nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 12:08 pm, wrote:

On 23/01/2010 12:31 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:






wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

"Bill wrote in message
m...


wrote in message
...


"Bill wrote in message
...


wrote in message
...


On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500,
wrote:


The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no
cap
on
earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes.


As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions
and
100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the
published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and
loopholes
so they won't actually pay that.
The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to
drive
social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax
breaks, big ones.


Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate
control.


A flat tax is regressive.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually is neither Regressive or Progressive.


You're just wrong. I don't know how to say it politely.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax


No, he's not. Regression means that the more you make, the less you
pay -
hardly a flat tax. You have to remember that the theory behind the flat
tax offers no deductions. It's a simple percentage of your income.


Didn't say regression - said regressive... and punative for those who
make
just a bit.


You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?

90,000 of course. But it is fair, for each dollar the use is the same.
Bet the $90,000 earner also worked harder. Why should he pay 30% when
the lacky gets a 10% rate? Are we penalizing those who work?


Besides, that whole position is simple-minded. In regard to taxes
there is no choice to be made as the two examples are exactly the
same... they are being taxed equally. It's an easy sixth grade math
problem.

I didn't see knuckle's (no offense intended) reply for some reason.

Yes, you're right. They're identical tax rates. My point was that a flat tax
isn't appropriate because it's regressive for the lower earner. If you
change the lower number to something more reasonable, say $40K/year vs. $100
(which was just a limiting case to use as an example). Someone who makes
$40K could be someone who works really hard... 10 hours/day 6 days/week,
perhaps two jobs. The person who makes $100K/yr. perhaps might only work 20
hrs./wk. We don't need to get into the socio/economic reasons, but there's
no way to claim that the lower earner is working less hard. Yet, when you
look at a flat tax, the $40K person would keep $36K. The $100K person would
keep $90K. Who is hurt more? Again, which salary would you pick? The answer
is likely obvious. Are we penalizing those who work hard, but have
low-paying jobs? My answer is yes.

Let's take a progressive (e.g., non-flat tax) rate. The upper income person
is taxed at 20% and the lower one is taxed at 5%. (Quite a difference,
right? Yet...) The numbers: Lower incomer keeps $38K. The upper incomer
keeps $80K. Clearly, the upper incomer still keeps a decent amount and most
people would still pick being this person. Yet, the lower incomer isn't hurt
nearly as much.


Now if one wanted to discuss compensation, then of course anyone would
take the 100k job. Of course, not everyone is qualified or able to
perform it. But that's a completely different subject.

True enough I suppose. Of course, there's baggage sometimes associated with
higher salaries... different subject as you say.


You are making **** up. Your assumptions have no bearing on the truth:

Many low-wage employees work harder because their skill level can only
get them a job involving 9-5 actual labor. Those who chose to get an
education are paid more for what they know than what they do -
physically. There is no comparison.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 12:08 pm, wrote:

On 23/01/2010 12:31 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:






wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

"Bill wrote in message
m...


wrote in message
...


"Bill wrote in message
...


wrote in message
...


On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500,
wrote:


The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no
cap
on
earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes.


As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions
and
100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the
published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and
loopholes
so they won't actually pay that.
The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to
drive
social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax
breaks, big ones.


Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate
control.


A flat tax is regressive.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually is neither Regressive or Progressive.


You're just wrong. I don't know how to say it politely.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax


No, he's not. Regression means that the more you make, the less you
pay -
hardly a flat tax. You have to remember that the theory behind the
flat
tax offers no deductions. It's a simple percentage of your income.


Didn't say regression - said regressive... and punative for those who
make
just a bit.


You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?

90,000 of course. But it is fair, for each dollar the use is the same.
Bet the $90,000 earner also worked harder. Why should he pay 30% when
the lacky gets a 10% rate? Are we penalizing those who work?


Besides, that whole position is simple-minded. In regard to taxes
there is no choice to be made as the two examples are exactly the
same... they are being taxed equally. It's an easy sixth grade math
problem.

I didn't see knuckle's (no offense intended) reply for some reason.

Yes, you're right. They're identical tax rates. My point was that a flat
tax
isn't appropriate because it's regressive for the lower earner. If you
change the lower number to something more reasonable, say $40K/year vs.
$100
(which was just a limiting case to use as an example). Someone who makes
$40K could be someone who works really hard... 10 hours/day 6 days/week,
perhaps two jobs. The person who makes $100K/yr. perhaps might only work
20
hrs./wk. We don't need to get into the socio/economic reasons, but
there's
no way to claim that the lower earner is working less hard. Yet, when you
look at a flat tax, the $40K person would keep $36K. The $100K person
would
keep $90K. Who is hurt more? Again, which salary would you pick? The
answer
is likely obvious. Are we penalizing those who work hard, but have
low-paying jobs? My answer is yes.

Let's take a progressive (e.g., non-flat tax) rate. The upper income
person
is taxed at 20% and the lower one is taxed at 5%. (Quite a difference,
right? Yet...) The numbers: Lower incomer keeps $38K. The upper incomer
keeps $80K. Clearly, the upper incomer still keeps a decent amount and
most
people would still pick being this person. Yet, the lower incomer isn't
hurt
nearly as much.


Now if one wanted to discuss compensation, then of course anyone would
take the 100k job. Of course, not everyone is qualified or able to
perform it. But that's a completely different subject.

True enough I suppose. Of course, there's baggage sometimes associated
with
higher salaries... different subject as you say.


You are making **** up. Your assumptions have no bearing on the truth:

Many low-wage employees work harder because their skill level can only get
them a job involving 9-5 actual labor. Those who chose to get an
education are paid more for what they know than what they do - physically.
There is no comparison.


"Choose to get an education." Hmm... what about those who are limited by
their native intelligence? We should punish them for doing the manual labor?

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 23/01/2010 8:14 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 12:08 pm, wrote:

On 23/01/2010 12:31 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:






wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

"Bill wrote in message
m...


wrote in message
...


"Bill wrote in message
...


wrote in message
...


On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500,
wrote:


The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no
cap
on
earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes.


As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions
and
100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the
published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and
loopholes
so they won't actually pay that.
The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to
drive
social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax
breaks, big ones.


Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate
control.


A flat tax is regressive.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually is neither Regressive or Progressive.


You're just wrong. I don't know how to say it politely.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax


No, he's not. Regression means that the more you make, the less you
pay -
hardly a flat tax. You have to remember that the theory behind the
flat
tax offers no deductions. It's a simple percentage of your income.


Didn't say regression - said regressive... and punative for those who
make
just a bit.


You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?

90,000 of course. But it is fair, for each dollar the use is the same.
Bet the $90,000 earner also worked harder. Why should he pay 30% when
the lacky gets a 10% rate? Are we penalizing those who work?


Besides, that whole position is simple-minded. In regard to taxes
there is no choice to be made as the two examples are exactly the
same... they are being taxed equally. It's an easy sixth grade math
problem.

I didn't see knuckle's (no offense intended) reply for some reason.

Yes, you're right. They're identical tax rates. My point was that a flat
tax
isn't appropriate because it's regressive for the lower earner. If you
change the lower number to something more reasonable, say $40K/year vs.
$100
(which was just a limiting case to use as an example). Someone who makes
$40K could be someone who works really hard... 10 hours/day 6 days/week,
perhaps two jobs. The person who makes $100K/yr. perhaps might only work
20
hrs./wk. We don't need to get into the socio/economic reasons, but
there's
no way to claim that the lower earner is working less hard. Yet, when you
look at a flat tax, the $40K person would keep $36K. The $100K person
would
keep $90K. Who is hurt more? Again, which salary would you pick? The
answer
is likely obvious. Are we penalizing those who work hard, but have
low-paying jobs? My answer is yes.

Let's take a progressive (e.g., non-flat tax) rate. The upper income
person
is taxed at 20% and the lower one is taxed at 5%. (Quite a difference,
right? Yet...) The numbers: Lower incomer keeps $38K. The upper incomer
keeps $80K. Clearly, the upper incomer still keeps a decent amount and
most
people would still pick being this person. Yet, the lower incomer isn't
hurt
nearly as much.


Now if one wanted to discuss compensation, then of course anyone would
take the 100k job. Of course, not everyone is qualified or able to
perform it. But that's a completely different subject.

True enough I suppose. Of course, there's baggage sometimes associated
with
higher salaries... different subject as you say.


You are making **** up. Your assumptions have no bearing on the truth:

Many low-wage employees work harder because their skill level can only get
them a job involving 9-5 actual labor. Those who chose to get an
education are paid more for what they know than what they do - physically.
There is no comparison.


"Choose to get an education." Hmm... what about those who are limited by
their native intelligence? We should punish them for doing the manual labor?

Getting through school is primarily about character, determination and
will, beyond a basic IQ that is.

For most people, their biggest roadblock is themselves.

While I can see the attraction of a utopian society where all are
treated the same, like most idealistic notions of how things work it
ignores hat humans are needy and greedy at the core. Thus in reality
falls flat on it's ass like socialism, keynesian, marxism... all a bunch
of BS.

Because only capitalism adapts to people and isn't myopic, unduely
manipulative and dogmatic.

For example, marriage, born of capitalism. Big guy hunts for food,
starving woman trades sex for food, next thing you know she is knocked
up. Decides to take care of the mans wounds so he can hunt for more, a
bond developed and they institutionalised is as marriage as civilization
developed. Capitalistic because the guy like sex and the care, and
women liked the protection and food. Equitable trade.

Capitalism will outlive them all. So get your education, the more you
have to offer that can't be found elsewhere that others want, gets you a
bigger return.

Canuck57 wrote:

For example, marriage, born of capitalism. Big guy hunts for food,
starving woman trades sex for food, next thing you know she is knocked
up.


We could have all done without your family history.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:01:59 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:



For most people, their biggest roadblock is themselves.

While I can see the attraction of a utopian society where all are
treated the same, like most idealistic notions of how things work it
ignores hat humans are needy and greedy at the core. Thus in reality
falls flat on it's ass like socialism, keynesian, marxism... all a bunch
of BS.

it's laughable watching the right wing spin in the wind after the
collapse of their religious beliefs in the 'efficient market'. hell,
even conservative economists like richard posner are abandoning the
idea of the 'efficient market'.

why? because of the evidence. we had a virtually unregulated free
market in this country...and it nearly destroyed us.

when i was a freshman at carnegie mellon, we had a nobel prize winner
economist, herbert simon, who was a pioneer in behavorial economics.

and albert lo, at MIT, along with simon johnson of MIT, are looking
at the EVIDENCE to develop and integrate simon's work into a concept
called 'adaptive market' economics based not on the failed ideas of
the religously based 'efficient market', but on how people actually
behave

but, to the right wing, like 'canuck', following his blind master,
rush limbaugh, no amount of evidence will convince them their religion
is false. he'll just continue to blather about his faith, his emotions
and his failed ideas

and call every other idea 'socialism'

that's what happens when your religion collapses.


Because only capitalism adapts to people and isn't myopic, unduely
manipulative and dogmatic.

For example, marriage, born of capitalism.

ROFLMAO!!! marriage born of capitalism? kind of like when women and
children weren't human but were property?

yes, THAT aspect of right wing ideology survives. right wingers
generally see employees as property, not human

Big guy hunts for food,
starving woman trades sex for food, next thing you know she is knocked
up. Decides to take care of the mans wounds so he can hunt for more, a
bond developed and they institutionalised is as marriage as civilization
developed. Capitalistic because the guy like sex and the care, and
women liked the protection and food. Equitable trade.

Capitalism will outlive them all. So get your education, the more you
have to offer that can't be found elsewhere that others want, gets you a
bigger return.

capitalism will oultive them all?

except the 'efficient market' simply doesn't work

that's what the EVIDENCE shows. people who dont let their emotions run
their lives live in the real world

those who DO let emotion run their lives are right wingers

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 23/01/2010 8:14 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 12:08 pm, wrote:

On 23/01/2010 12:31 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:






wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

"Bill wrote in message
m...


wrote in message
...


"Bill wrote in message
...


wrote in message
...


On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500,

wrote:


The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be
no
cap
on
earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes.


As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign
contributions
and
100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the
published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and
loopholes
so they won't actually pay that.
The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to
drive
social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax
breaks, big ones.


Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate
control.


A flat tax is regressive.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually is neither Regressive or Progressive.


You're just wrong. I don't know how to say it politely.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax


No, he's not. Regression means that the more you make, the less you
pay -
hardly a flat tax. You have to remember that the theory behind the
flat
tax offers no deductions. It's a simple percentage of your income.


Didn't say regression - said regressive... and punative for those who
make
just a bit.


You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to
keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?

90,000 of course. But it is fair, for each dollar the use is the same.
Bet the $90,000 earner also worked harder. Why should he pay 30% when
the lacky gets a 10% rate? Are we penalizing those who work?


Besides, that whole position is simple-minded. In regard to taxes
there is no choice to be made as the two examples are exactly the
same... they are being taxed equally. It's an easy sixth grade math
problem.

I didn't see knuckle's (no offense intended) reply for some reason.

Yes, you're right. They're identical tax rates. My point was that a
flat
tax
isn't appropriate because it's regressive for the lower earner. If you
change the lower number to something more reasonable, say $40K/year vs.
$100
(which was just a limiting case to use as an example). Someone who
makes
$40K could be someone who works really hard... 10 hours/day 6
days/week,
perhaps two jobs. The person who makes $100K/yr. perhaps might only
work
20
hrs./wk. We don't need to get into the socio/economic reasons, but
there's
no way to claim that the lower earner is working less hard. Yet, when
you
look at a flat tax, the $40K person would keep $36K. The $100K person
would
keep $90K. Who is hurt more? Again, which salary would you pick? The
answer
is likely obvious. Are we penalizing those who work hard, but have
low-paying jobs? My answer is yes.

Let's take a progressive (e.g., non-flat tax) rate. The upper income
person
is taxed at 20% and the lower one is taxed at 5%. (Quite a difference,
right? Yet...) The numbers: Lower incomer keeps $38K. The upper incomer
keeps $80K. Clearly, the upper incomer still keeps a decent amount and
most
people would still pick being this person. Yet, the lower incomer isn't
hurt
nearly as much.


Now if one wanted to discuss compensation, then of course anyone would
take the 100k job. Of course, not everyone is qualified or able to
perform it. But that's a completely different subject.

True enough I suppose. Of course, there's baggage sometimes associated
with
higher salaries... different subject as you say.


You are making **** up. Your assumptions have no bearing on the truth:

Many low-wage employees work harder because their skill level can only
get
them a job involving 9-5 actual labor. Those who chose to get an
education are paid more for what they know than what they do -
physically.
There is no comparison.


"Choose to get an education." Hmm... what about those who are limited by
their native intelligence? We should punish them for doing the manual
labor?

Getting through school is primarily about character, determination and
will, beyond a basic IQ that is.

For most people, their biggest roadblock is themselves.

While I can see the attraction of a utopian society where all are treated
the same, like most idealistic notions of how things work it ignores hat
humans are needy and greedy at the core. Thus in reality falls flat on
it's ass like socialism, keynesian, marxism... all a bunch of BS.

Because only capitalism adapts to people and isn't myopic, unduely
manipulative and dogmatic.

For example, marriage, born of capitalism. Big guy hunts for food,
starving woman trades sex for food, next thing you know she is knocked up.
Decides to take care of the mans wounds so he can hunt for more, a bond
developed and they institutionalised is as marriage as civilization
developed. Capitalistic because the guy like sex and the care, and women
liked the protection and food. Equitable trade.

Capitalism will outlive them all. So get your education, the more you
have to offer that can't be found elsewhere that others want, gets you a
bigger return.


You really need to take a pill. Capitalism without regulation doesn't work.
Get it through your head.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:58:21 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:01:59 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

While I can see the attraction of a utopian society where all are
treated the same, like most idealistic notions of how things work it
ignores hat humans are needy and greedy at the core. Thus in reality
falls flat on it's ass like socialism, keynesian, marxism... all a bunch
of BS.

That is true. In every society where "everyone" is treated the same,
they are treated as slaves, with an over class that lives like kings.

yeah who needs all that bull**** about 'all men are created equal,
endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights'...

is there anything less american than that...the right wing wants to
know!!

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 12:08 pm, wrote:


On 23/01/2010 12:31 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:







wrote in message
...


nom=de=plume wrote:


"Bill wrote in message
m...



wrote in message
...



"Bill wrote in message
...



wrote in message
...



On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500,
wrote:



The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no
cap
on
earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes.



As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions
and
100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the
published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and
loopholes
so they won't actually pay that.
The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to
drive
social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax
breaks, big ones.



Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate
control.



A flat tax is regressive.



--
Nom=de=Plume



Actually is neither Regressive or Progressive.



You're just wrong. I don't know how to say it politely.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax



No, he's not. Regression means that the more you make, the less you
pay -
hardly a flat tax. You have to remember that the theory behind the
flat
tax offers no deductions. It's a simple percentage of your income.



Didn't say regression - said regressive... and punative for those who
make
just a bit.



You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?


90,000 of course. But it is fair, for each dollar the use is the same.
Bet the $90,000 earner also worked harder. Why should he pay 30% when
the lacky gets a 10% rate? Are we penalizing those who work?



Besides, that whole position is simple-minded. In regard to taxes
there is no choice to be made as the two examples are exactly the
same... they are being taxed equally. It's an easy sixth grade math
problem.


I didn't see knuckle's (no offense intended) reply for some reason.

Yes, you're right. They're identical tax rates. My point was that a flat
tax
isn't appropriate because it's regressive for the lower earner. If you
change the lower number to something more reasonable, say $40K/year vs.
$100
(which was just a limiting case to use as an example). Someone who makes
$40K could be someone who works really hard... 10 hours/day 6 days/week,
perhaps two jobs. The person who makes $100K/yr. perhaps might only work
20
hrs./wk. We don't need to get into the socio/economic reasons, but
there's
no way to claim that the lower earner is working less hard. Yet, when you
look at a flat tax, the $40K person would keep $36K. The $100K person
would
keep $90K. Who is hurt more? Again, which salary would you pick? The
answer
is likely obvious. Are we penalizing those who work hard, but have
low-paying jobs? My answer is yes.

Let's take a progressive (e.g., non-flat tax) rate. The upper income
person
is taxed at 20% and the lower one is taxed at 5%. (Quite a difference,
right? Yet...) The numbers: Lower incomer keeps $38K. The upper incomer
keeps $80K. Clearly, the upper incomer still keeps a decent amount and
most
people would still pick being this person. Yet, the lower incomer isn't
hurt
nearly as much.



Now if one wanted to discuss compensation, then of course anyone would
take the 100k job. Of course, not everyone is qualified or able to
perform it. But that's a completely different subject.


True enough I suppose. Of course, there's baggage sometimes associated
with
higher salaries... different subject as you say.



You are making **** up. Your assumptions have no bearing on the truth:

Many low-wage employees work harder because their skill level can only get
them a job involving 9-5 actual labor. Those who chose to get an
education are paid more for what they know than what they do - physically.
There is no comparison.


"Choose to get an education." Hmm... what about those who are limited by
their native intelligence? We should punish them for doing the manual labor?


Why were they limited to their "street smarts"? It wasn't the government.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 12:08 pm, wrote:


On 23/01/2010 12:31 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:







wrote in message
...


nom=de=plume wrote:


"Bill wrote in message
m...



wrote in message
...



"Bill wrote in message
...



wrote in message
...



On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500,

wrote:



The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be
no
cap
on
earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes.



As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign
contributions
and
100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the
published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and
loopholes
so they won't actually pay that.
The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to
drive
social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax
breaks, big ones.



Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate
control.



A flat tax is regressive.



--
Nom=de=Plume



Actually is neither Regressive or Progressive.



You're just wrong. I don't know how to say it politely.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax



No, he's not. Regression means that the more you make, the less you
pay -
hardly a flat tax. You have to remember that the theory behind the
flat
tax offers no deductions. It's a simple percentage of your income.



Didn't say regression - said regressive... and punative for those who
make
just a bit.



You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to
keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?


90,000 of course. But it is fair, for each dollar the use is the same.
Bet the $90,000 earner also worked harder. Why should he pay 30% when
the lacky gets a 10% rate? Are we penalizing those who work?



Besides, that whole position is simple-minded. In regard to taxes
there is no choice to be made as the two examples are exactly the
same... they are being taxed equally. It's an easy sixth grade math
problem.


I didn't see knuckle's (no offense intended) reply for some reason.

Yes, you're right. They're identical tax rates. My point was that a
flat
tax
isn't appropriate because it's regressive for the lower earner. If you
change the lower number to something more reasonable, say $40K/year vs.
$100
(which was just a limiting case to use as an example). Someone who
makes
$40K could be someone who works really hard... 10 hours/day 6
days/week,
perhaps two jobs. The person who makes $100K/yr. perhaps might only
work
20
hrs./wk. We don't need to get into the socio/economic reasons, but
there's
no way to claim that the lower earner is working less hard. Yet, when
you
look at a flat tax, the $40K person would keep $36K. The $100K person
would
keep $90K. Who is hurt more? Again, which salary would you pick? The
answer
is likely obvious. Are we penalizing those who work hard, but have
low-paying jobs? My answer is yes.

Let's take a progressive (e.g., non-flat tax) rate. The upper income
person
is taxed at 20% and the lower one is taxed at 5%. (Quite a difference,
right? Yet...) The numbers: Lower incomer keeps $38K. The upper incomer
keeps $80K. Clearly, the upper incomer still keeps a decent amount and
most
people would still pick being this person. Yet, the lower incomer isn't
hurt
nearly as much.



Now if one wanted to discuss compensation, then of course anyone would
take the 100k job. Of course, not everyone is qualified or able to
perform it. But that's a completely different subject.


True enough I suppose. Of course, there's baggage sometimes associated
with
higher salaries... different subject as you say.



You are making **** up. Your assumptions have no bearing on the truth:

Many low-wage employees work harder because their skill level can only
get
them a job involving 9-5 actual labor. Those who chose to get an
education are paid more for what they know than what they do -
physically.
There is no comparison.


"Choose to get an education." Hmm... what about those who are limited by
their native intelligence? We should punish them for doing the manual
labor?


Why were they limited to their "street smarts"? It wasn't the government.


I guess some people just aren't going to be brain surgeons.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


nom=de=plume wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 12:08 pm, wrote:



On 23/01/2010 12:31 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:








wrote in message
...



nom=de=plume wrote:



"Bill wrote in message
m...




wrote in message
...




"Bill wrote in message
...




wrote in message
...




On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500,

wrote:




The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be
no
cap
on
earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes.




As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign
contributions
and
100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the
published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and
loopholes
so they won't actually pay that.
The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to
drive
social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax
breaks, big ones.




Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate
control.




A flat tax is regressive.




--
Nom=de=Plume




Actually is neither Regressive or Progressive.




You're just wrong. I don't know how to say it politely.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax




No, he's not. Regression means that the more you make, the less you
pay -
hardly a flat tax. You have to remember that the theory behind the
flat
tax offers no deductions. It's a simple percentage of your income.




Didn't say regression - said regressive... and punative for those who
make
just a bit.




You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to
keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?



90,000 of course. But it is fair, for each dollar the use is the same.
Bet the $90,000 earner also worked harder. Why should he pay 30% when
the lacky gets a 10% rate? Are we penalizing those who work?




Besides, that whole position is simple-minded. In regard to taxes
there is no choice to be made as the two examples are exactly the
same... they are being taxed equally. It's an easy sixth grade math
problem.



I didn't see knuckle's (no offense intended) reply for some reason.

Yes, you're right. They're identical tax rates. My point was that a
flat
tax
isn't appropriate because it's regressive for the lower earner. If you
change the lower number to something more reasonable, say $40K/year vs.
$100
(which was just a limiting case to use as an example). Someone who
makes
$40K could be someone who works really hard... 10 hours/day 6
days/week,
perhaps two jobs. The person who makes $100K/yr. perhaps might only
work
20
hrs./wk. We don't need to get into the socio/economic reasons, but
there's
no way to claim that the lower earner is working less hard. Yet, when
you
look at a flat tax, the $40K person would keep $36K. The $100K person
would
keep $90K. Who is hurt more? Again, which salary would you pick? The
answer
is likely obvious. Are we penalizing those who work hard, but have
low-paying jobs? My answer is yes.

Let's take a progressive (e.g., non-flat tax) rate. The upper income
person
is taxed at 20% and the lower one is taxed at 5%. (Quite a difference,
right? Yet...) The numbers: Lower incomer keeps $38K. The upper incomer
keeps $80K. Clearly, the upper incomer still keeps a decent amount and
most
people would still pick being this person. Yet, the lower incomer isn't
hurt
nearly as much.




Now if one wanted to discuss compensation, then of course anyone would
take the 100k job. Of course, not everyone is qualified or able to
perform it. But that's a completely different subject.



True enough I suppose. Of course, there's baggage sometimes associated
with
higher salaries... different subject as you say.




You are making **** up. Your assumptions have no bearing on the truth:

Many low-wage employees work harder because their skill level can only
get
them a job involving 9-5 actual labor. Those who chose to get an
education are paid more for what they know than what they do -
physically.
There is no comparison.


"Choose to get an education." Hmm... what about those who are limited by
their native intelligence? We should punish them for doing the manual
labor?



Why were they limited to their "street smarts"? It wasn't the government.


I guess some people just aren't going to be brain surgeons.


You have no middle ground. It's one extreme or the other. Don't get
caught in a public debate.