Posted on 05/27/2005 10:53:33 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
You might notice in the chart above that, "as a percentage of GDP, tax receipts are at their lowest since 1959."
Aha - glad that got you to read at least part of the bill.
Now show us where the part is about blowing up the IRS buildings, etc. And you might be able to read about the Sales Tax Bureau and what it does. Its main function is to operate at the state level; not to impinge on individual taxpayers.
This whole sidetrack effort is merely another of your attempts at the use of red herrings. That's right out of the SQL Handbook.
No, I was talking about tax revenues as a percentage of GDP
I see, you don't recognize CBO's comprehensive personal income as a major portion of GDP.
Oh well, that's all right, we are well aware of your lack of analytic abilites and guess we will just have to take that into account when you have anything to say.
Another irrelevant cut & pastie from AG. What a shock
Ahh your stock appeal to ridicule and otherwise useless commentary to cover your lack of substance, LOL.
A plan such as the FairTax is not only nothing like a VAT, but it cannot be made into one.
Please check out some of the detailed information at:
http://www.fairtax.org/research.html
Undoubtedly the millions of "tax professionals" whose welfare depends on the status quo would massively lobby against a change to a simpler tax system.
Now show us where the part is about blowing up the IRS buildings, etc.Sure.
TITLE III--OTHER MATTERS SEC. 304. ALL IRS BUILDINGS TO BE BLOWN UP.
All IRS buildings are to be blown up no later than 6 months after the implementation of the sales tax and Sales Tax Bureau buildings are to be built from the rubble.
[This is getting Felliniesque].
Indeed you are. As your own comments demonstrate.
That's about as realistic (and as dishonest) as most of your postings.
You'd better tell looey that you intented this as a joke before he starts posting about blowing up building on the IRS or in the IRS, etc. as he is wont to do.
Or - who knows - maybe you really believe what you posted since you've put up some pretty strange things in the past. I guess that just shows your desperation - hoping to pass something like that off.
Or - who knows - maybe you really believe what you posted since you've put up some pretty strange things in the past.Yeah, right. Like tax receipts as a percentage of GDP being at their lowest point since 1959?
Some people on this very thread, promote the evil you speak of.
What this posting really illustrates is not at all what you intend. What it really shows is the growth of the government beginning in about the WWII years and continuing since then right up until the present time and also - with the present economic decline - the way that tax revenues vary greatly due to the use on income as a tax base. It somethimes floats above 20% and sometimes under.
With such a variation, the percentages shift around and tend to be lower during economic ills as at present. That certainly means nothing about the continuation of any long term percentage trend ... except that government is way too large and has been since the WWII era.
Pretending that such a set of figures is particularly meaningful is notoriously dishonest since, should the economy improve in the next few years (and the income tax remain - which is doubtful), then these percentages will climb right back up to the 20% and above range. It's no "trend" at all, but just historical data showing how government has ballooned (and how entitlements have done likewise).
In short, your posting which you no doubt gave as a defense of the income tax as being a kinder, gentler tax with such low rates (your belief on a percentage basis) really doesn't need fixing at all ... that's it's everyone else who is out of step tax-wise.
LOL, indeed.
No, Nightmare VAT boy - that it has any real relation to anything. The point is - SO WHAT??
It merely illustrates the too-great set of government expenditures since WWII as well as the fact that tax revenues as a percentage of GDP vary since they use income as a base and that varies with the economic picture.
You might also say that "tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are now 300 to 400 percent of what they were in the early to mid '30s; about as large a multiple as we have ever had since the WWII era".
Your intended defense of the income tax falls short.
With such a variation, the percentages shift around and tend to be lower during economic ills as at present. That certainly means nothing about the continuation of any long term percentage trendI gave you the standard deviation. It wasn't that large.
Pretending that such a set of figures is particularly meaningful is notoriously dishonest since, should the economy improve in the next few years (and the income tax remain - which is doubtful), then these percentages will climb right back up to the 20% and above range. It's no "trend" at all, but just historical data showing how government has ballooned (and how entitlements have done likewise).Whatever...it's not possible to have a reasoned discussion with you so I'm not even going to attempt it.
In short, your posting which you no doubt gave as a defense of the income tax as being a kinder, gentler tax with such low rates (your belief on a percentage basis) really doesn't need fixing at all ... that's it's everyone else who is out of step tax-wise.I didn't post it as a defense of the income tax. I posted it to show my statement that you claimed was false was indeed factual. Now you've been exposed and you are changeing your story. This seems to be your modus operandi.
Certainly you did intend to show that the IT "ain't so bad" otherwise why post it at all? Trying a stunt like that will get you nowhere on these threads. You were posting it in opposition to another person's post that showed the IT as being quite bad.
Now you try to claim you weren't defending the income tax ... nonsense. You absolutely were - AND ARE!! Why do you lie about it?
Now you've been exposed and you are changeing your story. This seems to be your modus operandi.
Now you try to claim you weren't defending the income tax ... nonsense.Go back through the thread, I was pointing out that AG's chart is flawed.
No, you were saying the chart said something that it doesn't.
Oh ... I see ... but that wasn't because you were wishing to defend the IT?? Yeah, right!!!
You liberal SQLers seem top think others are really stupid and cannot see your little stunts for what they are.
If that is, indeed, what you were doing - and as you see, some doubt that - are you trying to tell us you were not defending the income tax by doing so???
The folks on these threads are not so foolish that they will believe that. It's quite a transparent lie (another one).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.