The top 2-3% are already paying close to 50% of the taxes. How much do the greedy and selfish 97% want from them? If you have ever spent time around a wide range of people you will find that some of the poorest are the most mercenary.
Beyond that, we ALL benefit from a safe and secure country and we only appreciate what we pay for ourselves. This is why those on the bottom levels of income can only whine about this country. Larry Miller ----- Original Message ----- From: Leland F. Jackson, CPA To: ProFox Email List Sent: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 21:33:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [OT] Obama's redistribution plan at work How long do you think those with the highest income would continue to thrive in a country that did not have a strong military, a supreme court and justice system, a stable economy, law and order, and all the other services government provides? Those with the highest income, or those with a background coning from the wealthiest dynasties, have a lot more to lose than the average citizen, should government fail, or God forbid, fall in revolt, revolution, or war, from within or outside the USA, and a guy living on the streets could care less, so yes, those who have most should contribute most to the system. As the bible says, "To whom much is given, much is expected. - Luke 12:48". Its time for the top 2% of the country to stop being so selfish and greedy, and start putting more back into the system. It's time to put country, and the American people, ahead of self, (eg selfish and greedy come to mind here). Regards, LelandJ Larry Miller wrote: > The progressive tax system has served the tax lawyers and accountants well, > as well as the members of congress who hold the keys to selecting winners and > loosers in the system. Beyond that, I would beg to differ that those with > more income get more from the govt. Those paying the least in taxes are > riding free on all kinds of benefits that those with greater income don't > get. Hence, just the idea of a progressive income tax is a redistributionist > plan. > > Larry Miller > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Leland F. Jackson, CPA > To: ProFox Email List > Sent: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 19:08:21 +0000 (UTC) > Subject: Re: [OT] Obama's redistribution plan at work > > A progressive income tax is not really giving my money away to someone > else. Its about how much each person pays in income tax for government > services received. Under a progressive income tax, the greater my > income, the greater my contribution to the government, but then the > greater my income, the greater the value of the government services I > receive. This is only fair; since, the wealthiest individual receive > more benefits from the government, than say someone working for a > minimum wage that really doesn't have that much to lose. > > I've heard a lot of bitching and complaining about how complex and > taxing the current system is with many calling for a flat tax where > everybody pay a flat percentage of their income to Uncle Sam. The > amount of tax paid under a flat tax increases as the income level of the > individual increases, but the rate of tax remain the same based on the > tax as a percentage of income. Well, let's really make thing simple and > have everyone pay a flat $1,000 tax; period. Now wouldn't that be > simple. There wouldn't even be a need to file an income tax return; > since, the amount of income a person earned would not be relevant to the > tax calculation. Under such a tax, the homeless guy who has zero income > and Bill Gates who earns billions would both be required to pay $1,000 > in taxes. With something over 300 million people in the USA, this > would theoretically bring in about 3 trillion in tax revenue each year. > See how simple it gets. However, is a flat amount tax fair? I'll > answer my own question. It's not only unfair, it not a viable system > and would quickly wreck our economy. > > Although a flat rate tax as a percentage of income is not as extreme as > a flat amount tax, they are both unfair and difficult to administer; > because, people in different income level have very different needs. I > suppose an entire book could be written on this subject, including the > concept of diminishing return as it applies to income level, but I don't > have time to get into that today, but saying Senator Obama's tax plan is > a tax give of anyones income by government distribution is not true. > > The progressive tax system in the USA has served Americans well over > many, many, year, so why change a good thing. The Bush Administration > change in tax policy adversely affected the USA economy to the point > that America is now in a recession, and the Bush tax changes resulted in > a economic stimulus package to returned millions of income tax dollars > back to the American people, so they had enough reward in the GDP to > participate by consuming some of the products they labored so hard to > produce. Remember, the American consumer helps drive the economy, and > helps to create the wealth held in the hand of big Corporations, > management, and super wealthy individuals, and the bulk of consumption > of good is service takes place by middle income folks. LOL Senator > Obama's suggested tax policy is just to return the tax system back to a > point where it is balanced and functioning again. > > Regards, > > LelandJ > > > > John wrote: > >> No kidding today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that >> read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed. >> I got into the restaurant and again no kidding my server had on a 'Obama 08' >> tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just >> imagine the coincidence. >> When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that >> I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there >> in >> disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to >> someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server >> angrily stormed from my sight. >> I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server >> inside as I 've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was >> grateful. >> At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized >> the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter >> was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the >> actual recipient needed money more. >> I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept >> than in practical application. >> >> You might try this experiment yourself >> >> >> >> >> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
