You mean saying that I don't know, but saying that it should be fair isn't
responsive?

Basically, if you're more well-off, you should pay more both numerically and
as a percentage. Thus, if someone makes $30K a year and has three kids, she
shouldn't be paying as high a percentage of her income as someone who makes
$250K a year and has three kids. Let's say say the $30Ker pays 10% (which I
think is way, way too high, but ok). That's a pretty big percentage of a
small income. Now take the $250Ker. She's paying $25K, which while not
insignificant, leaves a whopping $225K for expenses, whatever. What would be
wrong with the $250Ker paying 20%. This still leaves $200K, which is plenty
to live on.

Obviously, this can't be an absolute scale, but the trend should be obvious.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 3 Dec 2006 21:07:03 -0800, "Peter" said:

Not at all. I said that it should be somewhere between 10 and 50
percent.
How is that "going to water"?

So - you'd be satisfied if the rich paid 10% of their income as tax?
You'd consider that they were apying their fair share?

Have you also missed what I was asking, Peter? My question was not what
percentage of each individual's income he should pay for income taxes. I
was
what percentage of the aggregate income taxes paid by all taxpayers should
be born by each of the three groups I identified. Different question
entirely. I was looking for a breakdown among the three groups. Jon's
10-50%
simply wasn't responsive to the question, since it didn't differentiate
among the 3 groups.