On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:45:06 -0400, jeff wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:49:13 -0400, jeff said:

the wealthy farmer pays LESS in taxes than the other (who
would actually pay the highest rate of anyone), as a percentage of
income. This is after we put in the SS taxes and the average local
taxes.

So, Jeff, ya think the second guy's social security taxes are too high, and
that his local sales and property taxes are too high? Maybe those should be
cut, no?

Oh, you say you can't do that because SS is already in trouble, and the
teachers' union isn't getting enough? So the solution is instead to tax the
farmer that works hard and hand the money over to the one who doesn't?

So are you claiming that rich people should pay LESS than the average
people? Are you saying its fair that the rich farmer gets a tax cut
more than ten times larger than the other, ever though he only makes 5
times more?

As for property taxes, remember that the very wealthy pay much less than
the middle class.

Must be different in your part of the country. In mine, property
taxes are based on the value of the property and the lower the value
the higher the impact of homestead exemption. Has nothing to do with
the income or wealth of the owner.


Sales taxes are even worse, where the rich pay only
about a quarter of what the middle class pays, as a percentage of
income.

Here again in my part of the country it is based on how much you
spend.

Oh I see, percentage of income is in there. What difference does that
make with regard to property and consumption tax?

Just another of those "share the wealth" advocates.


The rich do pay more in local income taxes, but overall, local
taxes tend to be very regressive, with the poorest paying double what
the richest pay.

In total dollars? Oh you must mean as a percentage of income. Hey
let's just become communist and we can get those percentages to even
right out.