Mr Greenspan

[Kreed]

Once again, this man, who most on wall st think is WAY past clear thinking,
struck out again. In an effort to save a legacy, he keeps up the triple-speak.
This economy is fragile (at best) and #43 & AG just keep on dancing. #43
thinks SS personal accts reform will save money, LOL. But I don't wanna
harp on that dead-end, dire idea; instead i wanna present a Derek plan.
#1, CUT the SS tax on employees by 50%. Keep the cap at $90K.
#2, CUT the SS tax on employers by 50% as well. #3, ALL employees MUST
invest their OWN 50% saved on SS taxes in Special Fund(s) approved by our
Treasury Dept. #4, ALL public employees, who do not have SS deductions
taken, MUST also invest what their COMPUTED SS deductions would be in
those same special investment funds. #5, EVERYONE must maintain their
investments in this fund for say 4 years. After that, it MAY be withdrawn and
it should be TAX FREE. #6, BITE the bullet head on: The FEDERAL GOVT
MUST provide a solid medical insurance plan for all those households with
total income less than $150K. #7, Employers should be forced NOT to provide
any medical insurance for all such workers, but MUST "give" a modest sum
into a Fund for each such worker they employ: say, $500/yr. (Trust me,
many forward thinking guys at MIT, HARVARD, etc have worked out a lot
of numbers & everything could get re-worked, but it would get us off our
derrieres & start us focusing on how he are going to revive this economy.)

PS: i'm off to Vegas until Sunday afternoon, slot card in hand.

[Secretariat]

Yes, while praising the lowering of taxes on the wealthy asking them to be made permanent, and bemoaning the increases to the deficits, he has finally come up with a revenue raiser- how about a new National Sales Tax which of course taxes everyone equally - except if one looks at as a percentage of income hits the poor the hardest. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050303/ap_on_bi_ge/greenspan_20

[boxcar]

Secretariat wrote:

Yes, while praising the lowering of taxes on the wealthy asking them to be made permanent, and bemoaning the increases to the deficits, he has finally come up with a revenue raiser- how about a new National Sales Tax which of course taxes everyone equally - except if one looks at as a percentage of income hits the poor the hardest. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Neither am I suprised that once again, you insist on remaining uninformed. In a consumption-based tax system, there would be a rebate structure for the "poor" -- yeah, the same "poor" who you want to deprive of making 3 to 4 times on their retirement investment into private SS accounts than what anyone can earn on the current Social(ist) (In)Security plan.

All this concern for the "poor" amounts to paying them lip service; for Libs like you speak out of both sides of your mouth simultaneously.

But as far as AG's take on a national sales tax, he is dead on target, and has a has a lot of company in terms of some of the best economic minds in the country concurring with AG. A conumption tax would make American goods a heck of a lot more competitive on the world markets for many reasons, which in turn would stimulate economic growth as never before experienced.

Do yourself a favor and bring yourself up to speed on the Fair Tax Plan before speaking out of your ignorance again:

http://www.fairtax.org/

Boxcar

[Bobby]

The flat tax will never happen.

Derek: I like #6. Healthcare is too expensive. I think u need to take it a step further: go ahead and socialize medicine. They're gonna have to one day anyway. This idea about a "national, all-inclusive" health insurance ain't gonna work. Costs continue to rise. There are cons though, but free health care.

Personally, I like Bush's idea about private accounts, but it'll never happen. Scares too many people. Raise the cap to 250K and redistribute it.

[boxcar]

Bobby wrote:

The flat tax will never happen.

Don't know how to break this to ya, Bobby, but this discussion ain't about a "flat tax". Greenspan supports a consumption tax, which is very different from a flat tax, as is the Fair Tax (hint: which is a consumption tax plan). :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Bobby]

The flat tax is a sales tax (consumption tax). It's already 11% where I live. I can't imagine it being 25-30%.

[Secretariat]

thank you Box,

I have one for you.

http://www.fairtaxes4all.org/site/pp.asp?c=apIIIWMLG&b=4802

Your idea to create a National Sales Tax has great hurdles. Hurdle #1 is the repealing the 16th amendment of the Constitution.

16th amendment

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on INCOMES, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. "

The second aspect is that it proposes a 23% outlay on consumer goods, which would be added to most 6-7% StateSales Taxes and some local taxes leading to about a 30-33% TAX on all goods.

The first thing this will do is reduce purchasing. I also wonder how it will be enforced.

Statistically wealthier inidividuals do not necessarily purchase more goods than poorer as a percentage of income and hence will benefit greatly. People who purchase houses or cars will be hit with huge one time tax bills. More than likely this will work as an incentive to not buy goods and hence lead to more layoffs.

The rebate idea is a good one, but it can effectively already be employed by simply asking those below the poverty level already to pay no tax which they pretty much do anyway if they take the standard deduction.

I think what bothers me the most on this is that your site showed no studies to indicate HOW these sales taxes collection estimates would break down along income lines. If the same amount of revenue is gained, which income levels will be paying the most and which will be paying the least. Until a chart indicating this occurs people have noidea which bracket theyll fall into.

I read your page Box, I hope you read the one i posted to be "fair"

.....................

"I would not have voted for [President Bush's] tax cut, based on what I know. . . . There is no doubt that the people at the top who need a tax break the least will get the most benefit. . . . Too often presidents do things that don't end up helping the people they should be helping, and their staffs won't tell them their actions stink on ice."

Former senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), in a recent interview with Business North Carolina magazine.


I'll close with this quote:

[boxcar]

Bobby wrote:

The flat tax is a sales tax (consumption tax). It's already 11% where I live. I can't imagine it being 25-30%.

Bobby, Bobby...when you talk "flat tax" in terms of a Federal Tax, you're talking an income tax. Do your homework on the Web.

Boxcar

[Bobby]

bOXCAR,
you're right. i used the wrong term. nevertheless, it's a longshot for it to happen.

[Tom]

The problem with a national sales tax is that it will unfairly penalize lower income people - forcing them to spent a much higher percentage of their disposable income on taxes. When you are living paycheck to paycheck, the hit will be significant.
The real key to balancing the budget is to cut ridiculous government spending. What we ned is an ammendmanet that will prohibit spending in excess of revenues. I have to laugh whenever some governemtn stooge comes on TV and claims we will cut the deficit in half in 5 years! Duh?
That is like an alcoholic saying - I will only get drunk 4 days a week next year. As long as the G-goons are spending our money and are not accountable, they will bury us. This is the real bi-partisan government.