New Hires in UAW Now Get Just $14 an hour
in [Drive]
|
From: Dave Head on 26 Jun 2010 00:26 On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 00:00:51 -0400, lil abner <@daisy.mae> wrote: >Dave Head wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:09:32 -0400, lil abner <@daisy.mae> wrote: >> >>> The "Fair Tax" is a regressive tax. Those that spend the highest >>> proportion of their income pay the highest tax rate. >> >> Those at or below the poverty level don't pay a penny of the fair tax. >> Those that spend 2X the poverty level pay at 1/2 the Fair Tax rate. >> Those that spend 3X the poverty level pay at 2/3rds the Fair Tax rate. >So the average income Household will pay 2/3 or so. That's 2/3rds the Fair Tax RATE, not 2/3rds of their income or anything like that. >The real Rich will >pay a small pittance compared to their incomes I feel that worrying about how much or how little someone else is paying, whether they are rich or not, is akin to penis envy, which is somewhere I personally don't want to go. > which go off hwore or >into other holdings. ???? It (their money) is going offshore NOW, and its because of the income taxes, which would disappear. >Have you thought this through? As I said, it took me 2 months of reading the Fair Tax stuff and reading the criticisms of it and reading other info posted elsewhere to come to believe that it is the only thing in the known universe that will save our country from an economic train wreck. >> >> Doesn't sound regressive to me... >> >>> Tycoons and Billionaires really like the "Fair Tax" because they would >>> pay practically nothing. >> >> How's that? They go out to a shipyard in California and order a $50M >> yacht, they're going to have to cough up a serious pile of money. When >> they buy their $8M mansions, they're going to have to cough up a >> serious pile of money. And... all those rich folks that have a huge >> pile of $$$ sitting around, and are just spending a little of it every >> year to live high on the hog, are going to have to cough up a serious >> pile of money... >> >>> My taxes are high enough. No thanks. If we become a Multi Millionaire I >>> might change my position but I don't think so >> >> Each person's individual taxes will go down. That's 'cuz of all the >> help we'll be getting from the criminals that never paid any taxes and >> certain rich folk mentioned above that have never paid any taxes and >> those that have sequestered their $$$$ overseas, both legally and >> illegally, that still buy the fun stuff (Ferrarri's, mansions, etc.) >> but never paid any taxes, and even tourists, of which there are 45 - >> 56 million every year and, if they spend $5K or so each on average, >> well, that's a serious pile of money too. The illegal aliens will >> also be getting hammered (yahoo!!!!) > >Exxon a a hell of a lot more gripe about taxes but never paid a dime in >US taxes for quite a while. Maybe, maybe not. If they didn't, it was probably because the paid about 3/4 of what they would have paid on lawyers and accountants to avoid the tax. Either way, if the income tax goes away, either their costs in paying the tax, or their costs in paying the lawyers and accountants to avoid the tax, would go away. That would enable them to sell us gas at a lesser price. That's a good thing. >they are not going to start. Hopefully not. One of the features of the Fair Tax is that no corporation pays any tax. The idea is to give them a really great reason to build factories (or facilities, like refineries in the case of an oil company) in this country so it will provide (good) jobs to US citizens, and not the citizens of India or China or some other company. >To pay the tax you have to spend it here. Not true. If you buy your $50M yacht from a shipbuilder in Italy, you still owe the tax. And when you motor into some American harbor so you can have it here where you can enjoy it, there's going to be one or more tax collectors show up and take $15M off you for the Fair Tax you owe. > The loopholes are galaxy size Not compared to the income tax, where you simply don't have to file a return to avoid it. You can go for years without getting caught, depending on what you're doing, and if you're "certain people" with an "in", then STILL nothing happens to you. >now and they will keep it that way. Let 'em try to avoid the tax on their big-screen TV, their cars, their new house, their clothes, their meals, their electric bill, their cable bills, their etc. etc. It'd be more work to set up a way to avoid these things than it would be to just go ahead and use the time to work some overtime and make the money to pay the tax. >I wouldn't relish goint to the stoe and paying appx 10 percent state and >local and then 23% on Federal "Fair Taxation." 23% was the las figure I >heard calculated to bring in what supposedly is coming in now. >Big money won't spend it here. Doesn't matter whether they spend it here. They still owe it, its their responsibility to send it in, and if they don't, they can go to jail. And, if they don't, they'll almost certainly be found by a tax collector, and made to cough up $3,000 on that $10,000 worth of goodies that they bought on their European vacation. Meanwhile, Jeep Grand Cherokees are rolling off assembly lines in Toledo, Ohio with a brand new, lower price tag and are heading straight to Europe and the rest of the world to compete with much-higher-priced 4X4's from other places in the word. We'll have the low manufacturing costs for the world. Just 400 factories per state, manufacturing the worlds goods, employing an average of 2000 people over 3 shifts (666 per shift plus 1) would get the entire 40 million people now in poverty in the USA out of poverty. What a deal - and with a zero-manufacturing-tax environment, it should be doable to build those factories.
From: lil abner on 26 Jun 2010 07:13 Dave Head wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 00:00:51 -0400, lil abner <@daisy.mae> wrote: > >> Dave Head wrote: >>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:09:32 -0400, lil abner <@daisy.mae> wrote: >>> >>>> The "Fair Tax" is a regressive tax. Those that spend the highest >>>> proportion of their income pay the highest tax rate. >>> Those at or below the poverty level don't pay a penny of the fair tax. >>> Those that spend 2X the poverty level pay at 1/2 the Fair Tax rate. >>> Those that spend 3X the poverty level pay at 2/3rds the Fair Tax rate. >> So the average income Household will pay 2/3 or so. > > That's 2/3rds the Fair Tax RATE, not 2/3rds of their income or > anything like that. > >> The real Rich will >> pay a small pittance compared to their incomes > > I feel that worrying about how much or how little someone else is > paying, whether they are rich or not, is akin to penis envy, which is > somewhere I personally don't want to go. > >> which go off hwore or >> into other holdings. > > ???? It (their money) is going offshore NOW, and its because of the > income taxes, which would disappear. > >> Have you thought this through? > > As I said, it took me 2 months of reading the Fair Tax stuff and > reading the criticisms of it and reading other info posted elsewhere > to come to believe that it is the only thing in the known universe > that will save our country from an economic train wreck. >>> Doesn't sound regressive to me... >>> >>>> Tycoons and Billionaires really like the "Fair Tax" because they would >>>> pay practically nothing. >>> How's that? They go out to a shipyard in California and order a $50M >>> yacht, they're going to have to cough up a serious pile of money. When >>> they buy their $8M mansions, they're going to have to cough up a >>> serious pile of money. And... all those rich folks that have a huge >>> pile of $$$ sitting around, and are just spending a little of it every >>> year to live high on the hog, are going to have to cough up a serious >>> pile of money... >>> >>>> My taxes are high enough. No thanks. If we become a Multi Millionaire I >>>> might change my position but I don't think so >>> Each person's individual taxes will go down. That's 'cuz of all the >>> help we'll be getting from the criminals that never paid any taxes and >>> certain rich folk mentioned above that have never paid any taxes and >>> those that have sequestered their $$$$ overseas, both legally and >>> illegally, that still buy the fun stuff (Ferrarri's, mansions, etc.) >>> but never paid any taxes, and even tourists, of which there are 45 - >>> 56 million every year and, if they spend $5K or so each on average, >>> well, that's a serious pile of money too. The illegal aliens will >>> also be getting hammered (yahoo!!!!) >> Exxon a a hell of a lot more gripe about taxes but never paid a dime in >> US taxes for quite a while. > > Maybe, maybe not. If they didn't, it was probably because the paid > about 3/4 of what they would have paid on lawyers and accountants to > avoid the tax. Either way, if the income tax goes away, either their > costs in paying the tax, or their costs in paying the lawyers and > accountants to avoid the tax, would go away. That would enable them > to sell us gas at a lesser price. That's a good thing. > >> they are not going to start. > > Hopefully not. One of the features of the Fair Tax is that no > corporation pays any tax. The idea is to give them a really great > reason to build factories (or facilities, like refineries in the case > of an oil company) in this country so it will provide (good) jobs to > US citizens, and not the citizens of India or China or some other > company. > >> To pay the tax you have to spend it here. > > Not true. If you buy your $50M yacht from a shipbuilder in Italy, you > still owe the tax. And when you motor into some American harbor so > you can have it here where you can enjoy it, there's going to be one > or more tax collectors show up and take $15M off you for the Fair Tax > you owe. > >> The loopholes are galaxy size > > Not compared to the income tax, where you simply don't have to file a > return to avoid it. You can go for years without getting caught, > depending on what you're doing, and if you're "certain people" with an > "in", then STILL nothing happens to you. > >> now and they will keep it that way. > > Let 'em try to avoid the tax on their big-screen TV, their cars, their > new house, their clothes, their meals, their electric bill, their > cable bills, their etc. etc. It'd be more work to set up a way to > avoid these things than it would be to just go ahead and use the time > to work some overtime and make the money to pay the tax. > >> I wouldn't relish goint to the stoe and paying appx 10 percent state and >> local and then 23% on Federal "Fair Taxation." 23% was the las figure I >> heard calculated to bring in what supposedly is coming in now. >> Big money won't spend it here. > > Doesn't matter whether they spend it here. They still owe it, its > their responsibility to send it in, and if they don't, they can go to > jail. And, if they don't, they'll almost certainly be found by a tax > collector, and made to cough up $3,000 on that $10,000 worth of > goodies that they bought on their European vacation. > > Meanwhile, Jeep Grand Cherokees are rolling off assembly lines in > Toledo, Ohio with a brand new, lower price tag and are heading > straight to Europe and the rest of the world to compete with > much-higher-priced 4X4's from other places in the word. We'll have > the low manufacturing costs for the world. > > Just 400 factories per state, manufacturing the worlds goods, > employing an average of 2000 people over 3 shifts (666 per shift plus > 1) would get the entire 40 million people now in poverty in the USA > out of poverty. What a deal - and with a zero-manufacturing-tax > environment, it should be doable to build those factories. Supply side economics and Foreign/Global Business isn't looking for market forces that mandate a reduction in price. They are manipulating the market. This the result of their elimination of "unnecessary regulation."
From: Howard Brazee on 26 Jun 2010 07:47 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:35:06 -0400, lil abner <@daisy.mae> wrote: >Remember in 1870 when 30,000.00 bought a nice home? I'm not that old. But I remember when my dad spent less than that in $$ to buy a nice home. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Dave Head on 26 Jun 2010 08:00 On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:25:45 +0000 (UTC), Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >The income tax came in with the federal reserve. Neither is needed. We >had government before 1913. Yep. It ran mostly on consumption taxes, which is what the Fair Tax is. >Also the income tax elimination only takes >the federal government back to roughly 1998 funding levels. I don't understand that. Most of our revenue comes from the income taxes. >Do we really >need government sucking up such a giantanic amount of GDP as it does >today? Nope. If we look at the Federal spending as a bar graph, there are 3 very large bars that are social security, medicare, and the defense department. All we have to do is get rid of social security and medicare. The Defense Department is in the Constitution, and so that's what we SHOULD be doing, but phase out the other two. Buy your own health care, and either save up the money to retire on, or don't retire. >the bigger the government, the poorer the people no matter how >you collect the tax. Well, yeah, but that's another challenge. Why not just get rid of the tax that is chasing all our jobs overseas as a first step? That would eventually solve the illegal alien problem because we'd eventually have so much economic activity that we could employ 'em all... and tax them too... and after that our economy would just keep growing. We could throw open the gates to immigration again, and eventuallly we'd have so many of those - immigrants - that we could employ them too and tax them too. > >Plus keep in mind it is through inflation that so many have to pay >income tax today. But it has worked out to be the opposite. Only 47% of US houselholds pay income tax now. That's one of the reasons its so high. I was ramming around the IRS website last year and ran across their informatiuon that if everyone paid all the taxes that they owed, without any cheating, all the rest of our taxes would be 30% less. IOW, I paid $14,000 last year, but it should have been $8,800 but due to tax cheats, its $14,000. If we had the Fair Tax, it is waaaaay more difficult to not pay taxes on - you have to have 2 people being criminals to do it, the seller and the buyer. With the income tax, you can do it all by yourself, just don't send in the forms. How stupid is that as a tax collection scheme? > When started the income tax only applied to a very >very very tiny percentage of the population and then the rate was very >low. Yeah, they all start that way, usually. At least the Fair Tax is upfront about taxing absolutely everybody. The only thing is that it has a "prebate" that sends you enough money every month to pay the Fair Tax on all your spending up to the poverty level. So, if you're only making poverty level wages, and you spend it all on taxable stuff (newly manufactured goods, and services), then you don't pay a penny of Fair Tax. It gets paid for you via the prebate. If you go and spend some of that money on non-taxable stuff, such as used stuff, then the prebate actually becomes a small subsidy. But of course, there aren't going to be all that many really poor people after the Fair Tax is around for a while, 'cuz they're mostly going to get good (factory) jobs and not be poor any more.
From: Nate Nagel on 26 Jun 2010 08:41
On 06/25/2010 11:31 PM, Brent wrote: > On 2010-06-26, Nate Nagel<njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote: > >> Honestly, a significant devaluation of the dollar would go a long way >> towards solving a lot of these problems, but it would be painful. >> Unfortunately I (NB: I am not an economist) can't think of any likely >> unfolding of things that doesn't involve economic pain. > > That's inflation. We need deflation now. Deflation is bad for bankers > and debtors but it will allow the economy to recover for the long term. > All lowering the value of the dollar accomplishes is to wipe out savers > and add to the problems. > How would deflation help the problem of foreign workers willing to work for half or less than that of American workers? Devaluing the dollar with respect to foreign currencies will give us less purchasing power overseas. The only downside that I can see is that it would make American corporations more open to being taken over by foreign interests... but then again I haven't worked for a company for which that hadn't already happened for 10 years or so? nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |