"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 23/01/2010 8:13 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 23/01/2010 1:43 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

Yes, you're right. They're identical tax rates. My point was that a
flat
tax
isn't appropriate because it's regressive for the lower earner. If you
change the lower number to something more reasonable, say $40K/year vs.
$100
(which was just a limiting case to use as an example). Someone who
makes
$40K could be someone who works really hard... 10 hours/day 6
days/week,
perhaps two jobs. The person who makes $100K/yr. perhaps might only
work
20
hrs./wk. We don't need to get into the socio/economic reasons, but
there's
no way to claim that the lower earner is working less hard. Yet, when
you
look at a flat tax, the $40K person would keep $36K. The $100K person
would
keep $90K. Who is hurt more? Again, which salary would you pick? The
answer
is likely obvious. Are we penalizing those who work hard, but have
low-paying jobs? My answer is yes.

Why not go the other way since we are socialising talk.

Why not a fixed head tax, say $10,000 a year. If you can't pay it then
you become a slave. You even lose the right to vote as you are
considered
a minor dependant unable to fend for ones self.

That's a patently dumb argument. It's not what we're discussing, except
in
your twisted view of the world.

Not any different than aggressive taxation, just two extremes of the same
coin.

There's no aggressive taxation going on. I'd be happy to pay more for more
services and to help those who are less fortunate.


Persecuting because one is oor isn't really much different than
persecution those that are successful and produce.

Neither is being persecuted. That's just your rant.


The reasoning being in a nanny state of government health care, your ass
is just as expensive as mine to keep. We went to the same schools, thus
should be taxed the same in value. We ge the same government protection
from police, in fact since I make more I have more to loose this even
pose
a lower risk.

So why not a fixed head tax?

blah, blah... same noise, repeated endlessly, as though it's someday
going
to make sense.

Liberal ears are often denialists to the truth. All thesy see is liberal
greed and what they want to see.

Same noise... meaningless.


And taxaton is fixed, governmetn cannot raise or lower it without a
referendum of all affected. And you can only vote if you pay a minimum
of
$1000 in taxes. None of this mentality of losers telling winners how it
works.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but something very similar is going on in
California. It's a budget disaster.

Yep, people said no to spiraling taxes and liberalism kept spending.
Sooner or later someone is going to have to shut down government until the
books balance.

Talk to Bush. He's the one who screwed the pooch.


Government should have it's spending capped as a percentage of gross
income to preven statism creap. If the greedy government wants more
revenue, better make for a good economy with decent jobs or suck for it.

You idiot... the gov't is the people. The gov't doesn't "make for a good
economy." The people make up the economy.

Why should not government have a revenue and spending cap? Why should a
person not be guaranteed a good percentage of their gross income?

Because sometimes running a deficit is the smart economic thing to do. Look
it up.

So, now you're playing the nanny by "guaranteeing" a percentage of income?

We still get a very healthy chunk of money, so you're just ranting without
logic.


Or are we all to become slaves to the Obama marxist state?

Blah, blah... meaningless drooling from a loonie.

--
Nom=de=Plume