Zipp0 1 #51 June 14, 2007 The saving rate in the USA is at an all time low, meaning that most people are spending at or near 100% of their income. Therefore they would be taxed on all of their income. Those lucky enough to have enough income to put lots into savings(the rich) would not be charged tax on that portion - making their tax rate lower as a percentage of income. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #52 June 14, 2007 QuoteThe saving rate in the USA is at an all time low, meaning that most people are spending at or near 100% of their income. Therefore they would be taxed on all of their income. Those lucky enough to have enough income to put lots into savings(the rich) would not be charged tax on that portion - making their tax rate lower as a percentage of income. Supposition, but it sounds like a reasonable theory, at least. You have to add 10-33% to that (income) amount (due to income tax removal), and figure out the amount that costs of new items would come down due to reduced overhead and cost of business. THEN you have to figure some sort of ratio for new/used sales. THEN you'd have an idea of what "amount of income" that people would be taxed on. Until then, your claim of "100% tax" is all supposition and theory.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #53 June 14, 2007 Quote Those lucky enough to have enough income to put lots into savings(the rich) would not be charged tax on that portion - making their tax rate lower as a percentage of income. What is the "lucky enough" business? The people who I know that make a lot of money work(ed) their fucking asses off for it. And you think they should be punished for that by being forced to carry the weight of the less motivated? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #54 June 14, 2007 "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"... it's the (new) Democratic way!! Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #55 June 15, 2007 this is a good debate. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #56 June 15, 2007 Quotethis is a good debate. Which? My last post or the overall discussion about the Fair Tax?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #57 June 15, 2007 If he's not nominated, I'll be writing him in. I have yet to see another candidate I can ethically vote for.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
