"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."