Dave wrote:
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.


Hell, Dave, I was trying to get the simplest possible answer to see if
Jon actually had any opinions at all other than some vague feeling that
the rich weren't paying their fair share. Given that as a starting
point, it might be possible to work up to something more abstract. But
no. Waste of time as per. Arguing with Joe is more productive. At least
he *has* opinions he's prepared to defend. A bit like a dog walking on
hind legs to be true, but better than a dog that can't even limp.

Lost interest now - unproductive. The summary seems to be that Jon
favours a progressive tax but can't express this clearly, nor can he
figure out what the breaks should be, except he's convinced the rich
aren't paying their fair share. I've told him that they are, but he
seems to doubt me. Shrug.

PDW