tomdarch wrote:Wow! That's a new extreme in spin! "Discriminatory"!?!? (Bill O'Reiliey would be proud!) In a dry, technical use of the word, yes, I do support a taxation system that discriminates between taxpayers whose absolute necessary spending (food, housing) takes up effectively all of their income, and those taxpayers whose necessary spending is a negligable fraction of their income.
"the ends justify the means" stealing is ok as long as it's a "poor" person doing it and all the better if it's govt. sanctioned.
tomdarch wrote:
A mother who makes $14k per year and is trying to house and feed two children can/should pay little or no (or negative*) income tax. A market speculator who has a great year and makes several million dollars can/should pay a substantial percet of that windfall to support the system that makes his market speculation possible. Remember that the speculator can trust the market becuase of the hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent each year regulating the market (just ask Martha Stewart). The companies and commodities in which the speculator 'invests' can make money becuase they have healthy employees (thanks to entities like Medicade and the EPA), can ship goods easily (thanks to the Interstate system), expect that the lights will come on each morning (thanks to the FERC), that their warehouses won't be looted (thanks to the police), that their factory will be protected in case of fire (thanks to Fire Departments), and on and on. And all of this is in addition to the fact that gas is available and (whining aside), cheap (thanks to huge global military actions) The environment in which the speculator can make so much money exists because of government spending. The speculator should pay his fair share towards all of the many, many government actions that support the market.
skip the emotion-based arguments. By your reasoning, if the govt. broke your legs and then gave you crutches, you would claim that you were walking because of the govt. (the above "guilty until proven innocent" tripe was my why I made my "due-process" statement, Spragwa).
tomdarch wrote:
So, do I support a tax system that 'discriminates' between people who benefit enormously from our government, like Bill Gates in his mansion, and people who benefit little from it, like Mary Beth and her kids in the trailer? Yes.
conjecture and incorrect. btw, tell MB to stop having kids she can't afford, esp. if i don't get visitation rights even though I'm paying child support via my taxes.
tomdarch wrote:
Do you claim that it is more moral to shift more of the tax burden onto people who can barely eat, let alone get adequate medical care, and shift the tax burnden off of people who make more money than they can keep track of?
I claim, accurately, that redistribution of wealth is a euphamism for theft. question: how is it a shift of tax burden when the top 1% of income earners make around 18% of all income in this country, but pay over 30% of all income taxes?
tomdarch wrote:
You should probably talk to the 'victims of discrimination' among the ultra-rich about what tax level they believe is appropriate. Why don't you start with Warren Buffet?
(*ask Nixon about Minimum Income systems)
ok. in the meantime, you can check-out fairtax.org
