Scooby Doo wrote:
Income is something that is EARNED, it is not manna from heaven that
just appears.

Correct. All the laws, principles, customs, etc etc of society go into
creating an economic network where some people EARN a lot of money and
others don't.

Did anybody singlehanded created the entire socio-economic network they
live & work in?



... In contrast, a high income person receives, indeed is
entitled to, exactly the same government protections as a low income
person. Less, in fact, if one counts transfer payments.


Wrong. A rich person receives more in the exact proportion that he HAS more.

WHy do you not simply go to rich persons house and demand his fancy car?
Because society would force unpleasant consequences on you. Of course,
they would force the same consequences on a rich person if he demanded
your car at gunpoint, but why would he? He already has a better car,
probably more than one.

Actually, no... society wouldn't force the same circumstances. The law
is much less harsh to the rich. If you doubt that, take a look at how
many millionaires get put on death row for murder.


It's even funnier
when low income people complain about the tax rates of rich people...


Just proves some low income people are intelligent

No, I'd say the opposite.

Another funny thing... a lot of the same people who are highly PO'd
about rich people's taxes (they EARN that money!) are also PO'd about
inheritance taxes.... let me guess, those people worked hard to choose
their parents!

DSK

"Scooby Doo" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote in
:

PocoLoco wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:56:49 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?
Does it matter?

What percent of the overall personal wealth of the coountry does
that 5% own? Is it more or less than the percent of taxes? What
about the percent of income?

Now, why shouldn't a person (or group of people) who have absurdly
large incomes pay absurdly large taxes? Maybe because they hand over
bigger campaign donations?

DSK
What does ownership of assets have to do with income tax?

I pay property tax on real estate and property tax on automobiles. I
pay tax on interest earned, but not on the principal. Is it your
contention that I should?

Those who have absurd incomes should pay absurd taxes, but at the
same rate as everyone else.


Why? Why shouldn't they pay a higher rate?

Because they're not receiving more in essential government services
financed by income taxes than anyone else. To the contrary, they finance
government giveaways to those with lower incomes.

Because it treats everyone equally......... because it creates economic
growth.....hell, even the Russians figured that one out.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007174

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:05:06 GMT, Scooby Doo wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in
:

PocoLoco wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:56:49 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?
Does it matter?

What percent of the overall personal wealth of the coountry does
that 5% own? Is it more or less than the percent of taxes? What
about the percent of income?

Now, why shouldn't a person (or group of people) who have absurdly
large incomes pay absurdly large taxes? Maybe because they hand over
bigger campaign donations?

DSK
What does ownership of assets have to do with income tax?

I pay property tax on real estate and property tax on automobiles. I
pay tax on interest earned, but not on the principal. Is it your
contention that I should?

Those who have absurd incomes should pay absurd taxes, but at the
same rate as everyone else.


Why? Why shouldn't they pay a higher rate?

Because they're not receiving more in essential government services
financed by income taxes than anyone else. To the contrary, they finance
government giveaways to those with lower incomes.

Thanks, Scooby. I can't see krause's stuff. I would have just said, "Why should
they?"

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:35:08 -0400, DSK wrote:

Scooby Doo wrote:
Income is something that is EARNED, it is not manna from heaven that
just appears.

Correct. All the laws, principles, customs, etc etc of society go into
creating an economic network where some people EARN a lot of money and
others don't.

Did anybody singlehanded created the entire socio-economic network they
live & work in?



... In contrast, a high income person receives, indeed is
entitled to, exactly the same government protections as a low income
person. Less, in fact, if one counts transfer payments.


Wrong. A rich person receives more in the exact proportion that he HAS more.

WHy do you not simply go to rich persons house and demand his fancy car?
Because society would force unpleasant consequences on you. Of course,
they would force the same consequences on a rich person if he demanded
your car at gunpoint, but why would he? He already has a better car,
probably more than one.

Actually, no... society wouldn't force the same circumstances. The law
is much less harsh to the rich. If you doubt that, take a look at how
many millionaires get put on death row for murder.


It's even funnier
when low income people complain about the tax rates of rich people...


Just proves some low income people are intelligent

No, I'd say the opposite.

Another funny thing... a lot of the same people who are highly PO'd
about rich people's taxes (they EARN that money!) are also PO'd about
inheritance taxes.... let me guess, those people worked hard to choose
their parents!

DSK

What a whine! Would it be better if everyone made the same amount of money and
paid the same taxes? If all men had the same assets and income, would that be
your utopia?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:11:37 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
Those who have absurd incomes should pay absurd taxes, but at the same rate as
everyone else.

So, you're a flat-taxer? Are you aware that all flat tax schemes are
REgressive, ie the poor pay a higher share?

The wealthy enjoy greater benefits from the society that supports them.
Why should they not pay a *greater* much less an equal share of the
needed support?

DSK

The poor pay a higher share than whom?

If we all paid 25% of our income, then we'd all be paying 25% of our income!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:35:08 -0400, DSK wrote:

Scooby Doo wrote:
Income is something that is EARNED, it is not manna from heaven that
just appears.

Correct. All the laws, principles, customs, etc etc of society go into
creating an economic network where some people EARN a lot of money and
others don't.

Did anybody singlehanded created the entire socio-economic network they
live & work in?



... In contrast, a high income person receives, indeed is
entitled to, exactly the same government protections as a low income
person. Less, in fact, if one counts transfer payments.


Wrong. A rich person receives more in the exact proportion that he HAS
more.

WHy do you not simply go to rich persons house and demand his fancy car?
Because society would force unpleasant consequences on you. Of course,
they would force the same consequences on a rich person if he demanded
your car at gunpoint, but why would he? He already has a better car,
probably more than one.

Actually, no... society wouldn't force the same circumstances. The law
is much less harsh to the rich. If you doubt that, take a look at how
many millionaires get put on death row for murder.


It's even funnier
when low income people complain about the tax rates of rich people...


Just proves some low income people are intelligent

No, I'd say the opposite.

Another funny thing... a lot of the same people who are highly PO'd
about rich people's taxes (they EARN that money!) are also PO'd about
inheritance taxes.... let me guess, those people worked hard to choose
their parents!

DSK

What a whine! Would it be better if everyone made the same amount of money
and
paid the same taxes? If all men had the same assets and income, would that
be
your utopia?

Ir is scary that there are actually people out there that think like dsk

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:11:37 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
Those who have absurd incomes should pay absurd taxes, but at the same
rate as
everyone else.

So, you're a flat-taxer? Are you aware that all flat tax schemes are
REgressive, ie the poor pay a higher share?

The wealthy enjoy greater benefits from the society that supports them.
Why should they not pay a *greater* much less an equal share of the
needed support?

DSK

The poor pay a higher share than whom?

If we all paid 25% of our income, then we'd all be paying 25% of our
income!

It is a typical liebral ploy to try and redefine words.......

The rest of the word is catching on to the flat tax, unfortunately the
brain dead liebrals in this country insist on taking us down the
"progressive": dead end road.......even the Russians figured it out.




--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Another funny thing... a lot of the same people who are highly PO'd
about rich people's taxes (they EARN that money!) are also PO'd about
inheritance taxes.... let me guess, those people worked hard to choose
their parents!


PocoLoco wrote:
What a whine!

Excuse me?

... Would it be better if everyone made the same amount of money and
paid the same taxes?

No.
Please point out where I said it would be.

...If all men had the same assets and income, would that be
your utopia?

Can you simply put forth some facts & logic, instead of making up things
you wish the other guy had said?

DSK

PocoLoco wrote:
The poor pay a higher share than whom?


They currently pay a higher share than the wealthy.

If we all paid 25% of our income, then we'd all be paying 25% of our income!

Let's use some simple hypothetical numbers.

If all the people earning less than $30K per year earn 30% of the income
in the nation, then wouldn't it be fair if they paid 30% of the income
tax burden?

If the people earning over $200K per year have 50% of the nations
income, then they *should* pay more than 50% of the nation's income tax.

Wouldn't that be fair?

DSK

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:10:56 -0400, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


"PocoLoco" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:11:37 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
Those who have absurd incomes should pay absurd taxes, but at the same
rate as
everyone else.

So, you're a flat-taxer? Are you aware that all flat tax schemes are
REgressive, ie the poor pay a higher share?

The wealthy enjoy greater benefits from the society that supports them.
Why should they not pay a *greater* much less an equal share of the
needed support?

DSK

The poor pay a higher share than whom?

If we all paid 25% of our income, then we'd all be paying 25% of our
income!

It is a typical liebral ploy to try and redefine words.......

The rest of the word is catching on to the flat tax, unfortunately the
brain dead liebrals in this country insist on taking us down the
"progressive": dead end road.......even the Russians figured it out.


Crazy.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."