"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
When you live on expensive property, you pay property tax mostly based on
the market value (assessment). Is this not the case where you live?


Property tax is also reduced if one is 65 or older. Should income tax be
based on age too?

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 08:20:58 -0700, "Gilligan" wrote:

Property tax is also reduced if one is 65 or older.

It is? Everywhere?

Of course it isn't. Look at your source, the guy's the Old Faithful of
misinformation.


//Walt

You mean saying that I don't know, but saying that it should be fair isn't
responsive?

Basically, if you're more well-off, you should pay more both numerically and
as a percentage. Thus, if someone makes $30K a year and has three kids, she
shouldn't be paying as high a percentage of her income as someone who makes
$250K a year and has three kids. Let's say say the $30Ker pays 10% (which I
think is way, way too high, but ok). That's a pretty big percentage of a
small income. Now take the $250Ker. She's paying $25K, which while not
insignificant, leaves a whopping $225K for expenses, whatever. What would be
wrong with the $250Ker paying 20%. This still leaves $200K, which is plenty
to live on.

Obviously, this can't be an absolute scale, but the trend should be obvious.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 3 Dec 2006 21:07:03 -0800, "Peter" said:

Not at all. I said that it should be somewhere between 10 and 50
percent.
How is that "going to water"?

So - you'd be satisfied if the rich paid 10% of their income as tax?
You'd consider that they were apying their fair share?

Have you also missed what I was asking, Peter? My question was not what
percentage of each individual's income he should pay for income taxes. I
was
what percentage of the aggregate income taxes paid by all taxpayers should
be born by each of the three groups I identified. Different question
entirely. I was looking for a breakdown among the three groups. Jon's
10-50%
simply wasn't responsive to the question, since it didn't differentiate
among the 3 groups.

Duh, it is for the vast majority of people. For those who are wealthy, then
no.

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

"Gilligan" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
When you live on expensive property, you pay property tax mostly based on
the market value (assessment). Is this not the case where you live?


Property tax is also reduced if one is 65 or older. Should income tax be
based on age too?

You forgot the second part of your comment... because you can't.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 17:42:55 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

It's got to be both in some respects. How can one have wealth and not
derive
income from it.

I'm not going to even try to sort out the muddled thinking reflected in
that
post.

I thought it was a pretty simple question to ask you which
economists have stated that Galbraith is "discredited."


Dave wrote:
One does not generally speak unkindly of the dead, but here's an excerpt
from his obit in The Economist:

"Mr Galbraith was thus less an economist than a mixture of sociologist,
political scientist and journalist."

This, coming from a political blog-on-paper, is really not
all that unkind.




" ... Long after Mr Galbraith's brand of big-government liberalism fell out of
favour, he remained its standard-bearer."

Fell out of favor with whom?

In other words, among *economists* Galbraith is not dicredited.

Among politically oriented bigots, his political ideas have
"fallen out of favor." That's a very far cry from being
discredited. But this is a pretty close approximation of the
answer I expected. Thank you.

Furthermore, you haven't addressed *any* of Glabraith's
central economic theories... among which is that advertising
drives demand for common consumer goods... an idea you
clearly believe yourself. Discredited? A laugh!

In truth, I'm more interested in why Frank B apparently
doesn't believe it.

DSK

Capt. JG wrote:
You mean saying that I don't know, but saying that it should be fair isn't
responsive?


The problem is that everybody has a different idea of
"fair." In a culture that is increasingly dominated by
narcissists who were spoiled as children and raised mostly
by TV, "fair" is coming to mean "I get *all* the cake." This
leads to the kind of winner-take-all socio-economic struggle
we have seen in Iraq "reconstruction" conract awards.

It's not pretty.


Basically, if you're more well-off, you should pay more both numerically and
as a percentage. Thus, if someone makes $30K a year and has three kids, she
shouldn't be paying as high a percentage of her income as someone who makes
$250K a year and has three kids. Let's say say the $30Ker pays 10% (which I
think is way, way too high, but ok). That's a pretty big percentage of a
small income. Now take the $250Ker. She's paying $25K, which while not
insignificant, leaves a whopping $225K for expenses, whatever. What would be
wrong with the $250Ker paying 20%. This still leaves $200K, which is plenty
to live on.

Obviously, this can't be an absolute scale, but the trend should be obvious.


You're on the brink of discovering marginal tax rates.
Waiter! A little more math for my friend here!

DSK

I discovered them previously. We're all waiting for Dave.

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

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Capt. JG wrote:
You mean saying that I don't know, but saying that it should be fair
isn't responsive?


The problem is that everybody has a different idea of "fair." In a culture
that is increasingly dominated by narcissists who were spoiled as children
and raised mostly by TV, "fair" is coming to mean "I get *all* the cake."
This leads to the kind of winner-take-all socio-economic struggle we have
seen in Iraq "reconstruction" conract awards.

It's not pretty.


Basically, if you're more well-off, you should pay more both numerically
and as a percentage. Thus, if someone makes $30K a year and has three
kids, she shouldn't be paying as high a percentage of her income as
someone who makes $250K a year and has three kids. Let's say say the
$30Ker pays 10% (which I think is way, way too high, but ok). That's a
pretty big percentage of a small income. Now take the $250Ker. She's
paying $25K, which while not insignificant, leaves a whopping $225K for
expenses, whatever. What would be wrong with the $250Ker paying 20%. This
still leaves $200K, which is plenty to live on.

Obviously, this can't be an absolute scale, but the trend should be
obvious.


You're on the brink of discovering marginal tax rates. Waiter! A little
more math for my friend here!

DSK

"Sidney Greenstreet" wrote:
Why should the price of the services of government be based on income?


Why shouldn't they?


If so, then one would expect better government services for those who pay
more.

So those who pay higher taxes get better government service.


Been in a court room lately?

That's fair?!


Depends on who you ask, iddenit?

BTW where's Peter Lorre?

DSK

In other words, among *economists* Galbraith is not dicredited.


Dave wrote:
Keep telling yourself that, Doug.


Why shouldn't I?
So far, you have offered
-a lame excuse
-a political rant

He's basically a minor footnote who had a keen pen.

And some good ideas about how the world works, many of which
have been readily adopted by economists and are intrinsic to
ongoing work in that field.

Oddly enough, there is one thing that Galbraith advocated
which *has* been seriously discredited. One out of many. Do
you know what it is?

DSK