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."

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

"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

"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.