Re: A much more potent terrorist weapon than a rocket

Sorry, Mark, I have to agree with Ray on this one.

To make a very simplistic example: assume that government were actually doing what it is supposed to be doing, i.e., providing a military to protect us. With a flat tax, everyone pays the same percentage, based on their 'worth' or 'value' to the nation, which generally is commensurate with their assets (at least to some extent). A rich individual has far more at stake than a poor person (from a financial standpoint), so it is appropriate that they pay more in absolute dollars. Just as insurance might be so much per thousand dollars of protected asset, etc.

I AGREE with you to the extent that when taxes are being used as a form of wealth redistribution (i.e., through welfare, education, etc.) that it becomes an 'unfair' burden on the wealthy. But not when applied to what the federal government was formed to do...

David Erbas-White

OK, let's take your premise and carry it out further. If I have higher value to the country because I pay more taxes, then I should have more say in the running of the government. So, here's my proposal. You get 1 vote for every $5k that you pay in taxes. That way, we will have "equal representation" based on our "value" to the country. And, if taxes are insurance like your example, than those paying the highest premiums should receive the biggest payouts as well. What do the largest taxpayers in the US get for their money except "the shaft"?

So, you agree in principle that the wealthy are overtaxed, but the pragmatic side of you says "TS"?

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

But it doesn't actually cost him $10k because of all the tax loopholes that he exploits. ;)

Saying that the wealthy don't pay taxes because they can take advantage of loopholes perpetuates a myth and isn't supported by the facts. I've posted the breakdown of who pays the Federal Personal Income Tax by income level and if the wealthy are finding loopholes, they're not doing a very good job of it. Do a google search and you'll see the IRS Stats. Suffice it to say that the top 1% of wage earners pay over 30% of ALL of the Personal Income Taxes in the US. If they're finding loopholes, they should fire their accountants. ;-)

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. It's government, not a vending machine.

I didn't say they weren't paying taxes...just said they didn't pay the full 10k. ;)

It must be because that is close to what it costs taxpayers to cut the President's hair, all security, transportation and salary costs accounted for.

Is it any less criminal, in your opinion, that Uncle Sam may be taking an extra $9.9k rather than $10.0k?

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

I don't know what all has been written, I only viewed a few responses here.

My take is that there should be no income tax period! We should

*all* pay a flat 10% *sales* (comsumption) tax! That is IMHO much more fair than the system now.

As for the assertions that the "wealthy" should pay more, I dare to venture that most of us here modellers as well as HP flyers *are* in fact wealthy by most welfare recipients standards. That's right, you folks are the intended targets of many who would choose to have the ever-increasing redistributiuon of wealth continue.

But then the average welfare recipient probably doesn't fly rockets...

David Holloway

Probably not. But I do know at least one who does.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

What are you going to do about it?

Jerry

For one, refuse to vote for any Democan or Republicrat.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

That sounds like an incredibly ineffective and long term plan.

What EFECTIVE thing are you going to do today?

Jerry

On 20 Jul 2003 20:47:39 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

>

OK, so add a third "house" to congress, where money votes on a equal footing with the House and Senate. First we amend the constitution to give money rights. We certainly need to stop the confiscation of money without due process of law. Instead of an income tax, we can have a tax on money, just like on real property. A tax on money would be good for the economy as it provides an incentive to keep the money working for us instead of laying fallow under the mattress. With no income tax people would have a greater incentive to earn money and spend it immediately without accumulating much money and its dreaded tax. There would be more equality since the well heeled would not want to be burdened by money and its associated taxation.

What lunacy! The easiest tax to pay is the one that is deferred until after death. The next easiest is the income tax. Nobody says, I'd like to work here, but I can't afford to pay the higher taxes that go with that enormous salary that you offered. Most people call up their investment broker and say now remember, I want to pay a lot of taxes this year; meaning that they want their i vestments to grow and not decrease in value.

On the other hand, if you are a nickel short on the sales tax, you can't buy the item that you otherwise would. The sales tax is a damper on the economy and decreases the "velocity" of money.

I agree that the wealthy are overtaxed, but they tend to fare better than the poor and middle class who are also overtaxed. I agree that Congress is fiscally irresponsible and spends too much money. What ever happened to the old days when a country would raise a war chest before it started a war?

Alan

kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@eisner.encompasserve.org:

The Declaration of Independence has a pretty good description of government purpose.And the Constitution's preamble does,too.