From: Bill Graham on

"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4ab6886d$0$1605$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ab5de38$0$1590$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> THE MORE YOU MAKE THE GREATER PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME THAT YOU HAVE
>>>>> TO PAY. That's regressive taxation in anyone's book.
>>>>
>>>> As usual, graham is wrong on both counts.
>>>>
>>>> A "regressive" tax structure charges more for LOWER incomes.
>>>>
>>>> The very welathy can actually pay a LOWER tax rate because their
>>>> income is not always in the form of salaries.
>>>
>>> Sales tax, and the horribly misnamed "FairTax" are the most regressive
>>> because lower income people spend a far greater portion of their income
>>> on taxable goods than rich people.
>>>
>>> For a national retail tax to generate the same amount of money as the
>>> current income tax it would need to be set at about 25%, and that
>>> assumes that consumption (legal consumption) remains at the current
>>> levels, which it won't.
>>>
>>> Sales taxes are bad from another perspective, they encourage tax
>>> evasion, as occurs now with many on-line sales, and hurts local
>>> businesses. Also you can't deduct sales tax from income tax so a state
>>> like Oregon with an income tax high property taxes but no sales tax
>>> sends less tax money to the federal government than California with a
>>> high sales tax but relatively low property tax.
>>
>> I agree with all of the above. We have no sales taxes here in Oregon, and
>> I campaign to keep it that way all the time. In California they were 8%
>> and it was a royal PITA, as well as being very expensive to purchase any
>> big ticket items such as an automobile.....I purchases all my cars and
>> motorcycles up here in Oregon. In California, they even were charging the
>> sales tax on some foods......All, "fast foods| had to pay the tax.
>
> Hmm, did Glenn tell you this too?


Whose Glenn?
>
> All hot foods are charged sales tax whether take out or eat-in. All cold
> foods consumed in the restaurant are charged tax.
>
> To-go cold food is not charged tax if the restaurant is doing things
> properly. A cold sandwich from Subway is tax free, and most Subway's
> properly do this, though some intentionally collect sales tax incorrectly
> and presumably pocket the money. If you get ice cream or frozen yogurt
> they will ask if it's to eat-in or to-go and charge tax accordingly.
>
> Too many businesses incorrectly charge sales tax, i.e. the Costco snack
> bar charges tax on everything, even though technically salads to go and
> frozen yogurt and ice-cream to go are not taxable.

Did I say anything different? - but thanks for the details.....The point is
that sales taxes represent double taxation.....I have already been taxed on
this money. Twice.....(at least) first by the federal government, and then
by the state. then the county charges me property taxes on my house, and in
California, on my vehicles. Then, when I take what little money I have left
to the store, the state taxes me again on it with sales taxes. I don't think
there were any such thing when the constitution was written, but I doubt
whether its writers would have condoned this kind of multiple taxation, so I
would call it "Unconstitutional" on the face of it....If it isn't, then it
should be. What business of the government is it whether I eat my food hot
or cold, and/or inside their building or outside in my car? Does their
police and/or fire department work any harder for those that eat cold or hot
foods inside or outside? And, if not, then WHAT THE HELL BUSINESS IS IT
OF THE GOVERNMENT? (state, local, or federal)

From: SMS on
Ray Fischer wrote:

> That's more rightard stupidity. In fact a lot of inheritence has had
> no taxes paid whatever. Example: Stock bought at $1/share, appreciated
> to $100, and then transferred upon death. Taxes paid on that $99 of
> gain? ZERO. And rightards so love the wealthy that they would rather
> pay more of their own taxes than see children who didn't even work for
> the money get all the benefits and not even pay any taxes.

That's what's so amazing, the same people that don't understand how
inheritance taxes work are the ones that will be paying the price for
their elimination either through their own higher taxes or through the
devaluation of the dollar caused by higher deficits.

Unrealized capital gains form the vast majority of the value of large
estates, and these gains were never taxed, and if the estate tax is
repealed they will never be taxed. This is very unfair to those who pay
capital gains taxes during their lifetime.

There is no "death tax" for 98% of Americans. For the 2% with estates
large enough to be subect to taxation, the average tax rate is 17%.

If the handlers of the neo-cons can be praised for one thing it's their
cleverness in convincing many millions of dumb people to actively
campaign against their own self-interest.
From: SMS on
Bill Graham wrote:

> What business of the government is it whether I eat my food hot or cold,
> and/or inside their building or outside in my car?

I agree. If there's a sales tax then all prepared food should be subject
to sales tax without exception.

In California, since proposition 13 holds down property taxes, for both
commercial and residential property owners, and income taxes are already
at high levels, they need a high sales tax. I'd much prefer a system
like in Oregon with no sales tax and higher property tax, which is at
least deductible from state and federal income tax, but that's not going
to happen because proposition 13 is sacred.

What's really unfair in California, and were just seeing the tip of the
iceberg of the problem, is parents and grandparents passing on their
proposition 13 valuations to their children and grand-children. No
longer is proposition 13 protecting seniors from losing their homes,
it's allowing their high-income children to pay $1000 a year in property
tax and send their kids to the same schools as their neighbor paying
$15,000 a year in property tax. No one in their right mind would sell
their house in a desirable neighborhood with good schools and lose their
artificially low property tax rate. Either they rent it out once their
kids are done with school, let their kids live in the house while the
parents are still alive, and pass it to the kids when the parents are
gone. That lost property tax revenue is going to have to be replaced. In
my town we do it by passing parcel taxes which are flat rate, not based
on the value of the property. We have to pass more and more of these as
the regular property tax fails to keep pace with expenses.
From: Bill Graham on

"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4ab69032$0$1660$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> That's more rightard stupidity. In fact a lot of inheritence has had
>> no taxes paid whatever. Example: Stock bought at $1/share, appreciated
>> to $100, and then transferred upon death. Taxes paid on that $99 of
>> gain? ZERO. And rightards so love the wealthy that they would rather
>> pay more of their own taxes than see children who didn't even work for
>> the money get all the benefits and not even pay any taxes.
>
> That's what's so amazing, the same people that don't understand how
> inheritance taxes work are the ones that will be paying the price for
> their elimination either through their own higher taxes or through the
> devaluation of the dollar caused by higher deficits.
>
> Unrealized capital gains form the vast majority of the value of large
> estates, and these gains were never taxed, and if the estate tax is
> repealed they will never be taxed. This is very unfair to those who pay
> capital gains taxes during their lifetime.
>
> There is no "death tax" for 98% of Americans. For the 2% with estates
> large enough to be subect to taxation, the average tax rate is 17%.
>
> If the handlers of the neo-cons can be praised for one thing it's their
> cleverness in convincing many millions of dumb people to actively campaign
> against their own self-interest.

If the object of taxation is to, "steal equally from everyone" then you
would be right. but it is to pay for the cost of government. And, in this
light, everyone should pay equally, unless they use up more of the
government's goods and services than their normal share. I don't think that
the guy who saves for his children uses up more of the government's goods
and services than the guy who blows his whole paycheck on junk, so why does
the government think they should steal part of his money when he dies? It's
his money. He earned it. He paid taxes on it. Now, he should be able to do
what he wants with it without it being any of the government's business.....

From: Bill Graham on

"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4ab69032$0$1660$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> That's more rightard stupidity. In fact a lot of inheritence has had
>> no taxes paid whatever. Example: Stock bought at $1/share, appreciated
>> to $100, and then transferred upon death. Taxes paid on that $99 of
>> gain? ZERO. And rightards so love the wealthy that they would rather
>> pay more of their own taxes than see children who didn't even work for
>> the money get all the benefits and not even pay any taxes.

Capitol gains taxes discourage people from investing their money, and
encourage them to just spend it all and not save for their retirement. I
would eliminate capitol gains taxes permanently. Once you have taxed
someone's income, at a rate that is commensurate with his/her use of
government goods and services, then why don't you just leave him/her alone
and let them do what they want with their money? If they can figure out a
way to make it grow for their own retirement, then more power to them. It is
not the governments business....They have already paid for all the goods and
services they are going to use.