomprehensible "explanations" >> from the IRS. > > There you hit one major factor mitigating against a flat tax system ever being > adopted; a huge number of federal employees (and union and bureaucracy) would > be > excess to need. > > Watch out for calls for a VAT, too, especially if it's to be added to the > current tax structure, rather than replacing, for example, personal income > taxes. Once any tax is established, it is impossible to eliminate. Income tax was supposed to be 'temporary'. RIGHT! The VAT tax is an Obama favorite, watch out. |