Posted on 02/20/2006 3:30:35 PM PST by Bigun
I've never pretended that the cascading embedded tax example I've given many times represented anything other than the mechanism of how such taxes become hidden.Yes you have. In this very sentence you say it is an example of "cascading." It isn't.
You have no idea what your talking about.He's getting laughable.
"Explain to me why gambling losses are deductible in any amount, but medical out-of-pocket expenses have to be 20 percent of your income to be deductible?"
Because you are taxed on gambling earnings. If you win a 100 dollar bet, but lose a 75 dollar bet should you pay taxes on 100 or 25 dollars. Its the same with stock market income.
Sure it does. Goe back and read the posts that poiint it out ... and thank you for proving the point that you two (and most of the other Squirrels) have been claiming "t'weren't so".
Demned nice of U!! Hope your cohorts treat you gently since you obviously disagree with them.
Sorry, Nightie, but if you could read, you'd understand how cascading works and my example clearly explains that to anyone with half a brain or more.
Its not fair that people who don't work now because they have enough money to stop, don't pay taxes? Is it fair that I pay 8% of my income to SS when SS under the best situation will go bankrupt before I retire? So rape me at 39% plus 8% in SS, and I'm supposed to feel sorry for those who would get 2000 less from the government.
I'd support any plan that 1) Cuts taxes, and 2) makes people feel their tax burden. Be that a sales tax, or ending withholding. Once people realize how much they pay there will be a much better chance of cutting spending and lowering taxes further
Sorry, Nightie, but if you could read, you'd understand how cascading works and my example clearly explains that to anyone with half a brain or more.You're embarrassing yourself and aren't bright enough to realize it.
with a bit of research you'll find that the FairTax will cover the things you wished in your post.
The bill itself (HR25) is here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.25:
And the FairTax website is here (check FAQs, Research, & Rebuttals for starters):
http://www.fairtax.org/research.html
Yopu might also be able to get a copy of The FairTax Book which does a good explanatory job as well.
Backattcha Nightie. You and your sidekick Dimp-Dimp have consistently shown by your misshapen attacks on the FairTax that you don't understand it OR the mechanism of cascading embedded taxes. Not at all!!! So take your own insult to me and reverse it as it more porperly applies to you SQLers.
It's even hilarious since the misnamed "real world" example you gave in #393 shows both embedding of taxes and cascading and you're too ignorant to realize the point. As I have pointed out your example is anything but "real" and despite being intentionally biased against the FairTax results it still shows that something in the range of 15% or, while including your supposedly "real" chart in #451, perhaps even 20% or more. Your own limited mental ability prevents you from understanding your own - purposely biased - examples.
Go back and study my #323 to see how cascading and embedding work. Notice that - unlike you - I've never erroneously claimed the example was some sort of magical representation of 6 businesses in the "real world" - but that it was strictly to show how the mechanism of cascading and embedding of taxes into prices works and that there is a good bit of leeway for prices to drop when income taxes are removed. Your own example (even though clearly artificial and intentionally biased) shows this same effect - and you're too ignorant to realize it.
Sorry, Nightie, but if you could read, you'd understand how cascading works and my example clearly explains that to anyone with half a brain or more.Uh huh, and if the cascading, hidden taxes is as true as you claim, then anyone with a half a brain or more knows exposing them at the retail level
It's not "exposing" tham that affects prices, but removing them by eliminating the income tax which causes them to cascade and embed. You're about as knowledgeable on the subject as your bedfellow Squirrels.
It's not "exposing" tham that affects prices, but removing them by eliminating the income tax which causes them to cascade and embedHas simple logic always been a problem for you? Do the words "revenue neutral" mean anything to you.
The income tax you claim is embedded in cascading and any other tax idiocy you conjure up wouldn't just vaporize in a "revenue neutral" tax plan....unless of course (other than in only your mind) those "embedded, cascading taxes" never existed in the first place.
You're merely exposing your own ignorance once again, Looey.
The taxes embedded (hidden) in the prices of things by the cascading mechanism I've continually illustrated are not part of the revenue neutral concept at all, but are part of the inflated prices paid by consumers IN ADDITION TO THE "NORMAL" INCOME TAXES THEY PAY.
That's why many call them hidden taxes, Looey. They cannot be easily seen and are not normally recognized as tax revenue - since they are not part of the normal tax revenue from the consumer. The revenue neutral terminology comes from revenue raised by the normal income taxes (not the hidden taxes which just boost prices). Inflation (generally purposely implemented and boosted by the Fed) is also a hidden tax as well - but I suppose you don't believe that either.
The embedded tax costs discussed WILL be eliminated by removing the income tax and prices will drop because of that. You're welcome to keep on paying the same old prices though if it makes you happy.
The revenue neutral terminology comes from revenue raised by the normal income taxes (not the hidden taxes which just boost prices).Huh?
I figured you'd not understand that either since you don't understand the mechanism that causes embedded, cascading tax costs. No reason to expect you to suddenly have an epiphany at this late stage of your education.
You might, though, go study hard on some of the examples where I've explained this at a fourth-grade level. Your "pretend ignorance" is charming.
Are business profit taxes part of the $927.7 Billion the AFT calls "income tax" in its 2003 "revenue neutral" tax rate calculations (Line 23 of Table 2)?
They cannot be easily seen and are not normally recognized as tax revenue - since they are not part of the normal tax revenue from the consumer. The revenue neutral terminology comes from revenue raised by the normal income taxes (not the hidden taxes which just boost prices).OHHH, you said "hidden tax", you didn't say it was - a secret tax- not counted as tax revenue... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! TOO FUNNY!... WHAT A FRIGG'N IDIOT YOU ARE!
Inflation (generally purposely implemented and boosted by the Fed) is also a hidden tax as well - but I suppose you don't believe that either.And guess what, unlike your -secret tax-, it's also accounted for. So now you're going to claim the Fairtax eliminates the FED?...Otherwise what's your point?
You're either really stupid or you're banking on anyone reading your tripe is.
Well, Looey, ONE of us is stupid.
You don't seem to understand that the hidden taxes are not taxes paid into the Treasury Dept. as income tax (business or otherwise) but are prices increased by the cascading of business income tax costs into prices that are passed on to further levels in the production/distribution chain. They cause artificially increased prices due to downstream income taxes that have cascaded into increased costs for things eventually bought by consumers.
You SQL Studs don't grasp the concept but most who think about it will certainly understand that prices are artificially boosted due solely to taxes that businesses pay and these inflated prices are merely a hidden tax on the consumer that is in addition to any income taxes paid.
Your and the other Squirrels' efforts of trying to claim that the discussion relates to taxes paid to the government are meaningless. The discussion is about prices (not taxes) being needlessly inflated by such hidden taxes. That's why they are called "hidden". DUH!!!
So, pigdog, are business profit taxes "normal taxes" in your eyes?
Are business profit taxes part of the $927.7 Billion the AFT calls "income tax" in its 2003 "revenue neutral" tax rate calculations (Line 23 of Table 2)?
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.