"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The debt is a result of decreased revenue from a
recession, and increased military and homeland security spending.

As well as failure to monitor cash flow and adjust the master game plan to
reflect changing conditions in the economy.
When Greenspan suggested a tax cut, back during the Clinton years, it was
because we were running a surplus.

If you're going to use Greenspan's remarks to validate your argument, then
you also need to include Greenspan's remarks in February of this year:

"I am in favor, as I've indicated in the past, of continuing the tax cuts
that are in dispute at this particular stage"

He does *not* favor raising taxes to lower the budget deficit. Instead, he
promotes tightened spending.

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:34:54 +0000, NOYB wrote:


He does *not* favor raising taxes to lower the budget deficit. Instead,
he promotes tightened spending.

Great, so do you think the President will listen to him this term? Or, do
you, like myself, think there will be a tax *increase* hidden in that "tax
overhaul" he's been talking about?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:34:54 +0000, NOYB wrote:


He does *not* favor raising taxes to lower the budget deficit. Instead,
he promotes tightened spending.

Great, so do you think the President will listen to him this term?

Yes. A 1% bump in discretionary spending is tantamount to a cut if GDP is
growing at better than 3%.

Or, do
you, like myself, think there will be a tax *increase* hidden in that "tax
overhaul" he's been talking about?

There won't be a tax increase. However, there will be certain loopholes
(like the SUV deduction) that will be eliminated.

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:17:11 +0000, NOYB wrote:


There won't be a tax increase. However, there will be certain loopholes
(like the SUV deduction) that will be eliminated.

Ah yes, the not a tax increase tax increase. ;-) Actually, it's my
understanding Bush wants to study a potential complete tax system
overhaul, perhaps a flat or national sales tax.

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 07:02:40 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:17:11 +0000, NOYB wrote:


There won't be a tax increase. However, there will be certain loopholes
(like the SUV deduction) that will be eliminated.

Ah yes, the not a tax increase tax increase. ;-) Actually, it's my
understanding Bush wants to study a potential complete tax system
overhaul, perhaps a flat or national sales tax.

YAY!!!!

Later,

Tom

thunder wrote:
Ah yes, the not a tax increase tax increase. ;-)

Yep, another variation on a common theme. Bear in mind though, gov't
debt drives up inflation which has the same effect as a tax increase.


... Actually, it's my
understanding Bush wants to study a potential complete tax system
overhaul, perhaps a flat or national sales tax.



Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
YAY!!!!

??? A national sales tax would be a disaster. The ad valorum tax
structure is one of the things that are killing the European economy
(although it's not bad for *us* because it makes the U.S. more competitive).

A flat rate income tax sounds great until you look at it in any detail,
when you realize that it would have to be be around 28% in order to not
have a tremendous shortfall. Also, the morality sucks... it is
effectively a penalty on the less wealthy.

DSK

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 07:45:19 -0500, DSK wrote:

thunder wrote:
Ah yes, the not a tax increase tax increase. ;-)

Yep, another variation on a common theme. Bear in mind though, gov't
debt drives up inflation which has the same effect as a tax increase.

... Actually, it's my
understanding Bush wants to study a potential complete tax system
overhaul, perhaps a flat or national sales tax.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

YAY!!!!

??? A national sales tax would be a disaster. The ad valorum tax
structure is one of the things that are killing the European economy
(although it's not bad for *us* because it makes the U.S. more competitive).

A flat rate income tax sounds great until you look at it in any detail,
when you realize that it would have to be be around 28% in order to not
have a tremendous shortfall. Also, the morality sucks... it is
effectively a penalty on the less wealthy.

Yeah, but think of the possibilities!! You can have a tax on a tax on
a tax like we have here in Connecticut - effectively triple taxes!!!!

YAY!!!!

Later,

Tom

national sales tax.

National sales tax.
Pretty sad.

If you're poor, 100% of whatever you earn will be taxed- at the 25 or 30%
usually floated as the proposed number for such a tax.

Most of the working poor we call the "middle class" these days is up to its
butt in consumer debt as well- how many of us know several families who
transferred consumer credit card debt into 30-year bonds secured against their
home (!) in the last year or two? No break for these people at the 25 or 30
percent tax rate, either. Most are paying less tax now.

Who comes out on top? The well off, the wealthy, and the shockingly rich. A
family earning $1mm a year, but spending only a thousand a day on consumption
(spending money at that rate would be almost a full time job) will have about
1/3 of its income taxed at that 25 percent rate- or will pay roughly about 8%
of its income in taxes.

A $10mm a year family, spending $100,000 a month on consumption, would pay a
whalloping 3% of its income in taxes.

Let's see he If you sweep the floor at WalMart, you will wind up spending
everything you earn and pay 30% of your income to the government in a tax. If
you *own* WalMart, you can't possibly figure out how to spend all the money
coming in
and your tax bill will drop to a couple of percent of your income.

No wonder the right wing likes this idea.
The economics are right out of those two fine traditions, feudalism and
sharecropping.

Funny thing is, most of those red states are filled with itsy bitsy towns and
farms where people do pretty well to make it to the middle class. The red
states get screwed the worst.......the gazillionaires living in California, the
NE and the Pacific NW, in the "blue states", benefit the most from a tax that
targets what you put into the marketplace, rather than taxing what you extract
from it.

You think we've got an "underground" economy now? Just wait until they roll out
a 25-30% national sales tax. Of course it willbe the rich, paying the tiniest
percentage in tax, who will go to the most exotic and extraordinary lengths to
pay even less. :-)

On 09 Nov 2004 17:00:02 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

national sales tax.

National sales tax.
Pretty sad.

If you're poor, 100% of whatever you earn will be taxed- at the 25 or 30%
usually floated as the proposed number for such a tax.

Most of the working poor we call the "middle class" these days is up to its
butt in consumer debt as well- how many of us know several families who
transferred consumer credit card debt into 30-year bonds secured against their
home (!) in the last year or two? No break for these people at the 25 or 30
percent tax rate, either. Most are paying less tax now.

Who comes out on top? The well off, the wealthy, and the shockingly rich. A
family earning $1mm a year, but spending only a thousand a day on consumption
(spending money at that rate would be almost a full time job) will have about
1/3 of its income taxed at that 25 percent rate- or will pay roughly about 8%
of its income in taxes.

A $10mm a year family, spending $100,000 a month on consumption, would pay a
whalloping 3% of its income in taxes.

Let's see he If you sweep the floor at WalMart, you will wind up spending
everything you earn and pay 30% of your income to the government in a tax. If
you *own* WalMart, you can't possibly figure out how to spend all the money
coming in
and your tax bill will drop to a couple of percent of your income.

No wonder the right wing likes this idea.
The economics are right out of those two fine traditions, feudalism and
sharecropping.

Funny thing is, most of those red states are filled with itsy bitsy towns and
farms where people do pretty well to make it to the middle class. The red
states get screwed the worst.......the gazillionaires living in California, the
NE and the Pacific NW, in the "blue states", benefit the most from a tax that
targets what you put into the marketplace, rather than taxing what you extract
from it.

You think we've got an "underground" economy now? Just wait until they roll out
a 25-30% national sales tax. Of course it willbe the rich, paying the tiniest
percentage in tax, who will go to the most exotic and extraordinary lengths to
pay even less. :-)

You've painted this picture before. But it can be modified, so that
it's not so dreary looking for those who would discard the idea out of
hand.

Items such as food, clothing, medicine, and other essentials could be
tax exempt or taxed at a significantly smaller level (say the current
6%).

"Luxury" items, such as mega-yachts, private aircraft, exotic
vacations, etc could be taxed at a higher rate, which could then be
used to offset the tax rate for other consumer goods.

Dave

Gould,
What do you think of using a VAT (Value Added Tax) similar to the tax used
in most of Europe?



"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
national sales tax.

National sales tax.
Pretty sad.

If you're poor, 100% of whatever you earn will be taxed- at the 25 or 30%
usually floated as the proposed number for such a tax.

Most of the working poor we call the "middle class" these days is up to
its
butt in consumer debt as well- how many of us know several families who
transferred consumer credit card debt into 30-year bonds secured against
their
home (!) in the last year or two? No break for these people at the 25 or
30
percent tax rate, either. Most are paying less tax now.

Who comes out on top? The well off, the wealthy, and the shockingly rich.
A
family earning $1mm a year, but spending only a thousand a day on
consumption
(spending money at that rate would be almost a full time job) will have
about
1/3 of its income taxed at that 25 percent rate- or will pay roughly about
8%
of its income in taxes.

A $10mm a year family, spending $100,000 a month on consumption, would pay
a
whalloping 3% of its income in taxes.

Let's see he If you sweep the floor at WalMart, you will wind up
spending
everything you earn and pay 30% of your income to the government in a tax.
If
you *own* WalMart, you can't possibly figure out how to spend all the
money
coming in
and your tax bill will drop to a couple of percent of your income.

No wonder the right wing likes this idea.
The economics are right out of those two fine traditions, feudalism and
sharecropping.

Funny thing is, most of those red states are filled with itsy bitsy towns
and
farms where people do pretty well to make it to the middle class. The red
states get screwed the worst.......the gazillionaires living in
California, the
NE and the Pacific NW, in the "blue states", benefit the most from a tax
that
targets what you put into the marketplace, rather than taxing what you
extract
from it.

You think we've got an "underground" economy now? Just wait until they
roll out
a 25-30% national sales tax. Of course it willbe the rich, paying the
tiniest
percentage in tax, who will go to the most exotic and extraordinary
lengths to
pay even less. :-)