User talk:Tabacco~enwiki
I've deleted your post on the FairTax Talk page. It did not seem to be a discussion, question, or new entry for anything in the article. While that topic is covered in the article from both points of view (Distribution of tax burden), your talk post seemed more like a one sided rant. I rarely delete talk entries but it just didn't seem to add anything. Please repost if your trying to improve the article or have questions about its content. I hope this doesn't deter you from future Wikipedia entries. Morphh 17:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I read the posting that you referenced. I'd be happy to respond to your comments if you haven't received a response. Morphh 19:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I posted some comments on your blog. Morphh 23:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Your alleged "Fairness" is disingenuous. The "Fair Tax" is the 3rd generation of "The Flat Tax" and "The National Sales Tax". The "Fair Tax" is a distinction without a difference. It has been dressed up to appear to be something it is not! It is a complete falsity, intended to dupe the public. Publicizing Neal Boortz is tantamount to extolling the virtues of Scientology. Both are merely for personal aggrandizement and profiteering of the facilitators. I take extreme umbrage at the promotion of Boortz's book here. This is nothing more than crass commercialism and disinformation.
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/the_fair_tax_morphh_advocates_in_the_affirmative__tabacco_re.htm
- Certainly "Fairness" is relative, however, the plan was named by the people and not politicians. Most consider it much more "fair" then the current system. However, I don't believe you'll find anything in the article that claims it to be "fair". It is just the name of the bill. I'd like to see you defend the current system. The FairTax is the most transparent plan out there. I think your duping yourself making it some plot / conspiracy theory. Our current system is built on hiding the burden and deceiving the people. The FairTax is an alternative. It's not trying to dupe anyone - it is what it is. As for Boortz's book - what picture would you suggest for the article? The book doesn't need any promotion - it's a NYT bestseller. It is the most known media "image" of the FairTax plan. Nothing more nothing less. I've copied this to the article talk page in case others share your opinion or care to disagree. Morphh 00:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I see you posted again to remove the book cover. Lets not have an edit war - I posted to the talk page to try and get some other opinions. Perhaps we could use the Americans for Fair Taxation logo but it is not formated well and is probably copyrighted. How is NY this time of year? N. Babylon looks like a nice area. Morphh 03:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Morphh has turned Wikipedia into a Propagandist website. This entire Post is complete and utter disinformation. If a person earns $10,000,000 in a year and spends $2,000,000, multiply 20% x 30% or 20% x 23% to get the effective comparison between Proposed "Fair Tax" and Current Graduated Income Tax. 20% x 30% = 6%. 20% x 23% = 4.6%. Those are the effective Tax Rates on a person, who earns $10-Million, but only SPENDS $2-Million. Now you see why the Rich want the "Fair Tax".
All the other Morphh figures, most of which average people cannot follow anyway, are Window Dressing. This is one more Con Game: Flat Tax > National Sales Tax = "Fair Tax" (another name for the same deceptive, devious policy for squeezing more $ out of the Middle Class for the benefit of the Rich).
Notice how carefully the "Fair Tax" proponents AVOID mentioning this aspect!
State Sales Taxes are a joke. Some vendors either give you a calculator receipt on purchases or no receipt at all. You can be certain they cheat the State on taxes, either in part or in total. If a salesman negotiates a $100,000 price tag on a car, the potential buyer can always negotiate downward. The 38% Sales Tax (30% federal + 8% State) will be the part that is negotiated down. $38,000 is a lot of negotiating room. Rich people already avoid paying sales tax on major purchases NOW. Either States would have to augment their oversight astronomically or the feds would have to step in and change the IRS to the KGB with 50 times the manpower.
Because of all the "Cheating" that would occur, the Rate (23% or 30%) would have to be increased the 2nd year, which would lead to even more cheating. The Middle Class would bear the burden. Any increase under "Fair Tax" from scofflaws under Income Tax would be more than offset by Scofflaws under "Fair Tax".
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/ June 11, 2006 (T.A.B.A.C.C.O. Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization) All this is academic because the main factor is the fact that the Rich would pay less, and everybody else would have to pay more because of REVENUE NEUTRALITY.
There is NO TAXATION SYSTEM POSSIBLE in which EVERYBODY gets a better "shake".
- The FairTax article is not my article and they are not my figures. I am not the keeper of the article but just one of many editors that make up people both for and against the plan. I only edit about 100 articles of the over 1 million articles on (english) wikipedia so I can hardly be charged with making wikipedia propaganda. As for your figures, I'm not even going to debate them. I guess the 8 million just disappears never to be spent again. I guess its ok under the current system when Mr. Kerry gets to pay 12% on his 6.8 million in 2003 because of loopholes. Anyway - Your thoughts are addressed from both points of view in a logical manner under sections "Distribution of tax burden" and "Effects on Tax Code Compliance". Morphh 18:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Also note that I have submitted you for violation of the 3RR wikipedia policy. Morphh 18:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
John Kerry is a Rich man. I am not defending the Rich, even if they are Democrats. What's your point? You are not going to debate my figures because they are accurate. These are the only figures that count! As to the $8 million disappearing. No, it's invested, Sales Tax Free! And next year he makes $11,000,000 and invests another $9 million or so. Again, I repeat, "What's your point?"
As to whose figures they are: Boortz didn't hold a gun to your head. If you publish them; they are yours!
Thanks for the confession! When you publish something, you should understand what it is you are publishing. It's too late to cry, "I'm not responsible".
My next Comment will be to ask you to explain those terms, which I don't comprehend. I suggest you do research. When I publish someone else's comments, I always give them credit. To fail to do this is called "PLAGIARISM", in case you are unfamiliar with the term.
Tabacco (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization)
Are you aware that 6% and 4.6% are less than HALF of 12%? Consider a $3.00 calculator. It's a good investment. The 12% figure (I have to assume it's accurate since you do not supply references EVER), is because Kerry and other Rich people have inserted deductions, loopholes & exceptions to benefit themselves. And with all that, they are still not satisfied. Now they want to foist the "UnFair Tax" on the rest of us. I don't just "Edit" what I publish; I actually understand it because if I don't understand something, I research it thoroughly, regardless of its source. I don't accept STUFF because Bill Clinton says it's so. And, unlike you, I don't expect Readers to "Trust" my data. I always give references either above or below that information. People, who plagiarize others words, couldn't do that if they gave references, now could they?
- Google it yourself - I'm not your research boy. You want footnotes and sources every time I say something? As for plagiarizing, I'm not writing a book report or publishing an article when I debate you. It's not worth my time recrafting words so you can just dismiss them. To clarify, I am not discussing the Wikipedia article with those statements. It is an article and treated accordingly. As far as your figures, 12% is all they will pay on that income - it's done. The 4.6% (correct figure since it's an inclusive calculation) is only what is paid on the 20% spent. You seem to dismiss the other 80% - gone forever in investment wonderland never to be factored again. Why punish the rich (and the economy) if they are not spending all their money today? It is a change of attitude. If they are not spending the money on themselves, they are either donating it (good thing) or investing it (good thing). When they decide to cash out all that money and live the retirement of luxury, they will pay on that consumption. "Taxing consumption is effectively the same as taxing wages plus taxing wealth. ... But what about saving one's wages and wealth and spending these funds plus accumulated interest in the future? Doesn't this avoid the consumption tax? No. You end up paying consumption taxes not just on the original sums, but also on the accumulated interest. The same holds if you save your wages and wealth and give it to your kids. When they spend it, they pay consumption taxes on both P&I." - LAURENCE J. KOTLIKOFF, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, March 7, 2005; Page A18, The Case for the 'FairTax' - Referenced and quoted just for you :-)
- I agree that the rich would pay less. I just don't agree that the middle class would pay more. I don't see it as a simple matter three classes and decreasing one increases another. Even under the current system, a decrease for both the middle and rich created an increase in federal revenue due to economic growth above projection. The FairTax is an entirely different system with a different base. I get your point and I completely understand what your saying. You have your opinion and I respect that. Too many sheeple out there that could care less. I disagree with your conclusions and you disagree with mine. Such is the world of political philosophy. "If two people have the same opinion, one of them is unnecessary." - Paraphrase of a Boortz quote since I know you like him so much ;-p Morphh 15:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
"Google it yourself - I'm not your research boy. You want footnotes and sources every time I say something?" - Morphh
No, Morphh, I want you to substantiate when you "quote" somebody else's WORK.
First, you are not responsible for what you publish because you are an 'editor'. Then you don't want to give your sources. To be blunt, a) how does anyone know you are telling the truth and b) how do we know whether you are quoting Boortz, Coulter, O'Reilly or a "Reputable Source"? Even you must agree that one cannot "Google a LIE"!
"I agree that the rich would pay less." - Morphh
Finally, we are getting somewhere. At last you have admitted what the rest of us have known for some time. The fact that it took you so long to confess this is what interests me. I guess you figured nobody would notice until I made such a STINK about it, and you could no longer avoid it.
You have been basically unopposed because you are propounding a carefully thought out propaganda. It is very complex on purpose so that people will not understand it. Like the 'Emperor's New Clothes' (particularly the male of the species), most Readers are timid about asking, "Why". Not me. If I don't understand something, I am not too macho to admit it. And believe me there's an awful lot about your presentation that is 'Greek' to me. Since you are only an editor, asking you to explain would be pointless. And I certainly have no intention of buying the book.
Then you attempt to convince people that "Everybody wins" except for some unnamed group, who don't pay taxes now. The most important part of that group encompasses Leona Helmsley and her ilk. The State Sales Tax is a joke because it is ignored on major items. Neither State nor feds are able to keep records of companies' Inventories, let alone their selling price for each item sold. The FairTax will permit the States to expand their collections, which will only make accurate collection from the Leona Helmsleys even more difficult. I guess you want us to "Trust Leona"?
In closing, I just published today and include a quote from Greg Palast:
"The trick of class war is not to let the victims know they're under attack. That's how, little by little, the owners of the planet take away what little we have." http://tabacco.blog-city.com/httptabaccoblogcitycomclass_war_in_america__the_only_war_in_.htm
I invite one and all to read that Article; and I DO SUPPLY MY SOURCE(S)!
Your account will be renamed[edit]
Hello,
The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.
Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Tabacco. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Tabacco~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.
Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
03:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Renamed[edit]
This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)
19:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)