"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
No. They're citizens and should pay their fair share.

I agree completely. Speak first with George Soros, who sequesters his
billions in offshore numbered accounts in order to escape the punitive
taxation the rich suffer.

Here's the problem, Jon. If you tax the rich equitably, most pay their
taxes without protest. When you tax them punitively, they shelter their
earnings and end up paying very little. The rich didn't get that way by
being stupid--they got that way by being greedy and resourceful. Do you
honestly believe raising taxes on such people will produce more revenue?
Historically it has had the opposite effect. In fact, raising taxes for all
classes beyond a certain point will have exactly the opposite of the desired
effect of increasing revenue. I hope I don't have to explain that to you.

Max

"Todd Nozzle" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
No. They're citizens and should pay their fair share.


Government should be priced like bread. Everyone pays the same amount
regardless of income.

Oh, no, no, no--that's contrary to the liberal ideology of redistribution of
wealth.

Max

"DSK" wrote in message
...

Actually, the tax should be slightly skewed progressively (ie the top
earners pay more) because they gain more from the system.

Given reasonable taxation, they also *contribute* far more to the system.
Or did you simply ignore that fact.

Can we presume that you are not in favor of a flat tax? g

Max

"Walt" wrote in message
...

The problem lies in that the tax rate changes depening on how you make the
money. If you *earn* it by *working* it's taxed at a higher rate than if
you obtain it without working. That's my main beef with the tax system.

A guy who busts his ass working as a plumber or a ditch digger pays a
higher rate than a guy who makes much more flipping condos or bonds.

Oh really??? Did you conveniently omit the capital gains tax, or just
forget about it.

And the guy who makes money flipping condos in turn pays a higher rate
than the lucky offspring of the well to do who "earn" their fortune simply
by virtue of outliving their parents.

The heirs don't "earn" anything. They inherit the money their progenitors
have *already paid taxes upon.* So you'd tax that money again? Why?

Plus, workers whose salary is more than $90k don't pay FICA on the amount
over that. If you make money via dividends or capital gains, no FICA is
due at all.

What's the problem with that?? When those individuals collect their SS
benefits down the road, they won't collect any additional money beyond the
max level based upon what they paid in.

Oh wait--you're in favor of punitive taxation. I almost forgot.

Max

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Walt wrote:
The problem lies in that the tax rate changes depening on how you make
the money. If you *earn* it by *working* it's taxed at a higher rate
than if you obtain it without working. That's my main beef with the tax
system.


Agreed.

Liberal.

A guy who busts his ass working as a plumber or a ditch digger pays a
higher rate than a guy who makes much more flipping condos or bonds. And
the guy who makes money flipping condos in turn pays a higher rate than
the lucky offspring of the well to do who "earn" their fortune simply by
virtue of outliving their parents.


Well, you have to pick your parents. The big problem with the inheritance
tax is
1- it seems to resonate with a lot of angry voters who themselves aren't
going to inherit anything except car payments and possibly a mobile home
2- it is burden... often unbearable, literally... on small family
owned-businesses that are assessed by their average gross. The burden is
unbearable and the business is sold (usually for not much money) when the
net is much smaller and the cash flow won't support the tax assessment.
One way to fix this would have been to seperate inherited propery from
inherited businesses.... but that was never even proposed AFAIK.


Plus, workers whose salary is more than $90k don't pay FICA on the amount
over that. If you make money via dividends or capital gains, no FICA is
due at all.


That would be one way to try to fix Social Security long-term, but the
same angry voters won't hear of it.

Ever consider why those voters are angry? Could it be that they react to
basic unfairness, despite not being privy to such wealth? You seem to be
from the "if it doesn't affect me, then stick it too 'em" school of
"ethics."

Max

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:51:35 -0500, DSK said:

Plus, workers whose salary is more than $90k don't pay FICA on the
amount over that. If you make money via dividends or capital gains, no
FICA is due at all.


That would be one way to try to fix Social Security
long-term, but the same angry voters won't hear of it.

Would you change it from an insurance program into a welfare program by
increasing the amount covered by FICA but not increasing the benefits?

Do you really need to ask that of a liberal?

Max

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Walt said:
Plus, workers whose salary is more than $90k don't pay FICA


Dave wrote:
And, of course, get a much smaller percentage replacement of their income
through SS when they retire.

And the problem with that is.... what exactly?

Social Security is not an investment plan.

But shouldn't it be fair?

People who make over $90K/yr have much more comfortable options to support
them in retirement... unless they **** away their money stupidly, which
seems to be the new American way.

So **** 'em, eh?

Max

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:58:03 -0500, DSK said:

Social Security is not an investment plan.

It has never been sold to voters as a welfare program.

As it stands it's ill-fated. The GOP envisions the alternative of
investment, while the Democrats see the alternative as welfare. One guess
whose side you and I will come down upon.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
I never implied that legislation, in and of itself, constitutes nannyism.

Yes you did. Several times actually.

Not even close. What I implied was that legislation which is designed to
protect us from ourselves is nannyism. You interpret what you read to suit
your prejudice.

So, you're in favour of repealing all laws pertaining to mandatory
qualifications for all professions, then? After all, this is nannyism
at its worst. Why should people be forced to study for years and pass
exams to be a doctor? You're just - in theory - protecting people from
making a bad decision about who they consult.

PDW

"Peter" wrote in message
oups.com...

So, you're in favour of repealing all laws pertaining to mandatory
qualifications for all professions, then? After all, this is nannyism
at its worst. Why should people be forced to study for years and pass
exams to be a doctor? You're just - in theory - protecting people from
making a bad decision about who they consult.

PDW


Great idea! Bad doctors would go out of business sooner. Medicine would
advance rapidly due to choice of therapy. Should do it for lawyers too.