"DSK" wrote in message
...
Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate?


Maxprop wrote:
Democrats, generally.


Or anybody with an impartial & accurate view of the matter.

. . . like Democrats.



No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like
cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product.


True, but the rich have to pay less in proportion to their means.

Of course. Are you one of those who favors redistribution of wealth?



Right, which makes a federal sales tax more equitable than an income tax.


Possibly.


How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same?


An odd question. Most people, poor or otherwise, would love the
opportunity to pay less in taxes. But to continue the discussion, the
impoverished and working poor probably should pay a lesser proportion of
their meager income in taxes.

You liberal Demcrat you!

That did sound dangerously close, didn't it.



... However the rich should not pay a proportionately greater percentage
of their income in taxes.

Why not? If they can live a far more luxurious lifestyle on a lesser
proportion of their income,

Which is why I'm advocating a federal sales tax. The rich buy more
expensive things, therefore pay greater dollar amounts of sales taxes.

*and* they have greater representation in our government (how many poor
people are there in Congress?),

This is disingenuous. Must a legislator be poor to be an advocate for the
poor? Of course not.

*and* they enjoy greater services & benefits from the gov't and from our
socio-economic system generally,

Do they? I pay a lot of income tax to the federal and state governments
annually, but have yet to see anything resembling "greater services &
benefits from the government" so far. The poor have access to the same
infrastructure that I do. They have access to the same government services
I do. But *they* have access to benefits and services of which I am denied,
such as Medicaid, welfare, WIC, educational grants to the poor, etc.
Perhaps I enjoy greater benefits from our socio-economic system than they,
but that's the way free enterprise works--you work harder, earn more, and
live better. So far you haven't convinced me that I am the recipient of
greater benefits and services than the poor.

then it is only fair that they pay the greater portion of the burden in
taxes.

I disagree--see above. But a federal sales tax would nicely achieve what
you advocate, right or wrong.

... Once again a federal sales tax would solve this issue.

No it wouldn't, unless it was exhorbitant.

Why? And what are you considering "exhorbitant?"


... If a rich dude wishes to buy a Bentley Continental, he'll pay more in
sales tax than a dude of modest means purchasing a Ford Focus.

ANd he'll use up more public resources when he drives it. So the tax
should be proportionally more, not just numerically.

That's bull**** and you know it. How does he use up more public resources?
He burns more gas, but that is hardly a public resource. And he drives on
the same roads and bridges as the guy with the Ford. Conversely he pays
higher insurance premiums for the luxury car, burn more fuel, and go through
tires more rapidly, as well as spend far more on maintenance. All those
things help fuel the economy, keep people working, and generate tax revenue.


But if they both buy Ford Focuses, they pay the same. That's fair.


But what if the rich person doesn't buy a car at all, but instead forms a
corporation to buy him a car tax-free?

His corporation still pays sales tax. Or have you come up with a loophole
to the nonexistent federal sales tax already?



The poor should pay more in taxes. They consume more government services
and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their
fair share too!


Quintessential Rush Limbaugh--right from his book, "The Way Things Ought
to Be." You might also have noticed that this proclamation was in jest;
that he really didn't advocate taxing the poor proportionately more than
others.

How can you tell when he's joking?

Um, because he said he was in so many words?


His point was that the poor consume more of the federal budget than the
rich, but that simply isn't true. Corporate welfare, roads, bridges, and
other infrastructure built to accommodate big business, tax abatement,
forgiven federal grants and loans to businesses, inflated/bloated federal
contracts to big business, and so on ad nauseum, make individual welfare
(includes Medicare and Medicaid) seem small by comparison. Of course
it's difficult to assess the final cost of such things because they
*generally* contribute to increased production, more jobs, and those jobs
pay income taxes.


By golly, you are a closet Bolshevik.

Nope. Just a latent communist. g

Max