Flat tax is great but Fair Tax is more realistic and prevents the under-the-table income from escaping as the do now and would with flat tax.

__________________
Hope is the opposite of audacity. It's passive, an excuse for inaction.

Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

“What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama?”

“One is a well turned-out, good-looking, and let's be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye-candy.

“The other kills her own food.”

Whoo! A hell of a point! Did you get that, forum posters? Some rich people didn't inherit their riches! And some had to work for it! God damn, what a monumental, groundbreaking realization! My guess is that some have been. What is your point?A "perception?" I would say that is more of an "opinion."Oh, I see. So your "opinion" is "true" (as opposed to "false," because all opinions are inherently either "true" or "false" ) not because you have any research to support it, but because you're "an old fucker, and know these to be true from years and years of reading and observing." I see.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Talking about "the Rich" is dehumanizing an entire group of people, similar to what the French revolutionaries did with the French nobility (execute them, they weren't human, they were rich nobility undeserving of freedom!).

Tax 60% of Bill Gates income that would otherwise be donated to fight HIV in Africa? Hell no!

Tax 60% of "the rich's" income to pay for new government programs? Sign me up!

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it."
- George Orwell

What does a donation to Africa have to do with taxing people?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

We don't mind if "rich people" as a big group gets heavily taxed, but we don't like the thought of our favorite philanthropists being heavily taxed.




In other words, we like it when politicians beat up "on the man" for us.

We don't like it when "the man" is our Brain Surgeon, who is stressing about the home loan payments he cannot pay due to his 70% tax burden while he's prepping for an operation.

The Liberals (and Socialists in Europe) in this country continually dehumanize "the rich" so well that nobody cares when the government fiscally rapes "the rich." Doh.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it."
- George Orwell

So, since 1980 rich people put in more hours. Maybe that's because we're getting wise to how badly they're robbing us and they have to work harder to keep their ill-gotten gains. Or maybe not, but your ONE article is meaningless.

Then why do you present your arguments like a 10 year old?

Depends, some rich certainly inherit there wealth and don't have too work too hard, and of course have a lot of natural advantages becuase of there parents money-I'm thinking Glazers, Bush's, Rockfellas: Those sorta guys. Now I'm not saying that they themselves don't work hard, but they certainly have a lot of advanatges over the normal bloke. Others who are rich have worked to get there, or have struck lucky and so forth, to break into the upper-classes an element of luck is generally needed. I know plenty of people who work extreamly hard without becoming rich.

You also need to define working hard, is it harder to do manual labour or to work as a CEO? Physically manual labour is harder work and often people in that position work longer hours or hold down 2 or more jobs, while a CEO may work less hours but the work will be more intellectually challanging and he'll have to cope with greater pressure and responsability. Can you really say one works harder than the other? Yet the CEO will be paid hundreds of times more than the labourer.

I'm not going to go down the marxist route of denouncing all the rich as lazy and exploitive, I am a capitalist and I understand that we do need those on top of the pile and a profit motive, you can't pay everyone the same for the same amount of effort. I'm not advocating that the CEO gets paid the same as the labourer-but I would like the huge gap between the two to be closed slightly. There are two key sentences here: Benthams 'the greatest happness to the greatest number' and 'from those with the greatest resources to those in the greatest need' (And yes I've messed up that quote, I can't remeamber the exact phrasing).

The fatc is that a man of £400,000 a year can afford to pay more than a man on £20,000 a year. Lets use the example of a 'flattax' of, say, 25% a year. Now the man on £20,000 would stuggle to pay that and maintain himself at a decent level, its possable to live on £15,000 but he can't afford to give away that £5000 easily. Now the man on £400,000 will pay £100,000 which looks harder for him, but he will maintain a high standard of living with £300000. He cna afford to pay more, which is why you have a gradiated income tax. Its not a case of attacking the rich, they're still rewarded for there hard work, its a case of closing the huge wealth gap and effectivly funding the government without harming the majority at the bottom.

__________________
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. - Art of War, Sun-Tzu, Chapter 2, Paragraph 6

"An eye for an eye makes everyone blind"-Gandi

The logical error in the OP becomes clear if you set it up as a syllogism:

1) Only if the rich did not earn their wealth should they be taxed at a higher rate than the middle class.

2) The rich did (in some cases) earn their wealth.

3) Therefore the rich should not be taxed at a higher rate than the middle class.

The flaw, of course, is in that first statement. That the rich inherited all their wealth is not the only (or even the main) argument in favor of a progressive tax system. Try this:

1) Taxes should be apportioned so as to meet government needs while minimizing the economic suffering of taxpayers that taxes cause. Rich people are able to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes without suffering. (I can define "economic suffering" if -- as is likely -- anyone wants to quibble.) Therefore, the rich should be taxed at a higher rate so as to lower taxes on the middle class and thereby minimize the economic suffering taxes cause.

2) It is not healthy for the economy, or for our democracy, to have too great a disparity in wealth between the rich and the rest of the country. A graduated tax system helps to narrow income gaps. Therefore, a graduated tax system should be implemented in order to help accomplish this. (I will add that measures which drive wages up are much more significant for this purpose and should also be implemented.)

Neither of these arguments is in any way dependent on asserting that the rich did not work for their wealth (although it's true that some did not).

That's Soaring to you IamwhatIseem.

Ah yes, the blessed rich and the feckless poor.

An argument raging across the ages...

Terrible idea.

__________________


Cultural insecurities are the foundation of American conservatism.

A 30% sales tax would be horrendous for the economy and everyone in or below the middle class.

__________________


Cultural insecurities are the foundation of American conservatism.

Yes, because social darwinism is clearly the way to go here.

So, I get to decide whether I become a millionaire or not? And all of the poor people are lazy and stupid?

The world is so much clearer now. I don't have to think anymore. I'm in propaganda heaven!!

Truth is that there is hard work involved, but there also is luck. The word is not black and white, maybe you'll learn that someday when you get unlucky.

So this donkey accuses liberals of generalizing about the rich, then goes on to say that the industrious will be rich and the dumb will be poor.

I have never met a rich man who inspired me in anyway similar as some of the 'poor dumb asses.'

The humungous and clumsy advanced captitalist economies which were planned and philosophized by the upper class for a couple hundred years do not offer wealth to all people on an equal basis. PERIOD. Free market capitalism was defined and refined by the rich. wonder why...

The free market has never led to collective well being and prosperity. Throughout our nation's history, government has been FORCED to step in and make this country more fair to ALL its citizens. PERIOD. If you want to loathe about regulation in this country, look no further than the failure of free market capitalism.

You live in a socialist state, fool. You just have been taught otherwise...

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

somebody has to pay for this country to work. period. In only makes sense that those who benefit more from this country should pay more.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"