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