Subj : Re: Um...no comment?
To   : richardw
From : Frank Reid
Date : Fri Sep 09 2005 05:00 pm

  Re: Re: Um...no comment?
  By: richardw to Frank Reid on Fri Sep 09 2005 11:30:00

 >  > Does it offend your sensibilities or what?  "Wealth" is a relative thing.
 >  > someone living in poverty, a middle-class American has wealth.  Are you
 >  > suggesting that wealth should not be redistributed?
 > 
 > I dont' think it should.
 > 
 >  > Or are you asserting that
 >  > a middle-class American should pay the same tax as a wealthy American?
 > 
 > Percentage wise, yes.

"Percentage-wise" is the redistribution of wealth!  How about this scenario...
Say the cost to put a single cantaloupe on the supermarket shelves is $5
(production, overhead and profit).  Now, imagine a melon pricing chart at the
store like the one below.  (Remember, cost distribution can't be linear across
income levels, because fewer earn at the higher levels.)

   Income        Price
-----------  ---------
< $5,000          Free
< $25,000         1.00
< $50,000         3.00
< $100,000        5.00
< $500,000       50.00
< $1,000,000    100.00
> $1,000,000  1,000.00

It probably seems unfair that you paid $100 while I paid $3 for the same melon,
doesn't it?  Well, that's fairly analogous to our current tax system.  Someone
is paying $1,000 for the same police protection and public school system that
you get for $3.  It's what sustains our capitalist market.  If the true costs
for government services rendered from tax revenue were actually consistent
across all income levels, very few of us could afford those services.

That disparity is very definitely the forced redistribution of wealth.

---
 þ Synchronet þ BBS Doors (www.bbsdoors.com)

.