"Dave" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:33:47 -0500, "Paladin" noneofyourbusiness.www said:

I have a serious question to which I should welcome an honest reply from a
consumption tax proponent. Are you game?

Dunno that I'm necessarily such a proponent. In fact I might lean more
toward an income tax with lower rates and a lot of the subsidies designed to
effect social engineering eliminated. E.g. get rid of the home mortgage
deduction, removing the subsidy from renters to owners. Get rid of the
deduction for health insurance, or restrict it to payments for high
deductible true insurance policies, not pre-payment plans. And get rid of
the deduction for state and local taxes, so the guy out in SD isn't picking
up half my bill for state and local taxes in a high tax state like NY (or NJ
or MA).

Since you prefer to not address my question, I suppose because I should not
have addressed it to you, being you are not a proponent of a consumption tax,
is there anybody else reading this who IS a consumption tax advocate who
can intelligently address the double jeopardy aspect of the consumption tax.

I never hear it discussed and I know proponents of the tax are aware of it.
I wonder if they expect all the baby boomers to remain unaware of this glaring
fault of the consumption tax. Can it be resolved somehow? AARP alone will
not allow it as it stands. I am not totally against a consumption tax, mind you.
There just needs to be a way to avoid double taxation for it to get my vote.

Paladin
(Have gun - will travel)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"DSK" wrote in message
...
"Sidney Greenstreet" wrote:
Why should the price of the services of government be based on income?


Why shouldn't they?

Because if everyone stopped working, worked less or made less income the
government would be "underfunded". It's complicated and open to corruption
and special interests. Charge everyone the same flat fee.




If so, then one would expect better government services for those who pay
more.

So those who pay higher taxes get better government service.


Been in a court room lately?

The rich (who pay little or no taxes because of "loopholes") can get better
lawyers because they can afford them. I don't see the causal link to taxes
paid.



That's fair?!


Depends on who you ask, iddenit?

Of course. That's why "equal" is better.



BTW where's Peter Lorre?

Reeek! Reeeek! He's in court!


DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
It's called "progressive" taxation, Max.


"Maxprop" wrote
Which is clearly a failure in concept as applied to the wealthy. The
rich are greedy, not stupid, and they have the means to avoid excessive
taxation.


Or indeed, any taxation they can be it paltry, fair, or "excessive."

To many wealthy people, *any* tax seems confiscatory and excessive.


Gilligan wrote:
Why is it greedy to want to keep what you have earned?


Why is it not considered greedy to get other people to work and take
profit from their labor? Is that not a tax upon the laborers?

Because getting other people to work and organizing their labor is work and
value added. It is not a tax because the laborers agree to a wage and are
paid that.








Can we presume that you are not in favor of a flat tax? g



We've already bankrupted the gov't with various fiscal stupidity.


Seems to work for a number of Balkan and European countries,

Which have vastly different tax structures including a VAT tax.

Are you in favor of a federally imposed VAT tax?

not to mention states like Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts,
and Pennsylvania. Indiana has a balanced budget, by the way.

Great. I'm sure they don't tax anything else, either.


But I see you point, Doug. It would be impossible to 'stick it to the
rich' without a progressive (punitive) tax. It's just not fair that
they're rich and you're not.


I am rich. OTOH I am not of that arrogant & stupid ilk who think that any
progressive tax is "punitive." This goes a long way to convince anybody
reading this thread that a flat tax is indeed skewed towards the rich and
appeals mostly to those who are greedy & selfish.

I am poor. I earn less than minimum wage. I think progressive taxation is
punitive.



Just think of it as hush money to keep the starving masses from becoming
so enraged at their lot in life (as compared to yours) that they riot and
burn your house down.


One can use the same argument for owning assualt rifles.




Gilligan wrote:
Stick it to the rich and they shall go elsewhere. The US is not the only
propserous place in the world.


Being rich is just a symptom of workaholism. Any fool can go out and earn
tons of money. Not any fool can go out and live life well.


It's true that lots of fools are rich, but it's not true that *every* fool
is. If we are going to appeal to logic, then let's use accurate logic.


I said any fool can go out and earn tons of money. I did not say all fools
go out and earn tons of money.

DSK

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You mean saying that I don't know, but saying that it should be fair isn't
responsive?

Basically, if you're more well-off, you should pay more both numerically
and as a percentage. Thus, if someone makes $30K a year and has three
kids, she shouldn't be paying as high a percentage of her income as
someone who makes $250K a year and has three kids. Let's say say the
$30Ker pays 10% (which I think is way, way too high, but ok). That's a
pretty big percentage of a small income. Now take the $250Ker. She's
paying $25K, which while not insignificant, leaves a whopping $225K for
expenses, whatever. What would be wrong with the $250Ker paying 20%. This
still leaves $200K, which is plenty to live on.

Obviously, this can't be an absolute scale, but the trend should be
obvious.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

So what you are saying is that the person earning 225K$ a year should fire
the 30K$ nanny she has hired and give that money to the government in the
form of taxes.

So now we have one unemployed person and a wealthier person taking home
less.

Great idea!

"DSK" wrote in message
...
In other words, among *economists* Galbraith is not dicredited.


Dave wrote:
Keep telling yourself that, Doug.


Why shouldn't I?
So far, you have offered
-a lame excuse
-a political rant

He's basically a minor footnote who had a keen pen.

And some good ideas about how the world works, many of which have been
readily adopted by economists and are intrinsic to ongoing work in that
field.

Oddly enough, there is one thing that Galbraith advocated which *has* been
seriously discredited. One out of many. Do you know what it is?

DSK

Taxing plastic?

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...



The best thing to do is to pay as little tax as possible, even if it
requires earning as little as possible.

Great idea. I believe I'll quit my profession and go on welfare.
Yeah, splendid idea.

Max


There are other ways. Own your own business, which for you is easy. Pay
yourself dividends - no FICA; driving to work, meals etc are now tax
deductable; per diem is tax free; many things can be classified as
business expenses - including your boat if done properly. Own rental
property - another great deduction! Put the kids on the payroll, deduct
the dog as security costs, take the family to conventions, look at
starting up offices in nice locales - take the whole family, etc, etc.
Live like a king and pay much less tax. Don't forget to get a tax ID
and a reseller ID so you pay no sales tax! Do services for cash at a
discount (unreported income), own a bar/restaurant/store - a good
percent of cash income goes unreported, vending machines - washers,
dryers, candy, games etc - all cash!

Only a liberal would go on welfare to avoid paying taxes.

My response was entirely facetious, not requiring a response such as
yours.

Max


My response was a handy tip to all those who want to bring down the
system.

Um, do you really believe they need such tips? Seems they've been doing a
bang-up job without your help.

Max

Why then is the system still up and running? Under my plan total collapse in
5 years or less!

"Dave" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 20:17:48 -0500, "Paladin" noneofyourbusiness.www said:

the double jeopardy aspect of the consumption tax

One needn't be a proponent of the consumption tax to address this idiotic
claim. "Double jeopardy" refers to criminal proceedings only, and occurs
when one is twice placed at the risk of punishment for commission of a
single crime. Apparently the word has been hijacked by a bunch of
propagandists because it has a nice appealing sound to the unthinking crowd.
It has nothing whatever to do with whether a particular tax is fair or
unfair.

From a strictly constitutional viewpoint you are correct, sir. However, in pedestrian everyday
language, double jeopardy has acquired a wider meaning. That being a descriptor involving
getting nailed twice for the same thing. The same thing is not necessarily a crime. In other words,
the definition has broadened from constitutional to de facto. The language evolves. You should, too.

Now that I've gotten that small formality out of the way, how about butting out if you don't care
to make some semblance of an intelligent reply. One would think you have nothing intelligent to say
judging from your obvious obfuscation using lame objurgation.

Paladin
(Have gun - will travel)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 08:20:58 -0700, "Gilligan"
wrote:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
When you live on expensive property, you pay property tax mostly based
on
the market value (assessment). Is this not the case where you live?


Property tax is also reduced if one is 65 or older.


It is? Everywhere?

CWM

Here's just property tax reductions for South Dakota:

http://www.state.sd.us/drr2/propspec...rty/relief.htm

New York:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/pro...dividual.shtml

Tennessee:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/pro...dividual.shtml

Massachussetts:

http://www.massretirees.com/state-pr...elopments.html

California:

http://www.aging.state.ca.us/html/wh..._programs.html

Texas:

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/se...6/e051906a.htm


Gee that covers a large percentage of the population of the US, doesn't it?

Care to guess how many states have it?

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:51:05 -0500, DSK said:

Why is it always "muddled thinking" when somebody disagrees
with you?

Because, of course, clear-thinking individuals seldom disagree with me
g.

Rational people always will reach a solution. If one party is irrational, a
solution is not gauranteed.

No, they should sit on their ass and not contribute a thing to society.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You mean saying that I don't know, but saying that it should be fair
isn't responsive?

Basically, if you're more well-off, you should pay more both numerically
and as a percentage. Thus, if someone makes $30K a year and has three
kids, she shouldn't be paying as high a percentage of her income as
someone who makes $250K a year and has three kids. Let's say say the
$30Ker pays 10% (which I think is way, way too high, but ok). That's a
pretty big percentage of a small income. Now take the $250Ker. She's
paying $25K, which while not insignificant, leaves a whopping $225K for
expenses, whatever. What would be wrong with the $250Ker paying 20%. This
still leaves $200K, which is plenty to live on.

Obviously, this can't be an absolute scale, but the trend should be
obvious.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

So what you are saying is that the person earning 225K$ a year should fire
the 30K$ nanny she has hired and give that money to the government in the
form of taxes.

So now we have one unemployed person and a wealthier person taking home
less.

Great idea!