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 ;-)

"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.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
| "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.
|

My idea of fair, for example, would be a regressive tax system -- one that
would punish the unproductive parasites.

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
| "C J Campbell" wrote
| A disproportionate
| number of us are in that 10% of America that pays 90% of the taxes.
|
| Actually, the top 10% only pays a little over half the taxes.

Baloney. It just so happens that the Federal Income Tax is not the only tax
that targets the 'rich' in this country. Once you add in all the business
and occupation taxes, state income taxes, employer taxes, luxury taxes,
estate taxes, reductions in entitlements, etc., I would bet that my figure
is much closer to the truth.

|
| My idea of fair, for example, would be a regressive tax system -- one that
| would punish the unproductive parasites.
|
|
| Such a tax would punish teachers and reward lawyers. You sure you want
this?
|

No. I think teachers are grossly underpaid. In my ideal world, lawyers and
teachers would switch salaries.


And how would you measure "productivity" so taht unproductive parasites could
be punished via the tax system? And how would you get lawyers and teachers to
"switch salaries" - remember salaries are just a measure of how much society
values the contribution of the wage earners. As a society we are willing to
pay more for a lawyer than for a teacher.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)