"Bruce" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


nom=de=plume wrote:


wrote in message
...



nom=de=plume wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 12:08 pm, wrote:




On 23/01/2010 12:31 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:









wrote in message
...




nom=de=plume wrote:




"Bill wrote in message
m...





wrote in message
...





"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.





--
Nom=de=Plume





Actually is neither Regressive or Progressive.





You're just wrong. I don't know how to say it politely.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax





No, he's not. Regression means that the more you make, the less
you
pay -
hardly a flat tax. You have to remember that the theory behind
the
flat
tax offers no deductions. It's a simple percentage of your
income.





Didn't say regression - said regressive... and punative for those
who
make
just a bit.





You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to
keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?




90,000 of course. But it is fair, for each dollar the use is the
same.
Bet the $90,000 earner also worked harder. Why should he pay 30%
when
the lacky gets a 10% rate? Are we penalizing those who work?





Besides, that whole position is simple-minded. In regard to taxes
there is no choice to be made as the two examples are exactly the
same... they are being taxed equally. It's an easy sixth grade
math
problem.




I didn't see knuckle's (no offense intended) reply for some reason.

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.

Let's take a progressive (e.g., non-flat tax) rate. The upper
income
person
is taxed at 20% and the lower one is taxed at 5%. (Quite a
difference,
right? Yet...) The numbers: Lower incomer keeps $38K. The upper
incomer
keeps $80K. Clearly, the upper incomer still keeps a decent amount
and
most
people would still pick being this person. Yet, the lower incomer
isn't
hurt
nearly as much.





Now if one wanted to discuss compensation, then of course anyone
would
take the 100k job. Of course, not everyone is qualified or able
to
perform it. But that's a completely different subject.




True enough I suppose. Of course, there's baggage sometimes
associated
with
higher salaries... different subject as you say.





You are making **** up. Your assumptions have no bearing on the
truth:

Many low-wage employees work harder because their skill level can
only
get
them a job involving 9-5 actual labor. Those who chose to get an
education are paid more for what they know than what they do -
physically.
There is no comparison.



"Choose to get an education." Hmm... what about those who are limited
by
their native intelligence? We should punish them for doing the manual
labor?




Why were they limited to their "street smarts"? It wasn't the
government.


I guess some people just aren't going to be brain surgeons.



You have no middle ground. It's one extreme or the other. Don't get
caught in a public debate.


I? You're the one claiming everyone is lazy if they don't make
$100K/year.


I never said that and you know it. You would make a lousy politician.
The press would eat you alive.


Actually, you pretty much did.

--
Nom=de=Plume