On Thursday, December 19, 2002 at 05:56:40 (-0500) Ellen Frank writes: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>New Tax Plan May Bring Shift In Burden >>Poor Could Pay A Bigger Share >> >The Republicans are definitely on to something here. The >federal tax system is progressive, even counting Social >Security. Highly progressive without Social Security. What >is the argument for a progressive tax system? How does >one even begin to contrive an argument for progressive >taxes without first arguing that the rich get more and the >working classes less than they "deserve" -- i.,e, that our >economic system is exploitative. Can you hear the >Democrats making this argument in public? I can't. >It's hard to talk about redistribution without talking about >exploitation.
I like talking about rocks and "necessaries, decencies, and luxuries". Point out that if you had a load of rocks to carry up a mountain, and there were three people, say a small boy, a 115 pound woman, and a 265 pound linebacker, it would be wrong to force the boy to carry as much as the woman, and the woman as much as the linebacker. Each should carry what they can bear: in this case the boy might carry 10 pounds, the woman 50 and the man 150. Nassau Sr.'s categories added to this make you aware that there are gradations in goods and services that people buy. Some are things that people must buy --- necessaries. Decencies are things people should have. Luxuries are things it would be nice to have. We must to ensure that everyone has enough to buy necessaries, hence we give more of a break to the poor. We should ensure everyone has enough to buy decencies. And, if enough is left over, same for luxuries. Fair is fair, after all. Bill
