Well, now you have. :-) Those better off may (and I dispute this) use the
infrastructure more, but certainly they don't use it proportionately more.
An example is the long commute the less well off have to endure to get to
their low-wage jobs. The majority of tax for these things comes from the
better off.


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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
heh... ok... well, if we take away all redistribution of wealth, for
example, we would basically eliminate the super-highways in the US. We
would eliminate the military, as well.

I don't consider infrastructure and military expenses to be
"redistribution of wealth." In fact, I've never heard it referred to in
that manner.

If we take more money from someone who is more well-off than someone who
is less well-off either by percentage

The odds are that the well-off person is more likely to use infrastructure
to a greater degree than those who aren't so well-off.

or in a flat-tax fashion, we're basically redistributing the cost of
these vital services. Now, I think it's worth talking about if this is
viable. I don't think it is as a step toward a more fair system of
taxation.

Redistribution of wealth, as I was referring to it, is welfare, social
security, and the other entitlements programs such as WIC, Medicaid, etc.
Of course you are right in that taxation is the means for such
redistribution.

Max