[Rhodes22-list] Taxes & Politics
brad haslett
flybrad@yahoo.com
Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:41:58 -0800 (PST)
Dear List,
This is a rant! Hit delete now and spare yourself.
Regressive? Why don't we use "progressive" instead.
The more money you make the more taxes you pay.
Simple. Income taxes all start as a flat tax, then
the politicians start social meddling and certain
groups get targeted while others are favored. To quote
an old timer from my hometown "someone always has
their ox in the ditch and other folks are always
having their ox gored". Frankly I'm not breathing any
more of the worlds oxygen or eating more groceries
than I did when I was in college. Sure I make more
money now and pay more taxes but why should I be a
target? I don't feel the slightest hint of guilt for
rising at least one level above the survival
threshold. Most of the kids I went to high school
with are still living slightly above, if not at the
poverty level in that little "one horse town" because
they don't have any ambition to do anything else.
That's the beauty of growing up in really small
community, you know everyone and can blow holes in
their excuses for not getting ahead. A flat tax means
you pay more if you make more, period. Anything else
means we have to favor one group over another for
whatever reason and I strongly detest that. Abraham
Lincoln said "God must love poor people because he
sure made a lot of them". If you re-distributed the
nations wealth equally tomorrow it would fall into the
same pattern twenty years from now. Simplistic
attitude? Hell yes, this ain't rocket science!
"One of the bitter lessons of the twentieth-century
welfare state is that a bureaucracy has an apparently
infinite capacity to absorb extra money without
producing additional output", James P. Pinkerton,
Atlantic Monthly, JAN/FEB 2003.
Brad Haslett
--- Bill Berner <bberner@optonline.net> wrote:
> Wally -
>
> I respectfully disagree that a flat tax on wages
> would be fair. Because
> when you add in all of the other taxes and fees that
> must be paid for
> everyone it would shift a disproportionate amount of
> total taxes to
> those in the middle and lower income brackets,
> creating a seriously
> regressive tax system.
>
> Bill Berner
> 191 South Broadway
> Hastings on Hudson, NY 10706
>
> v 914 478 2896
> f 914 478 3856
> e BBerner@optonline.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rhodes22-list-bounces@rhodes22.org
> [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces@rhodes22.org] On
> Behalf Of Wally Buck
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 3:39 PM
> To: rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Taxes & Politics
>
> Stan,
>
> Usuall discliamer - hit delete now if not interested
> in taxes -
>
> I agree with some of what you said -
>
> >Just tried to
> >point out that if you cut taxes for some, you raise
> them for others.
>
> This is not true!!!! You are missing one critical
> piece of the formula,
> you
> forgot to cut spending.
>
> >
> >Re your wish for a flat tax, Bill B points out that
> in effect we
> already
> >have that.
>
> Well Bill tried to point that out, but he is wrong.
> We actually don't
> have a
> flat tax on wages. See IRS tax schedule if there are
> any doubts. If you
> throw in all of the other various taxes it might
> approach a flat tax
> overall
> but that is not the same thing. I think a flat tax
> on wages is fair. I
> also
> said we need to throw out the IRS book and start
> over.
>
> More tax cutting will make the low end pay even a
> higher
> >percentage of their earning towards their total tax
> burden compared to
> >the wealthy end.
>
> If we had a flat tax how would this be true? If you
> are below certain
> income
> no taxes, above everyone pays the same %.
>
> Try Bill Gates
> >father who has been outspoken against these cuts.
> I know a lot of
> >variables influence Wall Street but it does
> represent wealth and so far
> >it is not applauding the tax cut.
>
> Well I am sure he is a great guy but why would I
> want to take his word
> for
> anything? Previously this discussion did not talk
> about the current tax
> plan. As it is written I am not for current plan
> either. I still think
> we
> need to reduce taxes though.
>
>
> >Corporations should Not pay any taxes. They are
> not people and only
> >pass on the cost of their taxes to the buyers via
> higher product prices
> >which results in the buyer being double taxed.
> This would also do away
> >with the unfair double tax on dividends.
>
> I have an open mind here. I am curious, how much is
> generated each year
> by
> taxing corporate profits? How do we make up for this
> loss of revenue?Are
> you
> suggesting spending cuts or increasing the tax on
> the middle class or
> rich?
>
>
> There should be no Tolls. In
> >my management consulting days I had a glimpse
> behind the scenes of the
> >NY Thruway. Toll delays create air pollution for
> everyone and health
> >hazards for collectors, waste drivers' productivity
> time, waste
> gasoline
> >and create costly duplicate tax collection
> administrations.
>
> I agree here.
>
> I am against collecting taxes via charities. When
> Rose was
> >nursing, one job was with the March of Dimes. She
> said only 10% of
> >collections got to do what the charity was intended
> for.
>
> I admit I am not a tax expert. What kind of taxes do
> charities have to
> pay?
> Hopefully all donations are recieved tax free. Do
> they pay real estate
> taxes
> or capital gains? I didn't think they had to. I
> don't have a problem
> with
> charities being tax free. I have my suspicions why
> charities only have
> 10%
> of the donations trickle down to the needy. Of the
> 90% that the poor do
> not
> see how much of that is taken away in taxes VS
> payroll or entertainment
> costs?
>
> I am against
> >sales taxes in any form and by any name.
>
> So we remove the sales tax, do you suggest we cut
> spending or add more
> taxes
> to the middle class or wealthy?
>
>
> >But this one is a deal breaker when a buyer faces
> it at the end of
> >negotiating for a big ticket item (like a
> sailboat).
>
> Well now I can see why you are against sales tax.
>
> There is only one
> >way to fairly pay for the cost of running a country
> and that is a
> >graduated income tax.
>
> Again who says so? Isn't this what we have now? The
> current system
> stinks!
>
>
> With one bureaucracy instead of dozens, it can be
> >run more efficiently and better policed.
>
> I agree here, what can be easier than computing and
> collecting a flat
> tax on
> wages?
>
> Cutting income taxes under the
> >guise of making the economy work via the trickle
> down theory just does
> >not work. I have been there several time under
> several
> >administrations.
>
> I am for cutting taxes period. I would be for tax
> reduction if the
> economy
> was booming as well. We need to reduce the size of
> our government, it is
> out
> of control. Cut spending!
>
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com