D. Stussy <replies[at]newsgroups.kd6lvw.ampr.org> wrote:
- quote -

Did consumption increase upon the repeal of prohibition?
IIRC production within the US exploded, importation of
foreign alcohol decreased, use of home distilleries decreased,
and the prices went down.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <glt650$p2n$1[at]reader1.panix.com> ,
Dick Adams <rdadams[at]panix.com> wrote:
- quote -


But then we'd be just like all those other countries.
--


ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Dick Adams" <rdadams[at]panix.com> wrote in message
news:glt650$p2n$1[at]reader1.panix.com...
- quote -

your suggestion will only further their appetite for government expenditures
that they contribute little or nothing for.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Dick Adams" <rdadams[at]panix.com> wrote in message
news:glt650$p2n$1[at]reader1.panix.com...
- quote -

That sounds more like the effect of the repeal of Prohibition. ;-)

Maybe we need some irrational, unneeded, and unplanned consumption!

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Paul Thomas, CPA <paulthomascpapc[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:

- quote -

If throwing money at a problem worked, there would be no
financial problems.

Representive Brown's proposal would promote irrational, unneeded,
and unplanned consumption. It not be as effective as changing
the tax rate so that anyone with an income below $45,000 (filing
single) pays ZERO taxes. Like the old Lite Beer commercials:
Tastes Great - Costs less. After all why are we collecting taxes
from the people who need the money the most?

What is need are incentives? What is the status of the tax
credit for purchasing US-made capital assets. How would the
automobile indusrty be affected by a 10% credit (up to $2,000
for purchasing a US-made car?

It was Jack Kemp who said "When you want more of something,
you subsidize it. When you want less of something, you tax it."

We need to subsidize buy American, invest American, job growth,
education, and a lot of other things.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

PeterL wrote:
- quote -

legislation. It was a stunt. Feel free to contact Rep. Broun for
more information.
http://broun.house.gov/

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

PeterL wrote:
- quote -

economy is a crock and you might as well just give everybody the
cash.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 28, 5:18*pm, Alan <sfcnm-...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -


What's the point?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 28, 3:13*pm, Alan <sfcnm-...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -


"Legal" tax payer, as opposed to illegal tax payers? Is this only for
US citizens, as there are non-citizen tax payers such as permanent
residents or H1B visa holders.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 28, 10:51*am, "Gil Faver" <rowdy'sb...[at]xxyz.com> wrote:

- quote -

Doing some simple analysis on data from 2006 found at
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in02ar.xls I make this out to be
something like 83% paid less than $9,000 in federal income taxes.
Now, this doesn't include FICA taxes, so that would change the numbers
somewhat.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com wrote:
- quote -

had nothing to do with reality (the real world).

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 28, 3:13 pm, Alan <sfcnm-...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Our lawmakers have to stop thinking in this marriage-penalty way. I'm
assuming that of the 92,740,927 returns, some are married, some are
single. If every taxpayer gets the same amount, then it means 9k for
married folks, 9k for single folks, 4.5k for married filing
separately. These days, both spouses often work, so they should not
be penalized for getting married. The stimulus amount should be 825B
divided by the sum of: the number of single returns plus two times the
number of married returns.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Phil Marti" <prm20871[at]verizon.net> wrote in message
news:CB3gl.431$N5.198[at]nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
- quote -


and what happens when all this new money is spent? What we need is someone
(other than me) to say we need a new paradigm - i.e., the OLD paradigm.
Don't fail to save, don't fail to maintain infrastructure, don't fail to
make government programs solvent. What is left is what you can spend on
trinkets. all I hear is stop gap measures trying to get the banks and
credit cards lending again, house prices up back where they never belonged,
and consumers consuming. BAH!

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 28, 3:11 pm, spop...[at]speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
- quote -

The other post said divided by the number of taxable returns. But the
total number of tax returns has to be higher, as some people may owe
no tax, but filed to get a full refund of any tax withheld or a
stimulus check. So as long as this 9k goes to all potential US
taxpayers, it should be divided by a higher number, I'm guessing like
150 million people.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Harlan Lunsford wrote:

- quote -


For example, each legal tax payer would receive an $8,895.75
check assuming the legislation's cost is $825 billion divided by
92,740,927 taxable returns (number of taxable returns for 2006).

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Harlan Lunsford <lunstax[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:

- quote -

I assume it's the currently-proposed size of the stimulus
bill, divided by the number of taxpayers.

Steve

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascpapc[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

At least a mule produces less ... um ... er ... ah ... objectionable
stuff than Congress does.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
- quote -

Maybe Paul knows this fellow, since he's from up in his neck of the
woods, i.e. Athens, GA.

OT, but last october I was telling a client that I couldn't possibly get
that done for him before we left on vacation. (We were booked on a
cruise from Athens some may remember.) So I told him it was because we
were leaving for two week vacation on Friday, and flying to Athens.
He said that was nice; and oh, by the way, he asked, 'Who are they
(Bulldogs) playing that weekend?"

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
- quote -

the obvious question is: why the odd amount? why not round it up to
8,896? or even 8900?

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"D. Stussy" <spam[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote
- quote -



Naaaa. The mule is too messy.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >