"DSK" wrote in message
...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
I am not a fiscal Puritan in that I despise all taxes. I'm willing to
pay my fair share into the common wealth of the nation. And I believe
that my share should be the same as people who are less well off and
those more well off - I worked hard for my money, ruined my overall
health doing it and I want to keep it. For that, I'm willing to pay,
right off the top - no excuses, 15% of what I make every year even
though I'm retired.

Sorry, but the way things are run nowadays 15% from everybody would result
in either disastrous deficits or huge cuts in gov't spending... probably
both.

Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto
penalty on the poor,

How so?

and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most
from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more?


The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so?

Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto
penalty on the poor,


JimH wrote:
How so?

Because prices for goods & services are fixed, not sliding scale. Poor
people pay a greater percent of their income for basic food, clothing,
housing, etc etc... in many cases falling short of even that.



and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most
from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more?


The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so?

Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff

Slightly more advanced- the gov't services that the wealthy use are much
more expensive- for example, court procedings involving tenantry & land
rights, along with the whole range of services from vessel documentation
to passport issuance, for which the gov't charges a nominal fee but
loses money.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto
penalty on the poor,


JimH wrote:
How so?

Because prices for goods & services are fixed, not sliding scale. Poor
people pay a greater percent of their income for basic food, clothing,
housing, etc etc... in many cases falling short of even that.

Prices are not fixed. I can buy a pair of jeans for $10 or $100. I can buy
a t shirt for $3 or $150. They both wear the same and serve the same
purpose.

I can also buy more when I have more money so the percent of my income going
for food, clothing and housing could actually be greater than those with
lesser incomes.

Finally, no one has talked about taxing food or housing.





and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most
from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more?


The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so?

Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff

Slightly more advanced- the gov't services that the wealthy use are much
more expensive- for example, court procedings involving tenantry & land
rights, along with the whole range of services from vessel documentation
to passport issuance, for which the gov't charges a nominal fee but loses
money.

DSK


That was not an answer. In fact, it was a bunch of baloney.

A case can easily be made that the poor in fact benefit more from gov't
services than the wealthy. Welfare, housing supplements, food stamps,
health care subsidies....the list goes on and on. And in many cases, those
same folks pay absolutely no taxes.

The majority of time spent by the police is in the poor/high crime areas of
the city. Cities are also dumping more and more money per pupil on
education in the poorer sections of the city in an attempt to improve
education (money will not solve this problem).

The poor definitely benefit more from the gov't than even the middle class.

JimH wrote:
Prices are not fixed. I can buy a pair of jeans for $10 or $100. I can buy
a t shirt for $3 or $150. They both wear the same and serve the same
purpose.

So, if you are rich and want to buy a pair of jeans, they charge you
$100? If you are poor, the same store sells the same jeans for $10?

Where is this? It is certainly not happening in my part of the country.

The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so?

Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff


That was not an answer. In fact, it was a bunch of baloney.

Oh really? Can you answer in terms that don't make it obvious that your
mind is extremely closed?


A case can easily be made that the poor in fact benefit more from gov't
services than the wealthy.

Yes it can, but that case is based on a lot of misconceptions and
wishful thinking.


... Welfare, housing supplements, food stamps,
health care subsidies....the list goes on and on.

If you think those are "benefits" then why don't you live on them?

Does the welfare system cost the gov't more than the court system? More
than the military? More than the service on the federal debt?


... And in many cases, those
same folks pay absolutely no taxes.

When you have absolutely no money, it's difficult to pay taxes.




The majority of time spent by the police is in the poor/high crime areas of
the city.

And this is for the benefit of the poor?? No, it is to keep them from
stealing *your* stuff.

For example, do you find more poor people in prison, or rich people?
Hey, usually most long term inmates have incomes below $50,000/yr!
Therefor they are getting a tremendous gov't benefit at the expense of
wealthier taxpayers!


The poor definitely benefit more from the gov't than even the middle class.

Yeah, right.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
news
JimH wrote:
Prices are not fixed. I can buy a pair of jeans for $10 or $100. I can
buy a t shirt for $3 or $150. They both wear the same and serve the same
purpose.

So, if you are rich and want to buy a pair of jeans, they charge you $100?
If you are poor, the same store sells the same jeans for $10?

Where is this? It is certainly not happening in my part of the country.

I guess my logic went right over your head. I will not bother to try to
explain it to you.



The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so?

Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff


That was not an answer. In fact, it was a bunch of baloney.

Oh really? Can you answer in terms that don't make it obvious that your
mind is extremely closed?


A case can easily be made that the poor in fact benefit more from gov't
services than the wealthy.

Yes it can, but that case is based on a lot of misconceptions and wishful
thinking.


... Welfare, housing supplements, food stamps, health care
subsidies....the list goes on and on.

If you think those are "benefits" then why don't you live on them?

They are not benefits? What are they then?


Does the welfare system cost the gov't more than the court system? More
than the military? More than the service on the federal debt?

The rich benefit more from those services than the poor? How about some
links to back up your claim.




... And in many cases, those same folks pay absolutely no taxes.

When you have absolutely no money, it's difficult to pay taxes.



Thanks for making my case.




The majority of time spent by the police is in the poor/high crime areas
of the city.

And this is for the benefit of the poor?? No, it is to keep them from
stealing *your* stuff.

Police protection is a benefit. What would you call it?


For example, do you find more poor people in prison, or rich people? Hey,
usually most long term inmates have incomes below $50,000/yr! Therefor
they are getting a tremendous gov't benefit at the expense of wealthier
taxpayers!

And that is the fault of the wealthy?



The poor definitely benefit more from the gov't than even the middle
class.

Yeah, right.

Yep.

JimH wrote:
I guess my logic went right over your head. I will not bother to try to
explain it to you.

Uh, yeah.... I often miss the point of "logic" that leaves out facts and
includes a lot of prejudice & wishful thinking.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
I guess my logic went right over your head. I will not bother to try to
explain it to you.

Uh, yeah.... I often miss the point of "logic" that leaves out facts and
includes a lot of prejudice & wishful thinking.

DSK


Such as?

"DSK" wrote in message
news
JimH wrote:
Prices are not fixed. I can buy a pair of jeans for $10 or $100. I can
buy a t shirt for $3 or $150. They both wear the same and serve the same
purpose.

So, if you are rich and want to buy a pair of jeans, they charge you $100?
If you are poor, the same store sells the same jeans for $10?

Where is this? It is certainly not happening in my part of the country.

The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so?

Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff


That was not an answer. In fact, it was a bunch of baloney.

Oh really? Can you answer in terms that don't make it obvious that your
mind is extremely closed?


A case can easily be made that the poor in fact benefit more from gov't
services than the wealthy.

Yes it can, but that case is based on a lot of misconceptions and wishful
thinking.


... Welfare, housing supplements, food stamps, health care
subsidies....the list goes on and on.

If you think those are "benefits" then why don't you live on them?

We were originally discussing who "benefits" more from gov't services....not
which gov't services are considered a benefit.

Stick to the topic please.