The true elite

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
Notice that 10% of U.S. taxpayers pay 2/3 of every dollar the treasury
takes
in... The crap coming out of peoples mouths that the so called, "rich"
don't pay their share is just that, crap!

You are only using half the numbers. You also have to look at the
percentage of total income. If a group of people are paying 50% of all
income taxes, they are only paying their "fair share" if they only represent
50% of taxable income.

Of course, that also ignores issues such as whether everyone ought to be
paying the same percentage of their overall income or not. Like it or not,
our tax system is designed with the *intent* that the more money you make,
the greater the percentage of your income you have to pay in taxes. So the
actual "fair share" of a group of people who represent 50% of taxable income
would actually be MORE than 50% of all income taxes.

One need only look at examples such as the guy leaving the NYSE to see that
there's a VAST disparity between "normal" people and the nation's wealthy.
I consider myself pretty well off, but that guy received as *severance* more
money than I, or most people, will see in a lifetime. A *lot* more. I see
no reason to believe that the "fair share" of the tax base for him and
earners like him is less than two-thirds.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Like it or not,
our tax system is designed with the *intent* that the more money you make,
the greater the percentage of your income you have to pay in taxes.


Which is, of course, unfair.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...
Like it or not,
our tax system is designed with the *intent* that the more money you
make,
the greater the percentage of your income you have to pay in taxes.

Which is, of course, unfair.

By your definition of "fair", perhaps. However, nothing about the word
necessitates that a fair tax system requires each person to pay the same
percentage of their income, and many people consider a tax system that makes
allowances for differences in after-tax income relative to basic necessities
to be "fair".

The word "fair" is not as simple and universal as it seems you'd like it to
be.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

By your definition of "fair", perhaps. However, nothing about the word
necessitates that a fair tax system requires each person to pay the same
percentage of their income, and many people consider a tax system that
makes
allowances for differences in after-tax income relative to basic
necessities
to be "fair".


The only fair tax is a flat tax.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...
The only fair tax is a flat tax.

Yes, you've made it very clear that in your opinion, the only fair tax is a
flat tax.

Suffice to say, your opinion is not shared by all.

Pete

Alright, I've been listening in on this tax debate, and I can no longer
resist puting in my say.

From a standpoint of fairness, I suppose we could dicker all day that ones
persons "fair" is another persons "unfair". That's silly, because it is a
cop out to debating the facts of the argument. How do I counter-point to
someones who is satisfied to answer "not everyone is in agreement on what
fair is.". Well, yeah, otherwise there would be no debate! You need to
explain your idea on fair, not just declare it. You need to do this because
this is a matter that involves us all, and I'd at least like to have
evidence that you've thought out your vote since it most certainly cancels
mine out. (By the way, I'm sure you HAVE thought about this, I just want to
hear what you came up with.)

So here is why I think a flat tax (or at least a close approximation) is
"fair".

I am a construction worker with no college education. People far poorer than
me do go to college, and I freely admit that my decision was just that, a
decision. Because of it, it is likely that I will never be qualified for a
really high paying job. I pay x amount of taxes. I'm very much middle middle
class.

Another guy , like me, has no college education, but decides that he needn't
try very hard in life, and is content to wrap happy meals for the rest of
his days. Again, his decision.

ANOTHER guy is a real go-getter. He may or may not have gone to college, but
it doen't matter. He works har, and goes far. Soon he has a very successfull
and large business. His hard work has paid off.

Why is the government entitled to such a large amount of the rich guy's
money, and so small a percentage of mine, and so even MORE small a
percentage of the fast-food worker. What greater services has the
successfull person been given by our government that he needs to pay a
premium.? We reward success with a tax penalty?

Actually, the poor person is far more likely to be taking advantage of the
social programs that the rich guy is paying so much for.

Of course, if there is a possibility that less revenew will be generated if
we went to a flat tax, but does that automatically make it bad? Maybe our
country shouldn't attempt so many social programs until we can afford it.
They are good, but if the money isn't there, then, well.....

And consider this. Bush is commonly accused of giving tax breaks to the
rich, and also for somehow being responsible for the jobless rate. Well,
common sense suggests that the easier we make it for businesses to succeed,
the more jobs will be generated. The bigger (richer?) the business, the more
job generating potential.

But what if we continue as others would have it. How are we to generate more
jobs if we tax the crap out of the job generators. I am unlikely to evr
employ anyone. The only way a tax break causes me to help the economy is by
increasing my ability to buy things, which would slowly help the economy.

I live in Washington. If Boeing were taxed fairly at the same rate I am,
they could no doubt DRASTICALLY drop they're prices. They are capable of
creating thousands of jobs. Jobs mean tax payers. The more thjobs, the more
tax reveniew, and soon it balances out. The liberals have never let Bush
implement his tax ideas properly, and so the crippled versions that pass are
called failures. Well, duh.

But that's just what I think ;-)

"Dan Moos" wrote in message
...
Alright, I've been listening in on this tax debate, and I can no longer
resist puting in my say.

What tax debate? My only comments have been to point out how simple-minded
thinking doesn't prove anything (like trying to claim that the wealthy
obviously pay more than their fair share, for example). Only a fool would
make an attempt to debate taxes in a piloting newsgroup.

Being such a fool, and not having gotten sucked deep into one of these
off-topic divergences in awhile, here I go...

From a standpoint of fairness, I suppose we could dicker all day that ones
persons "fair" is another persons "unfair". That's silly, because it is a
cop out to debating the facts of the argument.

It's not a cop-out to the point at hand. It specifically addresses it.
That is that one cannot simply say something is or is not "fair". The word
is too vague to have any meaning in this context.

I am a construction worker with no college education. [...]

Another guy , like me, has no college education [...]

ANOTHER guy is a real go-getter. [...]

First problem with your simplistic view: the three people to whom you refer
are stereotypes. In reality, many people who work very hard and who are
very good at what they do make very little money, while many people who
don't work very hard and who are not all that good at what they do make HUGE
amounts of money.

You cannot generalize a person's non-financial worth to society by their
income.

Why is the government entitled to such a large amount of the rich guy's
money, and so small a percentage of mine, and so even MORE small a
percentage of the fast-food worker. What greater services has the
successfull person been given by our government that he needs to pay a
premium.? We reward success with a tax penalty?

It's not a system of rewards. It's a system of *taxes*. Generally
speaking, it's designed to redistribute the wealth so that the government
can provide a variety of services for all citizens. The system does not IN
ANY WAY attempt to consider whether a person has come by their wealth
deservedly.

In the simplest example, the obvious reason a pure flat tax is NOT fair is
that below a certain income, taxing that income is taking food from the
table. One can try to fix that problem by exempting people making less than
that certain amount of money from paying any taxes. But wait!

When it comes to disposable income, clearly some expenses are more
"necessary" than others. For example, while no one really *needs* a book,
having books helps a person's education, which will give them an advantage
in the workplace, which will create a larger tax base (it's in the
government's best interest to improve overall wages). On the other hand,
does that rich guy over there *really* need *three* tennis courts? Surely
one or two would do.

So a graduated tax system is created, exempting the lowest-paid earners
altogether so that they can still eat, and exempting the middle-paid earners
somewhat so that they can at least enjoy some of the luxuries that allowed
the top earners to get where they are.

To further complicate matters, tax law is written not just to redistribute
wealth, but also to guide social practices. Thus the deductions allowed for
charitable given, for example. Any time the government has an idea of how
they want people to behave, but they don't feel that they can make it a law,
they look to the tax code to push people in the direction they want them to
go.

Even that's a simplistic way of looking at things, but hopefully it gives
you some idea of why the issue is large enough that some people cannot even
address it fully in an entire career, never mind could any justice to it be
done in an off-topic post to a Usenet newsgroup.

Actually, the poor person is far more likely to be taking advantage of the
social programs that the rich guy is paying so much for.

As well he should. One of the reasons we tax the rich and give to the poor
is to try to "level the playing field". Wealth creates wealth, and without
some redistribution, the wealthy just get wealthier and the poor just get
poorer. Granted, that's still happening in this country to some degree, but
it's not happening as fast as it otherwise might have.

Of course, if there is a possibility that less revenew will be generated
if
we went to a flat tax, but does that automatically make it bad? Maybe our
country shouldn't attempt so many social programs until we can afford it.
They are good, but if the money isn't there, then, well.....

The money IS there. It's just being spent on tennis courts rather than food
for the poor, if you don't tax the wealthy.

And consider this. Bush is commonly accused of giving tax breaks to the
rich, and also for somehow being responsible for the jobless rate.

People attribute all sorts of silly things to the President, Bush or
otherwise. Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper. In
particular, I don't see how the overall economy and unemployment rate can be
blamed on a single person, never mind the President.

I *do* feel that the tax cuts were unwise, and I do feel that Bush was a
major player in causing them to happen, but the biggest effect of the cuts
has been to plunge the country into even deeper debt. The main problem with
the economy is a result of over-eager stock market trading in the technology
sector, and Bush hardly had anything to do with that.

Well,
common sense suggests that the easier we make it for businesses to
succeed,
the more jobs will be generated. The bigger (richer?) the business, the
more
job generating potential.

"Common sense"? Forget about it. Things just aren't that simple. First of
all, the definition of "make it easier for businesses to succeed" is
undetermined in your post. What if we make it easier for businesses to
succeed by allowing them only be taxed if they actually engage in
manufacturing in the US? If you do that, you wind up with FEWER jobs in the
US, not more.

But what if we continue as others would have it. How are we to generate
more
jobs if we tax the crap out of the job generators. I am unlikely to evr
employ anyone. The only way a tax break causes me to help the economy is
by
increasing my ability to buy things, which would slowly help the economy.

Actually consumer spending is a strong force in affecting the economy. That
said, stimulating consumer spending by creating a larger deficit is no more
a responsible economic policy than stimulating consumer spending by allowing
them to borrow more money than they could repay in a lifetime.

Debt is only helpful to an extent, beyond which it hurts things.

I live in Washington. If Boeing were taxed fairly at the same rate I am,
they could no doubt DRASTICALLY drop they're prices.

You'll have to define "drastically". However, by any normal definition,
you're just plain wrong. An employer like Boeing already enjoys pretty
significant tax benefits. Local governments go out of their way (as best
they are able to afford to) to encourage businesses to locate in their tax
jurisdiction by giving them economic incentives. The theory is that a
smaller percentage of something is better than a larger percentage of
nothing.

Didn't you ever wonder why Boeing moved their headquarters to Chicago?

They are capable of
creating thousands of jobs. Jobs mean tax payers. The more thjobs, the
more
tax reveniew, and soon it balances out. The liberals have never let Bush
implement his tax ideas properly, and so the crippled versions that pass
are
called failures. Well, duh.

Ahh, yes. The old "trickle-down" theory of economics. Didn't work in the
80's, and it's not going to work now. It has nothing to do with your theory
that "the liberals have never let Bush implement his tax ideas properly".
Bush made very clear that he wanted a tax break for the *individual*, and he
got that. Letting the wealthy keep their money does NOT make things better
for the poor. It just gives the wealthy more leverage with which to exploit
the poor.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Yes, you've made it very clear that in your opinion, the only fair tax is
a
flat tax.

Suffice to say, your opinion is not shared by all.


I didn't offer an opinion.

First off, I have to admit you have given far more intelligent answers in
your post than I've normally gotten on such matters. I suppose this IS off
topic, but since finding another pilot to b.s. with is better than enduring
the politics groups, I'll continue until folks tell me to clam up. :-)
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Dan Moos" wrote in message
...
Alright, I've been listening in on this tax debate, and I can no longer
resist puting in my say.

What tax debate? My only comments have been to point out how
simple-minded
thinking doesn't prove anything (like trying to claim that the wealthy
obviously pay more than their fair share, for example). Only a fool would
make an attempt to debate taxes in a piloting newsgroup.

Being such a fool, and not having gotten sucked deep into one of these
off-topic divergences in awhile, here I go...


Like I said, sometimes it's hard to stay out of what could be a stimulating
and enjoyable conversation. If you are a fool, than at least you found
another one to rant with!

From a standpoint of fairness, I suppose we could dicker all day that
ones
persons "fair" is another persons "unfair". That's silly, because it is
a
cop out to debating the facts of the argument.

It's not a cop-out to the point at hand. It specifically addresses it.
That is that one cannot simply say something is or is not "fair". The
word
is too vague to have any meaning in this context.


Having read the rest of your post, I can accept that answer

I am a construction worker with no college education. [...]

Another guy , like me, has no college education [...]

ANOTHER guy is a real go-getter. [...]

First problem with your simplistic view: the three people to whom you
refer
are stereotypes. In reality, many people who work very hard and who are
very good at what they do make very little money, while many people who
don't work very hard and who are not all that good at what they do make
HUGE
amounts of money.

You cannot generalize a person's non-financial worth to society by their
income.


In my mind and observation of the specific people I have encountered, the
stereotypes suffice. I trully believe that the vast majority of people from
lower middle class on up are indeed the masters of their own fate in the
long run. I think there are a great many of the poorer folk who are capable
of better, and just don't take the initiative. I'm not so narrow minded as
to believe there aren't special cases, but the special cases shouldn't
determine policy. There is ALWAYS a way upo from where you are at, it just
means harder decisions in some cases than others.

Why is the government entitled to such a large amount of the rich guy's
money, and so small a percentage of mine, and so even MORE small a
percentage of the fast-food worker. What greater services has the
successfull person been given by our government that he needs to pay a
premium.? We reward success with a tax penalty?

It's not a system of rewards. It's a system of *taxes*. Generally
speaking, it's designed to redistribute the wealth so that the government
can provide a variety of services for all citizens. The system does not
IN
ANY WAY attempt to consider whether a person has come by their wealth
deservedly.


It better not. Outside of my breaking the law, I don't WANT the government
deciding if I deserve my wealth or lack thereof. That's part of my point.
In my eyes, the current system seemes to assume that all rich folk don't
desrve what they have as much as the poor folk do.

In the simplest example, the obvious reason a pure flat tax is NOT fair is
that below a certain income, taxing that income is taking food from the
table. One can try to fix that problem by exempting people making less
than
that certain amount of money from paying any taxes.

I don't propose an absolute flat tax. There is a lower level where it just
doens't work. In principle, it irks me to say that because I personally know
ALOT of people who would stay contetntly at a level of mediocrity just
because of that. But people need at least a fair starting point, so I
concede that at the extreme lower end, concessions would have to be made.


But wait!

When it comes to disposable income, clearly some expenses are more
"necessary" than others. For example, while no one really *needs* a book,
having books helps a person's education, which will give them an advantage
in the workplace, which will create a larger tax base (it's in the
government's best interest to improve overall wages). On the other hand,
does that rich guy over there *really* need *three* tennis courts? Surely
one or two would do.

No, the three tennis courts aren't needed, and the person that does that has
poor ethical priorities,
but again, that's not for Big Brother to decide. Sure, money used to feed a
rich music stars lifestyle is often directly subtracted from the part of the
economy where it can best be used, but I just don't believe it's the
governments job to tell them that. Outside of that, my personal Christian
beliefs tell me that I could never live that way at the expense of the poor.
It's just that I believe I should make that call, not the government

So a graduated tax system is created, exempting the lowest-paid earners
altogether so that they can still eat, and exempting the middle-paid
earners
somewhat so that they can at least enjoy some of the luxuries that allowed
the top earners to get where they are.

To further complicate matters, tax law is written not just to redistribute
wealth, but also to guide social practices. Thus the deductions allowed
for
charitable given, for example. Any time the government has an idea of how
they want people to behave, but they don't feel that they can make it a
law,
they look to the tax code to push people in the direction they want them
to
go.

That epitomizes why I want a flat tax. That is nowheres NEAR the governments
job. I imagine we differ in principle on that one, but at least you know how
I feel.

Even that's a simplistic way of looking at things, but hopefully it gives
you some idea of why the issue is large enough that some people cannot
even
address it fully in an entire career, never mind could any justice to it
be
done in an off-topic post to a Usenet newsgroup.


I agree, this discussion is purely acedemic, and I have enough on my mind
tryng to get my IFR ticket these days to worry about this stuff anyway :-)

Actually, the poor person is far more likely to be taking advantage of
the
social programs that the rich guy is paying so much for.

As well he should. One of the reasons we tax the rich and give to the
poor
is to try to "level the playing field". Wealth creates wealth, and
without
some redistribution, the wealthy just get wealthier and the poor just get
poorer. Granted, that's still happening in this country to some degree,
but
it's not happening as fast as it otherwise might have.

I just don't buy that. In practice or principle. The "bad eggs" amongst the
wealthy get too much press. And in my opinion, most social programs don't
level the playing field, they make it easier for the poor to remain poor.

Of course, if there is a possibility that less revenew will be generated
if
we went to a flat tax, but does that automatically make it bad? Maybe
our
country shouldn't attempt so many social programs until we can afford
it.
They are good, but if the money isn't there, then, well.....

The money IS there. It's just being spent on tennis courts rather than
food
for the poor, if you don't tax the wealthy.

Again, we differ in principle too deeply here for me to really know how to
debate it. I agree, Mr. Three Tennis Courts is sickening, but I just don't
think it's a problem for the government to step into. I'm sure we can agree,
private charities are far more financially efficient than anything the
government does. I think we should be putting our efforts into guiding the
people to support those. In my mind, extracting that money forcibly from the
rich is not an acceptable solution to a problem.

And consider this. Bush is commonly accused of giving tax breaks to the
rich, and also for somehow being responsible for the jobless rate.

People attribute all sorts of silly things to the President, Bush or
otherwise. Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper. In
particular, I don't see how the overall economy and unemployment rate can
be
blamed on a single person, never mind the President.

agreed. whole heartedly

I *do* feel that the tax cuts were unwise, and I do feel that Bush was a
major player in causing them to happen, but the biggest effect of the cuts
has been to plunge the country into even deeper debt. The main problem
with
the economy is a result of over-eager stock market trading in the
technology
sector, and Bush hardly had anything to do with that.


I can't argue that. I think the tax cuts are correct in principle, but
ill-timed. I'm still not sure if waiting for a better time would havew been
helpful iether though.

Well,
common sense suggests that the easier we make it for businesses to
succeed,
the more jobs will be generated. The bigger (richer?) the business, the
more
job generating potential.

"Common sense"? Forget about it. Things just aren't that simple. First
of
all, the definition of "make it easier for businesses to succeed" is
undetermined in your post. What if we make it easier for businesses to
succeed by allowing them only be taxed if they actually engage in
manufacturing in the US? If you do that, you wind up with FEWER jobs in
the
US, not more.

the biggest control goverenment has over business is in taxes. For instance,
my buddy owned one of those portable espresso carts. He had lines of people,
and outwardly his business was booming. But taxes killed him, and he sold
the cart. I've not embellishes this story at all, and I don't know the
actual tax numbers involved.

The thing on not taxing oversea's work is not what I had in mind. Just a
flat, reasonable tax that doesn't try to extract enough money to do
everything for everyone in the nation.

But what if we continue as others would have it. How are we to generate
more
jobs if we tax the crap out of the job generators. I am unlikely to evr
employ anyone. The only way a tax break causes me to help the economy is
by
increasing my ability to buy things, which would slowly help the
economy.

Actually consumer spending is a strong force in affecting the economy.
That
said, stimulating consumer spending by creating a larger deficit is no
more
a responsible economic policy than stimulating consumer spending by
allowing
them to borrow more money than they could repay in a lifetime.

Debt is only helpful to an extent, beyond which it hurts things.


I am not financially savvy enough to argue you here. I guess you win that
point, at least as far as debating with me goes. ;-)

I live in Washington. If Boeing were taxed fairly at the same rate I am,
they could no doubt DRASTICALLY drop they're prices.

You'll have to define "drastically". However, by any normal definition,
you're just plain wrong. An employer like Boeing already enjoys pretty
significant tax benefits. Local governments go out of their way (as best
they are able to afford to) to encourage businesses to locate in their tax
jurisdiction by giving them economic incentives. The theory is that a
smaller percentage of something is better than a larger percentage of
nothing.


But that system isa messed up! The company looks bad because they are
percieved as holding the local government hostage to their demands, when rea
lly they are just looking fo a tax environment that they can succeed in. The
local governmnet looks bad because when the DO make concessions, they are
percieved as pandering to big business. Why not have more reasonable taxes
to begin with so that whole mess is omitted? I know it sounds simplistic,
but maybe it IS that simple.

Didn't you ever wonder why Boeing moved their headquarters to Chicago?


Like I just said...


They are capable of
creating thousands of jobs. Jobs mean tax payers. The more thjobs, the
more
tax reveniew, and soon it balances out. The liberals have never let Bush
implement his tax ideas properly, and so the crippled versions that pass
are
called failures. Well, duh.

Ahh, yes. The old "trickle-down" theory of economics. Didn't work in the
80's, and it's not going to work now. It has nothing to do with your
theory
that "the liberals have never let Bush implement his tax ideas properly".
Bush made very clear that he wanted a tax break for the *individual*, and
he
got that. Letting the wealthy keep their money does NOT make things
better
for the poor. It just gives the wealthy more leverage with which to
exploit
the poor.

Trickle down economics would work given a fair chance. It's just not the
instant gratification that most liberals are looking for. Things are gonna
have to get worse before they can get better.

And I just don't see that the average successful business is out to exploit
the poor.

But what do I know, it's all I can do to get holding patterns right without
my gyros (hate them suction cups!!)

Moos

"Dan Moos" wrote in message
...
And I just don't see that the average successful business is out to
exploit
the poor.

They aren't. It just happens that, absent rule-making to the contrary,
that's how it works out. Businesses do what is economically best for them,
and usually only what's best economically in the short run. It's not that
they intend to exploit the poor. It's just that that's how it generally
works out.

As for the rest of the debate, I didn't mean to imply I was going to
continue the debate. I just wanted to point out some reasons why the tax
system is the way it is, and why the answer to what's "fair" isn't as simple
as some people believe.

One big sticking point (one which you've noticed) is that people vary
ideologically with respect to the role they expect their government to play.
If you ask 100 people what they think government should do for them, you'll
get 100 different answers. Everyone draws the line somewhere different.
But for now, the majority seems to be happy with government interfering in
all sorts of areas of life and writing social policy in the form of the tax
code.

Finally, keep in mind that while I'm sure you'd rather each person be
permitted to make their own decisions with respect to how their money will
be spent, in reality that just never works. Choosing that approach is the
same as just deciding that government won't do anything at all. There
aren't enough unselfish people around to fund the genuine need, never mind
the need of people who will exploit a system like that in their favor.

If you're interesting in learning more about what wealthy people do in
absence of restrictions on their wealth and how they use it, read up on the
big industry tycoons of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Railroad, steel,
oil, mining, etc. The more money a person has, the easier it is for them to
exploit the people without money. Historically, this is what wealthy people
have done. I've seen nothing to suggest that, in absence of a government
willing to take more money from the wealthy and use it to help the poor,
things would be any different today.

The main reason we need government is that human nature is not conducive to
a "fair" society (whatever you think "fair" means).

Pete