... 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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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

"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 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.