Dave Laird wrote, in part: > Sure, if they make the tax *EQUAL* between rich and poor, it *MIGHT* be a > better solution than the IRS. However, as proposed, the tax would > disproportionately penalize the rich and the poor, since they will both, > in effect, be paying the same amount. The flat-tax theory is one of the > worst possible solutions, since a man who makes six million dollars per > year will be essentially paying the same amount of taxes as you or I. Uh, > you didn't suddenly fall into some money, did you? 8-)
Actually, the flat tax theory has the man who makes six million dollars per year paying the same RATE of taxes as you or I. So, for instance, last year, I paid "over 15%" of my income in federal taxes. Meanwhile, Sen. John F. Kerry and his wife paid about 12$ of their income in federal taxes. (That was NOT 12% on their wealth, it was 12% on the income on their wealth.) (Trust me, my income is only a small fraction of theirs.) A flat tax would have us both pay the same percent, so if their income is 10 or a 100 times mine, they would pay 10 or a 100 times as much in taxes as I do. Most flat tax proposals actually have two rates. 0% up to a certain amount (they call it exemptions or some such) and then, say, 19% after that. > Then we have the other pitfall to this ungainly proposal-- the > fixed-income families and retirees, who pay virtually no income tax under > the existing system but who, under the quasi-new-and-improved system would > be obligated to pay taxes to the federal gummint. Actually, the answer to that question is to make it even more ungainly by setting up some way to refund it or not require it be paid by those people. The other pitfall to this proposal is that it double taxes the currently wealthy. First the government taxed them when they earned the money. Now it is taxing them again when they spend it. (Of course, I'm sure you feel really sorry for them. :-) > No matter how you look at the flat tax, it's a sure-fire way for the Bush > Administration to make dramatic claims that he has improved the federal > budget, all the while placing a MUCH bigger burden on the lower and > middle-class. Taxation without representation is tyranny, and my friend, > it does appear to me that tyranny is the order of the day. Hell, we > re-elected the simpering slob, now we have to live with the stupidity of > the majority of American voters. I'm not sure where this "taxation without representation" thing comes in here, since whether you happen to agree with the folks in charge or not, they DO represent us in the legal sense--they were elected by us. And certainly there are more votes in the "lower and middle-class" than anywhere else. The problem is that we are approaching a situation where taxation issues are about to become subject to the "free rider" problem. In 2001, the top 50% of wage earners paid 96.03% of Income taxes. It's probably actually worse, now. Then consider that essentially every wage earner is also a voter but that many voters are NOT wage earners (the retired, welfare recipients, the disabled) who have a selfish incentive to allow taxes to go up. That 50% starts to look like something far less and a socialist/democrat appeal to "soak the rich" (meaning "soak the workers") could easily become a governing majority. THEN you'd have a case for "taxation without representation" even if the lawmakers are elected by us. I think the framers' generation may have been on to something when they required that only property owners (or people who had established a certain level of means) could vote. For a reference (which includes further references to the IRS figures, etc.) see: "www.rushlimbaugh.com" and go to near the bottom of the page where it says "Only the Rich Pay Taxes!" Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
