Subj : Re: Um...no comment?
To   : Frank Reid
From : richardw
Date : Fri Sep 09 2005 05:18 pm

  Re: Re: Um...no comment?
  By: Frank Reid to richardw on Fri Sep 09 2005 05:00 pm

 >  >  > Does it offend your sensibilities or what?  "Wealth" is a relative thi
 >  >  > someone living in poverty, a middle-class American has wealth.  Are yo
 >  >  > 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 th
 > store like the one below.  (Remember, cost distribution can't be linear acro
 > 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 mel
 > doesn't it?  Well, that's fairly analogous to our current tax system.  Someo
 > is paying $1,000 for the same police protection and public school system tha
 > you get for $3.  It's what sustains our capitalist market.  If the true cost
 > 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.

A flat 10% tax with no loopholes would be much better than the cluster we 
have to deal with now.

---
 þ Synchronet þ Eleemosynary ELF - eelf.richardw.net

.