On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:20:15 -0400, DSK wrote:

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


I didn't say you said anything. I asked you a question after stating an opinion
of your post.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:23:01 -0400, DSK wrote:

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

If those making less than $30,000 paid 30% of their income, then those making
$200,000 should pay 30% of their income. The first group would pay $9000, and
the second would pay $60,000. What's not fair about that?

Now, go back and answer the questions in my other post.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:13:01 -0400, PocoLoco wrote:


If those making less than $30,000 paid 30% of their income, then those
making $200,000 should pay 30% of their income. The first group would pay
$9000, and the second would pay $60,000. What's not fair about that?

Well, for one thing, individual income taxes account for only 44% of
federal revenues. If you want to talk "fair", don't you think you should
be including *all* federal revenues, including the regressive ones.

Now, go back and answer the questions in my other post.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:43:07 -0400, thunder wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:13:01 -0400, PocoLoco wrote:


If those making less than $30,000 paid 30% of their income, then those
making $200,000 should pay 30% of their income. The first group would pay
$9000, and the second would pay $60,000. What's not fair about that?

Well, for one thing, individual income taxes account for only 44% of
federal revenues. If you want to talk "fair", don't you think you should
be including *all* federal revenues, including the regressive ones.

Now, go back and answer the questions in my other post.

Examples?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:23:01 -0400, DSK wrote:

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

If those making less than $30,000 paid 30% of their income, then those
making
$200,000 should pay 30% of their income. The first group would pay
$9000, and
the second would pay $60,000. What's not fair about that?

Now, go back and answer the questions in my other post.

It is scary that there are people out there that think like dsk

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

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


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.


Great point! Now, we should be looking to the Russians for leadership.

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?


PocoLoco wrote:
If those making less than $30,000 paid 30% of their income, then those making
$200,000 should pay 30% of their income. The first group would pay $9000, and
the second would pay $60,000. What's not fair about that?

Now, go back and answer the questions in my other post.

I asked you first. Is the math too complex for you?

As for what's "not fair" about a flat tax, it's a matter of what you see
as "fair." I don't have a big problem with a flat tax, but it is
regressive... ie the less wealthy pay a higher share of overal tax
revenue, and it cuts into their livable income more (thus is bad for the
economy). I'd prefer a progressive tax, where the burden is
1- distributed more equitably
2- those who gain the most benefit pay more
3- provides more revenue to the gov't relative to the impact on the economy.

*Now* can you answer my question? What's not fair about a progressive
tax which distributes the income tax burden equitably across income
brackets?

DSK

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
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.

"Under a flat income tax there would be one rate--Mr. Forbes recommends 17%,
with a personal exemption of $13,000 per adult and $4,000 per child or
dependant, along with a $1,000 per child tax credit. Thus a family of four
would pay no federal income tax on its first $46,000 of income. There would
be no double taxation of dividends, no capital gains taxes, death taxes, or
taxes on Social Security benefits. The tax return would be simpler and
easier to fill out: From your wages and salary subtract your personal and
dependent exemptions and multiply the result by 17%. It would almost be a
tax on a postcard, a huge improvement over the massive complexity of the
Internal Revenue Code. (Corporate profits would be taxed at a flat 17% too.)


So what would the impact of such a system be on Federal tax receipts? Very
positive, because income tax rate reductions tend to raise income tax
receipts. The Kennedy income tax cuts of the 1960s reduced top rates from
91% to 71% and boosted revenues by one-third, raising the four-year average
annual tax revenue growth from 2.1% to 8.6%. The Reagan tax rate reductions
of the 1980s saw tax revenue increase 56% over eight years.
The reason for such increases in tax receipts is economic growth--lower tax
rates mean higher economic growth, more investments, more jobs, greater
incentive for people to work harder to earn more money, and thus the economy
expands, which in turn means more government tax revenue."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110007183




--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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?


PocoLoco wrote:
If those making less than $30,000 paid 30% of their income, then those
making
$200,000 should pay 30% of their income. The first group would pay $9000,
and
the second would pay $60,000. What's not fair about that?

Now, go back and answer the questions in my other post.

I asked you first. Is the math too complex for you?

As for what's "not fair" about a flat tax, it's a matter of what you see
as "fair." I don't have a big problem with a flat tax, but it is
regressive... ie the less wealthy pay a higher share of overal tax
revenue, and it cuts into their livable income more (thus is bad for the
economy). I'd prefer a progressive tax, where the burden is
1- distributed more equitably
2- those who gain the most benefit pay more


Great idea! If you're on welfare...pay more. If you're on Medicare...pay
more. If you're on Social Security...pay more. If you live in a
crime-ridden area requiring a higher level of police protection...pay more.
If you ride public transit...pay more.




3- provides more revenue to the gov't relative to the impact on the
economy.

*Now* can you answer my question? What's not fair about a progressive tax
which distributes the income tax burden equitably across income brackets?

The progressive tax system that we currently use has the top 1% of wage
earners paying 32% of the taxes. The top 5% paying 50.1%. The top 10%
paying 63.5%. And the top 20% paying 78% of all income taxes.

So the "less wealthy" (as you like to call them) only pay 20% of the tax
burden. Is that equitable?

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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?


PocoLoco wrote:
If those making less than $30,000 paid 30% of their income, then those
making
$200,000 should pay 30% of their income. The first group would pay
$9000,
and
the second would pay $60,000. What's not fair about that?

Now, go back and answer the questions in my other post.

I asked you first. Is the math too complex for you?

As for what's "not fair" about a flat tax, it's a matter of what you see
as "fair." I don't have a big problem with a flat tax, but it is
regressive... ie the less wealthy pay a higher share of overal tax
revenue, and it cuts into their livable income more (thus is bad for the
economy). I'd prefer a progressive tax, where the burden is
1- distributed more equitably
2- those who gain the most benefit pay more


Great idea! If you're on welfare...pay more. If you're on Medicare...pay
more. If you're on Social Security...pay more. If you live in a
crime-ridden area requiring a higher level of police protection...pay
more.
If you ride public transit...pay more.




3- provides more revenue to the gov't relative to the impact on the
economy.

*Now* can you answer my question? What's not fair about a progressive
tax
which distributes the income tax burden equitably across income
brackets?

The progressive tax system that we currently use has the top 1% of wage
earners paying 32% of the taxes. The top 5% paying 50.1%. The top 10%
paying 63.5%. And the top 20% paying 78% of all income taxes.

So the "less wealthy" (as you like to call them) only pay 20% of the tax
burden. Is that equitable?

Nor is it smart.............taxes are a punishment (just look at the so
called "sin taxes") Only a liebral would want to punish the most productive
members of society the most........(and ignore basic economics at the same
time)

"The Kennedy income tax cuts of the 1960s reduced top rates from 91% to 71%
and boosted revenues by one-third, raising the four-year average annual tax
revenue growth from 2.1% to 8.6%. The Reagan tax rate reductions of the
1980s saw tax revenue increase 56% over eight years."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110007183