They don't "have it made". But their benefit vs. taxes-paid ratio is
much, much higher than that of richer folks.

If that were true, then people in general would be seeking those benefits
by becoming poor, instead of scrabbling to claw their way up the
socio-economic ladder.



NOYB wrote:
Despite the extra tax burden that comes along with doing so, it is still
more self-satisfying and rewarding to "scrabble and claw" ones way up the
socio-economic ladder.

You're claiming that the more one works to achieve higher income, the
less one is motivated by well-being, security, and the ratio of effort
expended to benefit received?

Sounds kind of like you're trying to say that rich people are dumber
than poor ones.



NOYB: 1
DSK: 0

You lose a point for being the first one to turn to name-calling.


Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that referring to you & your buds as "knee
jerk fascists" was name calling. It's an entirely accurate description
(which is all I intended), and I'm trying to help you keep your cover,
comrade

DSK

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

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

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
The hospitals down here are private. And the high fees that the
hospital
charges me and my insurance company helps subsidize the folks who show
up
there with no insurance


Right, and that's actually a system grown out of control, but with very
sensible roots.

If you show up at an emergency room, clearly needing emergency
treatment,
do you want the doctors to find out about your insurance and/or your
financial status first, or do you want them start fixing you?

That is how publicly subsidized hospitals got started (a long time ago)
providing subsidized (and very basic, and very often low quality)
health
care to poor people. To folks who want the gov't to take over yet more
of
health care, I always answer "You can get all the free gov't health
care
you want, just go to the closest emergency room. It's not that good (in
large part because you usually have to wait in long lines), but hey,
it's
free (to the user, not the taxpayer)."

An excellent case of TANSTAAFL

Now back to the rest of the argument-

Really? That doesn't quite fit with the last statistics I saw, but
*if*
that top 1% has 32% of the overall income, then what is unfair about
making them pay 32% of the taxes?


You're changing the argument now.

No, I'm not.

... You said that it's only equitable to charge them more because
they
derive more benefits from the government (which I don't agree with).

No, I said it's fair to charge each income bracket with paying their
share
of the overal income tax burden, apportioned by how much of the
nation's
overall income they earn.

example If the top 1% earns 50% of all income, then they should pay
50%
of the tax. Fair? I think so, and so far nobody has disagreed, just
kicked
& squealed about how those dad-gum poor people have it so easy.

And the fact that you think poor people derive *more* benefits just
shows
that facts don't seem to sink in for you.



You have not answered that basic question, just answered with a lot of
whining about how the poor have it made.


They don't "have it made". But their benefit vs. taxes-paid ratio is
much, much higher than that of richer folks.

If that were true, then people in general would be seeking those
benefits
by becoming poor, instead of scrabbling to claw their way up the
socio-economic ladder.


Despite the extra tax burden that comes along with doing so, it is still
more self-satisfying and rewarding to "scrabble and claw" ones way up the
socio-economic ladder.



You keep twisting the argument to make it one about quality of life
instead of one about a fair tax system.


No, I'm responding to the knee-jerk claims made by a bunch of
out-of-touch
fascists.

NOYB: 1
DSK: 0

You lose a point for being the first one to turn to name-calling.

He should lose an additional point for his inane arguement. Hell even the
Russians have figured out that a flat tax is best.

Give it time. Once the class warfare has had it's chance to sway public
opinion, they'll start redistributing the wealth through a "progressive" tax
too.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
They don't "have it made". But their benefit vs. taxes-paid ratio is
much, much higher than that of richer folks.

If that were true, then people in general would be seeking those benefits
by becoming poor, instead of scrabbling to claw their way up the
socio-economic ladder.



NOYB wrote:
Despite the extra tax burden that comes along with doing so, it is still
more self-satisfying and rewarding to "scrabble and claw" ones way up the
socio-economic ladder.

You're claiming that the more one works to achieve higher income, the less
one is motivated by well-being, security, and the ratio of effort expended
to benefit received?

Nope. Didn't say that at all. Go back and read it again.

NOYB wrote:
Nope. Didn't say that at all. Go back and read it again.


Nobby & the knee-jerk fascists: 1
DSK: 1

You lose a point for not knowing what you said yourself.

This is why I find it so entertaining to present facts & logic to the
Bush cheerleaders- they simply cannot put two sentences together without
contradicting themselves!

DSK

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:55:10 -0400, DSK wrote:

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


Your definition of equity.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:08:41 +0000, NOYB wrote:


http://www.ctj.org/pdf/fsl2004.pdf

Look at the numbers!

The lowest-earning 20% garner the greatest share of government subsidies
but only contribute 2.2% of the overall tax burden.

Don't forget they only have 3.4% of the income. But you are wrong on who
gets the greatest share of government subsidies. It isn't the poor, it's
business. Depending on how you calculate them, business subsidies run
between $125 billion and $200 billion.



Imagine you went into a restaurant and the price you paid for a hamburger
depended upon how much you earned.

The poor guy gets a Super size burger, fries and a coke...and has to pay
$2.20. The rich guy goes in and has to pay $20.80...but he only gets a
kid's size meal for it.

And that's fair in your eyes?

LOL, we are not talking Mickey D's, we are talking Uncle Sam's. One of
the dirty little secrets, and IMO the root of much/most evil in
Washington, is the incestuous relationship between our elected leaders and
corporate leadership. There is a direct linkage between corporate
welfare, and campaign financing. This is neither good for the
corporations, as they can't get off the money teat, nor us, as our elected
officials whore themselves. You can whine about the benefits given the
poor, but it amounts to pennies compared to the big bucks given to
corporations. Hell, until Bush's record deficits, ending corporate
welfare would have balanced the budget.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:36:09 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The hospitals down here are private. And the high fees that the hospital
charges me and my insurance company helps subsidize the folks who show up
there with no insurance

Perhaps it's time we reconsider taxable income. Since most people's
health insurance is provided by their employer, perhaps it's time to level
the playing field between rich and poor and start taxing that benefit.
Oh, but that's right, only the poor get government benefits. Yeah, right.

You should check the news in more detail. There are Christians committing
atrocities, mass murder, and genocide in several places throughout the
world, notably Indonesia and the Balkans. And there are a lot of places
right here in the USA where small-minded Christian bigots feel free to
terrorize... and in some cases, murder... their neighbors.

DSK

Just another point, In most of the Islamic countries they hire foreign labor
for just about all their essential services. Personal servants are almost
always foreign born. There is at least a 50% unemployment rate in these
countries. Why do they hire foreign labor??????????

Answer honestly.......This is the problem.