|
posted to rec.boats
|
|
external usenet poster
|
|
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,249
|
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Canuck57 wrote:
On 23/01/2010 10:20 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says...
On 22/01/2010 11:54 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500,
wrote:
The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no
cap on
earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes.
As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions and
100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the
published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and
loopholes
so they won't actually pay that.
The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to drive
social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax
breaks, big ones.
Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate
control.
A flat tax is regressive.
You know squat about economics. Flat tax is linear and proportional.
I am trying to figure out how 10% for guy A is different then 10% for
guy B?
I have a feeling that those who hold the belief that a flat tax is
regressive look at what guy A and guy B have left after being taxed at a
flat rate and that is where they see the "regressiveness."
One is left with $90K, the other with $9K, so? $9K earner didn't work
as hard, or as smart or didn't provide enough value in the services
provided. Surely didn't invest in themselves. Yet they pay as a fixed
percentage as they still needed government roads, education etc. for
what they did get. Thus a flat tax is fair to society.
Fortunately, what gives you assholes a hard-on is never going to come to
pass. Tax rates for the wealthy are far too low in this country. A rate
of 49% would be acceptable for those in the highest brackets.
|