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

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"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."

"A rising tide lifts all boats."

... I'd prefer a progressive tax, where the burden is
1- distributed more equitably
2- those who gain the most benefit pay more


NOYB wrote:
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.

If you have a huge waterfront mansion that you can only afford because
of tax-subsidized construction & deducting loan interest, pay more.

If you live in a wealthy low-crime neighborhood, it's difficult to see
how you have *less* police protection than a high crime neighborhood.
You certainly have more to lose. And the cops respond quicker & with
more resources when you call.

If you drive a gas guzzling luxury vehicle on public roads (ie paid for
out of tax money- pay more

If you pollute the air & water more with a high consumption life style-
pay more.

If you have an investment portfolio that is protected by the SEC or
other tax-supported agencies- pay more

If you have a health plan that provides good care at public supported
hospitals- pay more

Beginning to get the idea? If you think the poor get more benefits, then
try it yourself. If you like it better, stay poor.


The progressive tax system that we currently use has the top 1% of wage
earners paying 32% of the taxes.

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

DSK

If you have a huge waterfront mansion that you can only afford because
of tax-subsidized construction & deducting loan interest, pay more.


OlBlueEyes wrote:
So end "tax-subsidized construction" and put a million brickmasons,
painters and plumbers out of work?


Yeah, don't do that, then they're not paying taxes!

If you don't think that private home construction is indirectly
subsidized, then how do you explain construction of public utilities...
at public expense of course... and rezoning, deferments, etc etc.


If you live in a wealthy low-crime neighborhood, it's difficult to see
how you have *less* police protection than a high crime neighborhood.
You certainly have more to lose.


Which is why they are gated communities with privately-hired security - at
no cost to the taxpayers.

Not all are gated, and privately hired security is is *in addition to*
regular police. Can they arrest people? Investigate evidence for courts?
Present warrants?

Basically, you're bolstering my argument- that wealthy communities enjoy
greater public benefit.



And the cops respond quicker & with
more resources when you call.


Data?


Do you genuinely believe that a slum dweller calling up the police gets
the same response as somebody in a neighborhood of $400K+ homes?


If you drive a gas guzzling luxury vehicle on public roads (ie paid
for out of tax money- pay more


You already do, since roads are paid for with gasoline taxes.


And use up more road space, and put more wear on roads, and put other
drivers at greater risk.



If you pollute the air & water more with a high consumption life
style- pay more.


A "high consumption life style"? You mean one that creates jobs?

No, I mean one that consumes a higher amount of public resources such as
open space, air, water, for no greater contribution to the public purse.



If you have an investment portfolio that is protected by the SEC or
other tax-supported agencies- pay more


You already do - it's called "capital gains taxes".


So the SEC and all investment law is paid for this way? Look again.


If you have a health plan that provides good care at public supported
hospitals- pay more


Who do you think provides the money TO those "public supported hospitals"?
Hint: it ain't the poor.

Hint- if they pay a higher share of taxes, then YES it is the poor.

Do the math, if you can.

So far, all you've done is to play a bunch of stereotypes and
unsupported assumptions. You *still* haven't answered the basic question.


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?


They don't receive 32% of the benefits.

If they earn 32% of all income, then how can you claim they don't???
Isn't "income" the whole point of the income tax?

DSK

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:35:28 +0000, NOYB wrote:


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?

Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors. You can't look at the "progressive
tax" and ignore all the regressive taxes when looking at total tax
burdens. Federal income taxes make up less than half of the tax burden.
While they are mildly progressive, the other tax revenues are quite
regressive.

And, let's not concentrate only on federal taxes. There has been a
considerable shift in the tax burden, from federal to more regressive
state and local taxes. Besides, your data is old. Using newer, 2004
data, let's look at the true tax burden. While it's true, the top 1% paid
32.8% as percentage of income, they also had 19.1% of the total income.

Read the numbers, our tax structure is getting quite close to being a flat
tax structure.

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

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... I'd prefer a progressive tax, where the burden is
1- distributed more equitably
2- those who gain the most benefit pay more


NOYB wrote:
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.

If you have a huge waterfront mansion that you can only afford because of
tax-subsidized construction & deducting loan interest, pay more.

I'm pretty sure you're not talking about me. Afterall, my house is just
under 2300 sq ft under air.

The loan interest deduction is nice though.



If you live in a wealthy low-crime neighborhood, it's difficult to see how
you have *less* police protection than a high crime neighborhood. You
certainly have more to lose. And the cops respond quicker & with more
resources when you call.

If you drive a gas guzzling luxury vehicle on public roads (ie paid for
out of tax money- pay more

Fine. Tax gas...not income.


If you pollute the air & water more with a high consumption life style-
pay more.


Why? Very few tax dollars are spent to correct polluted air and water. At
least compared to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.

If you have an investment portfolio that is protected by the SEC or other
tax-supported agencies- pay more

My home and my pension plan is my investment portfolio. I keep most of my
other money in a Demand Note account (similar to a bank account, but without
FDIC protection).

I have cash in my business account, but I'd gladly forgo FDIC insurance in
exchange for a tax break.




If you have a health plan that provides good care at public supported
hospitals- pay more

How does this benefit rich folk over poor folk?

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


Beginning to get the idea? If you think the poor get more benefits, then
try it yourself. If you like it better, stay poor.

The poor *do* get more benefits from the government than the richer folks.
That doesn't mean I'd like being poor. I just prefer to work for my
benefits.



The progressive tax system that we currently use has the top 1% of wage
earners paying 32% of the taxes.

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. 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).


But guess what!? With a flat tax, they'd still pay more of the total tax
bill.

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.

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

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.


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.

DSK

"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.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:35:28 +0000, NOYB wrote:


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?

Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors. You can't look at the "progressive
tax" and ignore all the regressive taxes when looking at total tax
burdens. Federal income taxes make up less than half of the tax burden.
While they are mildly progressive, the other tax revenues are quite
regressive.

And, let's not concentrate only on federal taxes. There has been a
considerable shift in the tax burden, from federal to more regressive
state and local taxes. Besides, your data is old. Using newer, 2004
data, let's look at the true tax burden. While it's true, the top 1% paid
32.8% as percentage of income, they also had 19.1% of the total income.

Read the numbers, our tax structure is getting quite close to being a flat
tax structure.

Good! It should be a flat tax structure.


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

"combined federal, state and local taxes on the wealthiest one percent of
Americans will equal 32.8 percent *of income* this year. For all other
income groups, combined taxes will average 29.4 percent *of income*."

(Not quite equal yet)

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:35:28 +0000, NOYB wrote:


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?

Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors. You can't look at the "progressive
tax" and ignore all the regressive taxes when looking at total tax
burdens. Federal income taxes make up less than half of the tax burden.
While they are mildly progressive, the other tax revenues are quite
regressive.

And, let's not concentrate only on federal taxes. There has been a
considerable shift in the tax burden, from federal to more regressive
state and local taxes. Besides, your data is old. Using newer, 2004
data, let's look at the true tax burden. While it's true, the top 1% paid
32.8% as percentage of income, they also had 19.1% of the total income.

Read the numbers, our tax structure is getting quite close to being a flat
tax structure.

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.

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?

"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.

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.