OT - Peggy Noonan nails it again

[Carl A.]

http://tinyurl.com/apcao2c

--
Carl Ahlemeyer
........................................................................
Sigismund Freud:
"Everyone must be the same and have the same.
Social justice means we deny ourselves many things
so that others may have to do without them as well."

[Will Sill]

On 5/16/13 7:38 PM, Carl A. wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/apcao2c
>

IMO she nailed a formula for failure.

At the conclusion of a generally honest and forthright opinion piece she
drops the ball and writes:

"And it would be shameful and shallow for any Republican operative or
operator to make this scandal into a commercial and turn it into a mere
partisan arguing point and part of the game. It's not part of the game.
This is not about the usual partisan slugfest. This is about the
integrity of our system of government and our ability to trust, which is
to say our ability to function."

Ridiculous. She is in effect suggesting that the Republican response
should be to run another bland, half-hearted campaign designed to lose.

Will

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

---------------------------------------

I generally agree with Will......at least on the majority of items.
However, I think Peggy Noonan nailed this thing through and through.

The Internal Revenue Service MUST remain non-political if this country
is to survive.

The Internal Revenue Service MUST remain non-partisan no matter who is
in power. I do not think she is suggesting that the Republicans
should turn and run. I think she is suggesting that the Republicans
and Democrats must assure this type stuff cannot happen no matter who
is in office or which party is in control.

This is an issue that should concern Conservatives and Liberals alike.
It is a two edge sword and the carnage can cut both ways depending on
who is in power.

I think that is why she is suggesting a fix rather than a "talking
point".

mike
--

Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/

[nothermark]

The laugh in the whine about the IRS is that the Congress has played
with the law they administer as a way to screw with various entities
and either facilitate or provide nuisance for various groups depending
on who is is power and how they view things.

[Bruce S]

I don't interpret what she wrote exactly the same way you do. She is
saying that the investigation should be non-political - clean up the
entire system so that no one can abuse it now or in the future again.

She does not say that the republicans shouldn't remind voters of just
how badly the Democrats abused their public trust in this (and all the
other) scandal.

It is much better to run a squeaky clean, non-partial investigation and
learn that the Dems are massive crooks than to be seen as running a
political hatchet job and finding that their "enemies" are bad.

--
Bruce

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can
win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can
profit."

[Bruce S]

In looking at past IRS abuses of power, the earliest I saw was in 1924
and it has happened regularly since that time.

In my opinion, 90 years of IRS abuse is enough - it is way past time to
eliminate the IRS completely.

[George Anthony]

"Mike Hendrix" <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote in message
news:ebfcp8t5bg9dmou4q...@4ax.com...

It's the democrats who rely on talking points. To fix a problem, you have
to know the root cause and how it developed into a problem. Quizzing the
IRS people has to happen if we expect to find out the cause and development.
We already know the effect.

[Bruce S]

On 5/17/2013 10:43 AM, George Anthony wrote:
>
> It's the democrats who rely on talking points. To fix a problem, you
> have to know the root cause and how it developed into a problem.
> Quizzing the IRS people has to happen if we expect to find out the cause
> and development. We already know the effect.

Speaking of "Quizzing the IRS people" did you see Miller attempting to
avoid answering questions in the hearing this morning?

If I had been one of the congressmen asking him questions, when I
finished I would have had him arrested. One congressman asked him at
least 5 times if congress had a right to know when the IRS abused its
power. Miller started to answer by saying "Well, they would have
eventually found out." The congressman interrupted him and demanded a
yes or no answer to the question; does congress have the right to know?
Miller refused to answer at least 5 times.

Miller should be spending the night in jail on a contempt charge.

[Carl A.]

On 05/17/13 9:47 AM, Bruce S wrote:

>
> In looking at past IRS abuses of power, the earliest I saw was in 1924
> and it has happened regularly since that time.
>
> In my opinion, 90 years of IRS abuse is enough - it is way past time to
> eliminate the IRS completely.
>

Be sure to let us know when (if) you are selected for an audit.

[Bruce S]

On 5/17/2013 11:28 AM, Carl A. wrote:
> On 05/17/13 9:47 AM, Bruce S wrote:
>
>>
>> In looking at past IRS abuses of power, the earliest I saw was in 1924
>> and it has happened regularly since that time.
>>
>> In my opinion, 90 years of IRS abuse is enough - it is way past time to
>> eliminate the IRS completely.
>>
>
> Be sure to let us know when (if) you are selected for an audit.

I file a short form, the audit would take about 5 minutes. ;-)

[George Anthony]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
news:o7hcp81i1tmin45f0...@4ax.com...

Why is it when you liberals get caught with your pants down your defense is
always "well they all do it". Ever hear of "two wrongs don't make a right"?
Instead of making excuses because it's a liberal/socialist administration,
you should be worried about the implications that can affect all of us basis
your " they all do it" theory.

[George Anthony]

"Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kn5u1p$dop$1...@dont-email.me...

\A comrade in arms I see as I also file the short form.

Line 1 - How much did you make?
Line 2 - Send it to us.

[George Anthony]

"Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:kn5rgq$tj1$1...@dont-email.me...

Representative Kelly really blasted him. He even received an ovation.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:47:01 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Simplify the tax code to where they cannot abuse it. ;-)

[nothermark]

If that was true every time Rush went onvacation the Conservatives
would become mute.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:09:15 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/17/2013 10:43 AM, George Anthony wrote:
>>
>> It's the democrats who rely on talking points. To fix a problem, you
>> have to know the root cause and how it developed into a problem.
>> Quizzing the IRS people has to happen if we expect to find out the cause
>> and development. We already know the effect.
>
>Speaking of "Quizzing the IRS people" did you see Miller attempting to
>avoid answering questions in the hearing this morning?
>
>If I had been one of the congressmen asking him questions, when I
>finished I would have had him arrested. One congressman asked him at
>least 5 times if congress had a right to know when the IRS abused its
>power. Miller started to answer by saying "Well, they would have
>eventually found out." The congressman interrupted him and demanded a
>yes or no answer to the question; does congress have the right to know?
> Miller refused to answer at least 5 times.
>
>Miller should be spending the night in jail on a contempt charge.

Would the Congressman be in the next cell with the same charges?

[nothermark]

I am well aware of your complaint. I agree with you that folks who
arbitrarily interpret the code should be eliminated. I also think
folks who arbitrarily *write* the code in ways to attempt to screw one
politcal group while favoring another should also be eliminated. That
is why I favor a 20 page tax code.

[George Anthony]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message

news:n23dp8h9hbtm4mfim...@4ax.com...

How about a one page tax code for personal filers?

Line 1- Enter gross income.
Line 2 - Multiply by 15%
Line 3 - Enter number from line 2
Line 4 - Send it to the IRS

Take the employers out of the loop and make the tax payer responsible for
the process. We actually should do that now. Maybe people would realize
just how much they actually pay in federal income taxes if they had to write
one check at the end of the year.

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:43:44 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/17/2013 5:44 AM, Will Sill wrote:
>> On 5/16/13 7:38 PM, Carl A. wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/apcao2c
>>>
>>
>> IMO she nailed a formula for failure.
>>
>> At the conclusion of a generally honest and forthright opinion piece she
>> drops the ball and writes:
>>
>> "And it would be shameful and shallow for any Republican operative or
>> operator to make this scandal into a commercial and turn it into a mere
>> partisan arguing point and part of the game. It's not part of the game.
>> This is not about the usual partisan slugfest. This is about the
>> integrity of our system of government and our ability to trust, which is
>> to say our ability to function."
>>
>> Ridiculous. She is in effect suggesting that the Republican response
>> should be to run another bland, half-hearted campaign designed to lose.
>>
>> Will
>
>I don't interpret what she wrote exactly the same way you do. She is
>saying that the investigation should be non-political - clean up the
>entire system so that no one can abuse it now or in the future again.
>
>She does not say that the republicans shouldn't remind voters of just
>how badly the Democrats abused their public trust in this (and all the
>other) scandal.
>
>It is much better to run a squeaky clean, non-partial investigation and
>learn that the Dems are massive crooks than to be seen as running a
>political hatchet job and finding that their "enemies" are bad.

Bruce, that is the way I took Noonan's remarks as well.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:01:38 -0500, "George Anthony"

1. You are confusing the tax code (law) with tax forms.

2. I am not a fan of the flat tax. It would be more like 30% to raise
the same revenue. OTOH we could cut tax rates if we removed all
deductions except real estate taxes and interest then only exempted
income from pensions and government payments.

[George Anthony]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message

news:ru8dp8t5v7pvqsd8e...@4ax.com...

First, I am not confusing the tax code with the forms. Short form
equals short code.

> 2. I am not a fan of the flat tax. It would be more like 30% to raise
> the same revenue. OTOH we could cut tax rates if we removed all
> deductions except real estate taxes and interest then only exempted
> income from pensions and government payments.

Second, you are wrong about the revenue raised. Fifteen percent
of every wage earner's salary is much more than what the few who pay taxes
is now. Why exempt only real estate and interest? Because you have real
estate and interest bearing accounts? I say eliminate ALL deductions.
Fifteen percent (or twenty or twenty-five) is, in your vernacular, "fair" to
everyone. It would also fit your template of the more you make the more you
pay. Isn't that what you've been railing about?

[Bruce S]

My problem with the flat tax (which I have endorsed many times) is that
we would still need the IRS to administer it - and they would still find
ways to abuse that power.

Replacing the income tax with a sales tax (or the Fair Tax) would
completely eliminate the need for an IRS in terms of the people. No
need for them to ever know what you make, who you support, or how you
live your life. You pay your taxes every day at the checkout stand.

[Bruce S]

Switch from an income tax to a sales tax and the IRS no longer has the
need for anyone's personal information. Even better, the whole concept
of a non-profit or a not for profit entity would cease to exist.

[Bruce S]

No such charge as contempt of witness.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 18:25:44 -0500, "George Anthony"

Obviously you never read a law...I assume there are at least a few
pages of boilerplate then the terms. That may include the form.

>
>> 2. I am not a fan of the flat tax. It would be more like 30% to raise
>> the same revenue. OTOH we could cut tax rates if we removed all
>> deductions except real estate taxes and interest then only exempted
>> income from pensions and government payments.
>
> Second, you are wrong about the revenue raised. Fifteen percent
>of every wage earner's salary is much more than what the few who pay taxes
>is now. Why exempt only real estate and interest? Because you have real
>estate and interest bearing accounts? I say eliminate ALL deductions.
>Fifteen percent (or twenty or twenty-five) is, in your vernacular, "fair" to
>everyone. It would also fit your template of the more you make the more you
>pay. Isn't that what you've been railing about?

Sorry, another fine myth.

Every time I hear it brought up folks who know say it's low. The only
arguement is how much too low. Perhaps you can do some research? that
way we could deal in facts.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 17:23:22 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Are you planning on a sales tax on investments? If not it's even
more ludicrous than the flat tax.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 17:28:51 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

Hmm, do we tax the dollars going to the funds or leaving the funds to
go to the politicians?

[nothermark]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 17:30:16 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 5/17/2013 12:58 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:09:15 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/17/2013 10:43 AM, George Anthony wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's the democrats who rely on talking points. To fix a problem, you
>>>> have to know the root cause and how it developed into a problem.
>>>> Quizzing the IRS people has to happen if we expect to find out the cause
>>>> and development. We already know the effect.
>>>
>>> Speaking of "Quizzing the IRS people" did you see Miller attempting to
>>> avoid answering questions in the hearing this morning?
>>>
>>> If I had been one of the congressmen asking him questions, when I
>>> finished I would have had him arrested. One congressman asked him at
>>> least 5 times if congress had a right to know when the IRS abused its
>>> power. Miller started to answer by saying "Well, they would have
>>> eventually found out." The congressman interrupted him and demanded a
>>> yes or no answer to the question; does congress have the right to know?
>>> Miller refused to answer at least 5 times.
>>>
>>> Miller should be spending the night in jail on a contempt charge.
>>
>> Would the Congressman be in the next cell with the same charges?
>
>No such charge as contempt of witness.

There ought to be.

[Bruce S]

Read up on the Fair Tax

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

[Bruce S]

By getting politicians out of business - with nothing to sell, no one
will be trying to buy it.

[Jan Orme]

On May 16, 4:38 pm, "Carl A. " <chai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/apcao2c
>
> --
> Carl Ahlemeyer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for posting this, Carl. Your subject line says it all.

My favorites in the piece are:

"Political abuse of the IRS threatens the basic integrity of our
government."

And the last paragraph where she writes.

"And it would be shameful and shallow for any Republican operative or
operator to make this scandal into a commercial and turn it into a
mere partisan arguing point and part of the game. It's not part of the
game. This is not about the usual partisan slugfest. This is about the
integrity of our system of government and our ability to trust, which
is to say our ability to function."

Jan

[Bruce S]

Play with the flat tax calculator on this page and see what you get. I
picked a 19% flat tax with one personal deduction of $1,500 per taxpayer
and came up with more tax revenue collected than we get now.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/search?q=flat+tax#.UZcDSLXCaSo

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 17:28:51 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

-------

Bruce is making a valid point. As long as we have an income tax there
is going to be VOLUMES of law detailing what constitutes "income".

With a sales tax there is no need to "define" income.

With a sales tax there would be no need for individuals to file
anything with the IRS.

[Bruce S]

I haven't cared enough to look up the math, but I heard someone on the
radio a couple years ago claiming that if we completely eliminated
income taxes on businesses they could reduce the price of their products
enough to support something like a 20% sales tax with essentially no
change in the final, out the door price.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 21:22:33 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

I read enough. Explain how everyone can pay less in taxes and have
more money to invest and we can cover our bills.

It looks to me to be another let the very rich have a free ride
scheme.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 21:23:35 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

I agree with the sentiment but the problem is that the common thread
in politics seems to be how much money they can send back home whether
or not it is needed. We literallt have the finest government money
can buy. That is why I support the idea of government funded
elections with a flat ban on private money.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 23:44:14 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs

Unless one taxes investments it is a massive shift of the tax burden
away from the top 10% income earners. Cost of living drops off as a
fraction of income as income increases.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 21:52:13 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

Don't hold your breath.

[D-R]

On 5/17/2013 9:35 PM, Bruce S wrote:

>
> Play with the flat tax calculator on this page and see what you get. I
> picked a 19% flat tax with one personal deduction of $1,500 per taxpayer
> and came up with more tax revenue collected than we get now.
>
> http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/search?q=flat+tax#.UZcDSLXCaSo

The main problem with flat rate idea and also with the sales tax idea
is that politicians cannot do favors for anybody!! Also the amount of
tax everyone is paying is very apparent and the public will demand to
know where it is going..

Somewhere a few years ago they passed a law that required the gas
stations to display the itemized costs of fuel. That only lasted a day
or so because the public did not get mad at the station owners but at
the politicians for the taxes..



--

AJ - up in the Arizona mountains

[Lone Haranguer]

Given that Holder is running the DOJ, how many people still have
any faithin the federal justice system?

LZ

[Jan Orme]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Slim and None! Point agreed with....as long as he and that
administration are still there to feed on 'We The People' like
vampires.

Jan

[Bruce S]

And once more we return to the solution you find most acceptable -
return the federal government to doing only those things authorized by
the constitution, and there will be nothing for the government to spend
money on - no pork to send back home.

By the way, I think I missed your original question about "funds". If
you meant things like political PACs and SuperPACs, the only thing that
would change is that there would be no tax benefit or detriment to those
people donating to such a "fund."

So, a TEA Party group could still ask for donations (just like today)
and anyone could still give money to it (or not, just like today) but
there would be no tax issue reasons for giving or not giving. It simply
wouldn't matter. ALL non-profit and not-for-profit tax categories would
simply cease to exist - including businesses, hospitals and insurance
companies.

[Bruce S]

I don't think anyone has said it has a good chance of happening, but it
is the only way to guarantee that the IRS never abuses its power again.

I suspect it would take a package of constitutional amendments - sort of
an economic bill of rights. They need to:

1. Repeal the 18th amendment and ban any and all future federal income
taxes
2. Implement a sales tax with a guarantee that NO taxed item can have a
higher tax than any other (they should also limit taxes to new goods,
not services, and not to food or medicine).
3. Require a balanced budget set at no more than 15% of GDP
4. Forbid the Feds from passing bills that require the state to fund them.

There are probably other things that should be included, but I see this
list as minimum requirements.

[Bruce S]

(that should read "least acceptable" - I had it right the first time,
then "corrected" it.)

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:18:53 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

-------------------------------

That is a pretty good list Bruce.

The major problem with it is that Congress Critters will be limited in
how they can dole out pork to the folks back home.

[Bruce S]

Unfortunately that is true - and it is the very reason we will never see
such amendments come out of congress. I would almost support a
constitutional convention to implement this type of amendments, but the
possibility for constitutional mischief is too great for my comfort
right now.

[Jan Orme]

On May 18, 10:46 am, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us>
wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:18:53 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 5/18/2013 6:37 AM, nothermark wrote:

> >> On Fri, 17 May 2013 21:52:13 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>

> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 5/17/2013 9:44 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:

> >>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 17:28:51 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>

> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 5/17/2013 12:52 PM, nothermark wrote:

> >>>>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:47:01 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>

> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On 5/17/2013 7:58 AM, nothermark wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:29:37 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
> >>>>>>>> (dot) us> wrote:
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Limit it to rind cracklins.
8^)

Jan

[bill horne]

IMO, the major problem with it is that right out of the gate, it
contains exemptions - services, food, and medicine. As soon as the
tent is erected, the camel's nose is already in it. If food is
exempted, why not shelter? And numerous studies claim that a small
amount of alcohol daily is good for your health - which would provide
justification for exempting rye whiskey and Dogs as medicine.

Then an argument would be made that the transportation necessary to
obtain services, food, and medicine should also be exempt. That would
lead to trying to exempt vehicles, fuel, lubricants, parts, and tires.

Pretty soon, we'd be right back to where we are now. Congresscritters
are clever, and voters don't like taxes, and for it to have even a
possibility of working past one or two election cycles, there can be
NO - ZERO - exemptions.

Pork - which also happens to be a food - will win.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

[MaxD]

On 5/18/2013 11:18 AM, Bruce S wrote:

> I don't think anyone has said it has a good chance of happening, but it
> is the only way to guarantee that the IRS never abuses its power again.
>
> I suspect it would take a package of constitutional amendments - sort of
> an economic bill of rights. They need to:
>
> 1. Repeal the 18th amendment and ban any and all future federal income
> taxes
> 2. Implement a sales tax with a guarantee that NO taxed item can have a
> higher tax than any other (they should also limit taxes to new goods,
> not services, and not to food or medicine).
> 3. Require a balanced budget set at no more than 15% of GDP
> 4. Forbid the Feds from passing bills that require the state to fund them.
>
> There are probably other things that should be included, but I see this
> list as minimum requirements.
>
>

cars? (new or used) Houses (new or used)?
second houses? houses bought as an investment?

[Bruce S]

Did you read what I wrote? Look at your list and ask yourself, is it
food, medicine, a service, or a used product? If the answer is yes then
there is no tax; if the answer is no, there is a tax. Try it for
yourself, see if you can figure it out.

Of course, I have (almost) no problem with bill's "no exception" rule so
that everything sold is taxed. My only exception would be that only the
sale of "things" is taxed - not services. I'm not a fanatic on that,
but in my opinion only "things" are sold. Services are not actually
sold because the provider can still provide them to the next person, so
they should not be part of a sales tax.

[bill horne]

Once you justify one thing - services, for example - other things will
not be far behind. Besides, services are about 70% of GDP, and that
doesn't leave much to be taxed.

[MaxD]

I always get a chuckle out of your comments about whether or not someone
has read or is capable of reading or is capable of comprehending what
they read. You must think your little expositions are absolute gems of
wisdom with nary a chance of misunderstanding, misinterpretation or
disagreement.
However, having said that and in order to be clear about my query I have
some reservations about a sales tax on houses. Do you have a figure in
mind for a percent of tax that might be collected on a $200,000 house?
(I saw the part where you said, "...NO taxed item can have a higher tax
than any other...) (taxed item?)

I disagree concerning services. Let's say a plumber replaces a sink. He
charges a tax on the cost of the sink. Does he charge on the basis of
his cost or the basis of what he charges the customer?
The labor, imo, should be taxed as well because the service was provided
to *one* individual (or company, etc) and the customer is who we're
taxing. The plumber sells the sink *and* the service.

[Bruce S]

I can only give you half a point on this whine. I have absolutely no
expectation that people will agree with me - if what I had to say would
be met with universal agreement, I wouldn't post it; it would be
unneeded. And if you misunderstand or misinterpret, you will be
corrected when you respond.

However, if I write "they should also limit taxes to new goods, not
services, and not to food or medicine" and you ask, "cars?" that is not
misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or disagreement, it is a lack of
reading comprehension.

> However, having said that and in order to be clear about my query I have
> some reservations about a sales tax on houses. Do you have a figure in
> mind for a percent of tax that might be collected on a $200,000 house?
> (I saw the part where you said, "...NO taxed item can have a higher tax
> than any other...) (taxed item?)

This is where I will give you the half point - I should have made it
clearer that I was talking about tax RATES and not the amount of dollars
collected - and yes, a flat rate that remains the same for each and
every taxable item.

And, as to the tax rate, I said in another post that I have heard that
20% would add nothing to the cost of the products once income taxes are
eliminated, so I would suggest no more than a 20% tax rate.

> I disagree concerning services. Let's say a plumber replaces a sink. He
> charges a tax on the cost of the sink. Does he charge on the basis of
> his cost or the basis of what he charges the customer?
> The labor, imo, should be taxed as well because the service was provided
> to *one* individual (or company, etc) and the customer is who we're
> taxing. The plumber sells the sink *and* the service.

Generally, we will have to agree to disagree on this point - although as
I said before, it is a point on which I am not a fanatic. It is my
opinion that taxing services encourages a black market in untaxed
services but I am nothing if not flexible.

The sink is no different from your bag of groceries - you are taxed on
what you are charged.

[film...@gmail.com]

Do you think there's any chance of Congress abolishing the IRS, (the source of its money), just because Juicy Brucie, and others who hate paying taxes, think it should be done?

Alphonse Capone XIII

[Hank]

I remember another little "gem" Bruce had. He said that if anyone started to saved $200 a month when they were 21yo for X number a years, they would be a millionaire by the time they was 50 (or something like that). While his "gems" look good on paper, it isn't realistic. This sales tax thingy has been thrown around for decades, he is not the originator of the idea.

Hank <~~~~ wants inside Bruces dream world

[Will Sill]

On 5/18/13 1:18 PM, Bruce S wrote concerning his tax proposals:

> I don't think anyone has said it has a good chance of happening, but it
> is the only way to guarantee that the IRS never abuses its power again.
>
> I suspect it would take a package of constitutional amendments - sort of
> an economic bill of rights. They need to:
>
> 1. Repeal the 18th amendment and ban any and all future federal income
> taxes
> 2. Implement a sales tax with a guarantee that NO taxed item can have a
> higher tax than any other (they should also limit taxes to new goods,
> not services, and not to food or medicine).
> 3. Require a balanced budget set at no more than 15% of GDP
> 4. Forbid the Feds from passing bills that require the state to fund them.
>
> There are probably other things that should be included, but I see this
> list as minimum requirements.

With due respect for your well-thought-out views, I caution that even
sales-tax-only as federal revenue would inevitably involve thousands of
federal bloodsuckers and snoopers. After all, the Party In Power
Liberals are the only ones smart enough to know what is a sale, what is
a taxable sale, who collects, etc, ad nauseum. The "Flat (income) Tax"
would be likewise plagued with an equally large horde of bloodsuckers
determined to decide what constitutes income, what is taxable, who
collects, etc.

But both ideas are better than the corrupt "system" we now endure.

Will

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

-------------------------------------

Will, is making some valid points. Any system we have will require a
bureaucrat to administer it. Defining "Income", and determining what
is taxable will always continue to be a problem and require a
regulatory agency to insure compliance.

[Bruce S]

That is why I favor a sales tax to an income tax. With a sales tax
there is absolutely no reason for the government to ever look at what
you have or your income. They only look at what you spend. It
certainly is not a perfect system, but it is less prone to abuse.

[Hank]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:02:14 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

>
> That is why I favor a sales tax to an income tax. With a sales tax
>
> there is absolutely no reason for the government to ever look at what
>
> you have or your income. They only look at what you spend. It
>
> certainly is not a perfect system, but it is less prone to abuse.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce

Still searching for the Garden of Eden huh? How would the Government keep track of people if there were only a sales tax? Would you have to give your SS number with every sale? Would everybody receive the same retirement benefits such as the same amount of SS check, medicare, and etc.?

Come Bruce, use your brain a little.

Hank

[MaxD]

Get serious, Hank.
There wouldn't *be* any SS, Medicare, or any other kind of welfare. ;-)

[Bruce S]

Have you ever paid a state sales tax?

Did you have to give up your social security number then?

Why does the government need to keep track of people?

Are you really stupid enough to have posted that?

[Bruce S]

That would be true in a perfect world, but that is not anywhere in what
I wrote.

[nothermark]

And that is exactly what Bruce wants...

[bill horne]

There would be free apples and figs.

[MaxD]

Apples and oranges!

[Hank]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:10:18 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

>
> Have you ever paid a state sales tax?
>
>
>
> Did you have to give up your social security number then?
>
>
>
> Why does the government need to keep track of people?
>
>
>
> Are you really stupid enough to have posted that?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce

Are we going to play the game of - you ask a question and then I ask a question? Or can you just answer the ones I asked?

Why can't you face the fact your plagiarized idea won't work?

Hank ?

[Bruce S]

I did answer your question - I pointed out that it was nonsense.

I never claimed that the idea of a sales tax was mine - no plagiarism
involved, it is an old idea.

I (personally) have paid sales taxes for over 50 years, so obviously
sales taxes work just fine.

For a more modern version of the simple sales tax, look up the Fair Tax:

http://www.fairtax.org/

Or to see how sales taxes are implemented in most of Europe, look up the
Value Added Tax (VAT).

Your ignorance is curable, you can learn new things and then when you
enter a conversation, you wouldn't have to embarrass yourself.