"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

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


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


Not at all.

It's called "progressive" taxation, Max.


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


We've already bankrupted the gov't with various fiscal
stupidity.

DSK

"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.


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


Not at all.

It's called "progressive" taxation, Max.

Which is clearly a failure in concept as applied to the wealthy. The rich
are greedy, not stupid, and they have the means to avoid excessive taxation.

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


We've already bankrupted the gov't with various fiscal stupidity.

Seems to work for a number of Balkan and European countries, not to mention
states like Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.
Indiana has a balanced budget, by the way. Does the US government??
Thankfully my state has found it expedient to engage in what you arrogantly
refer to as "fiscal stupidity."

But I see you point, Doug. It would be impossible to 'stick it to the rich'
without a progressive (punitive) tax. It's just not fair that they're rich
and you're not.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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.


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


Not at all.

It's called "progressive" taxation, Max.

Which is clearly a failure in concept as applied to the wealthy. The rich
are greedy, not stupid, and they have the means to avoid excessive
taxation.

Why is it greedy to want to keep what you have earned?



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


We've already bankrupted the gov't with various fiscal stupidity.

Seems to work for a number of Balkan and European countries, not to
mention states like Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, and
Pennsylvania. Indiana has a balanced budget, by the way. Does the US
government?? Thankfully my state has found it expedient to engage in what
you arrogantly refer to as "fiscal stupidity."

But I see you point, Doug. It would be impossible to 'stick it to the
rich' without a progressive (punitive) tax. It's just not fair that
they're rich and you're not.

Stick it to the rich and they shall go elsewhere. The US is not the only
propserous place in the world.


Being rich is just a symptom of workaholism. Any fool can go out and earn
tons of money. Not any fool can go out and live life well.



Max

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

Which is clearly a failure in concept as applied to the wealthy. The
rich are greedy, not stupid, and they have the means to avoid excessive
taxation.

Why is it greedy to want to keep what you have earned?

It's not, nor did I ever imply that it was. But greed is not an uncommon
trait among the very rich. Frequently it is the single most motivating
force in acquiring wealth. So it stands to reason that greedy people will
do what is necessary to hold on to that wealth and avoid taxation,
especially taxation they feel is confiscatory. In other words, greedy
people are strongly motivated, and not inclined to be deprived of their
earnings if at all possible.


But I see you point, Doug. It would be impossible to 'stick it to the
rich' without a progressive (punitive) tax. It's just not fair that
they're rich and you're not.

Stick it to the rich and they shall go elsewhere. The US is not the only
propserous place in the world.

At least their money shall go elsewhere. And does.

Max

It's called "progressive" taxation, Max.


"Maxprop" wrote
Which is clearly a failure in concept as applied to the wealthy. The rich
are greedy, not stupid, and they have the means to avoid excessive
taxation.


Or indeed, any taxation they can be it paltry, fair, or
"excessive."

To many wealthy people, *any* tax seems confiscatory and
excessive.


Gilligan wrote:
Why is it greedy to want to keep what you have earned?


Why is it not considered greedy to get other people to work
and take profit from their labor? Is that not a tax upon the
laborers?





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



We've already bankrupted the gov't with various fiscal stupidity.


Seems to work for a number of Balkan and European countries,

Which have vastly different tax structures including a VAT tax.

Are you in favor of a federally imposed VAT tax?

not to
mention states like Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, and
Pennsylvania. Indiana has a balanced budget, by the way.

Great. I'm sure they don't tax anything else, either.


But I see you point, Doug. It would be impossible to 'stick it to the
rich' without a progressive (punitive) tax. It's just not fair that
they're rich and you're not.


I am rich. OTOH I am not of that arrogant & stupid ilk who
think that any progressive tax is "punitive." This goes a
long way to convince anybody reading this thread that a flat
tax is indeed skewed towards the rich and appeals mostly to
those who are greedy & selfish.

Just think of it as hush money to keep the starving masses
from becoming so enraged at their lot in life (as compared
to yours) that they riot and burn your house down.



Gilligan wrote:
Stick it to the rich and they shall go elsewhere. The US is not the only
propserous place in the world.


Being rich is just a symptom of workaholism. Any fool can go out and earn
tons of money. Not any fool can go out and live life well.


It's true that lots of fools are rich, but it's not true
that *every* fool is. If we are going to appeal to logic,
then let's use accurate logic.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
It's called "progressive" taxation, Max.


"Maxprop" wrote
Which is clearly a failure in concept as applied to the wealthy. The
rich are greedy, not stupid, and they have the means to avoid excessive
taxation.


Or indeed, any taxation they can be it paltry, fair, or "excessive."

To many wealthy people, *any* tax seems confiscatory and excessive.


Gilligan wrote:
Why is it greedy to want to keep what you have earned?


Why is it not considered greedy to get other people to work and take
profit from their labor? Is that not a tax upon the laborers?

Because getting other people to work and organizing their labor is work and
value added. It is not a tax because the laborers agree to a wage and are
paid that.








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



We've already bankrupted the gov't with various fiscal stupidity.


Seems to work for a number of Balkan and European countries,

Which have vastly different tax structures including a VAT tax.

Are you in favor of a federally imposed VAT tax?

not to mention states like Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts,
and Pennsylvania. Indiana has a balanced budget, by the way.

Great. I'm sure they don't tax anything else, either.


But I see you point, Doug. It would be impossible to 'stick it to the
rich' without a progressive (punitive) tax. It's just not fair that
they're rich and you're not.


I am rich. OTOH I am not of that arrogant & stupid ilk who think that any
progressive tax is "punitive." This goes a long way to convince anybody
reading this thread that a flat tax is indeed skewed towards the rich and
appeals mostly to those who are greedy & selfish.

I am poor. I earn less than minimum wage. I think progressive taxation is
punitive.



Just think of it as hush money to keep the starving masses from becoming
so enraged at their lot in life (as compared to yours) that they riot and
burn your house down.


One can use the same argument for owning assualt rifles.




Gilligan wrote:
Stick it to the rich and they shall go elsewhere. The US is not the only
propserous place in the world.


Being rich is just a symptom of workaholism. Any fool can go out and earn
tons of money. Not any fool can go out and live life well.


It's true that lots of fools are rich, but it's not true that *every* fool
is. If we are going to appeal to logic, then let's use accurate logic.


I said any fool can go out and earn tons of money. I did not say all fools
go out and earn tons of money.

DSK

Why is it not considered greedy to get other people to work and take
profit from their labor? Is that not a tax upon the laborers?


Gilligan wrote:
Because getting other people to work and organizing their labor is work and
value added.

In other words, "leadership" and "initiative" are themselves
valuable commodities.


It is not a tax because the laborers agree to a wage and are
paid that.



In cases where the laborers agree, sure.
What about cases where the laborer is coerced, or given
false information about the terms of his employment?




I am poor. I earn less than minimum wage. I think progressive taxation is
punitive.


Well then, are you in favor of regressive taxation?




Just think of it as hush money to keep the starving masses from becoming
so enraged at their lot in life (as compared to yours) that they riot and
burn your house down.



One can use the same argument for owning assualt rifles.


One can, except it would take a very callous and foolish
rich person to think that he is going to keep a determined
crowd of rioters away, in the event of serious class
warfare. For one thing, they'll be armed too. For another,
there will be more of them than the rich person has bullets.

I think we should bring back the custom of rich people
hiring bands of armed retainers. Livery and maintenance!
Feudalism rules!


It's true that lots of fools are rich, but it's not true that *every* fool
is. If we are going to appeal to logic, then let's use accurate logic.



I said any fool can go out and earn tons of money. I did not say all fools
go out and earn tons of money.


Nor are all rich people foolish.

DSK