View Single Post
Old 05-03-2011, 07:46 PM   #117 (permalink)
dc_dux
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
There is a difference between "can't" and "won't".



I work in steps. You seem to want to go from A to Z without what comes in between. For me, there are some basics we need to acknowledge before moving on. You won't even acknowledge the unfairness in our current tax code. You won't acknowledge that a flat consumption based tax system can be structured in different ways to accomplish different objectives. Again, generally speaking such a system could exempt people under whatever cut-off you want. For example you could cut it at $100,000 in income or consumption. The fundamental principle in my mind when thinking of fairness to poor or middle-class is to tax wealth, wealth based life-styles, exorbitance. What is the fundamental principle in your mind? Do you have one? Have you given it any thought?
Again, you cant or wont produce a "fair" tax proposal that works. I'm not surprised. I have never seen one that works, yet you want me to acknowledge that some unknown variation not yet proposed by an advocate of such a tax can be structured in a fair manner and be revenue neutral. Its not like its a new concept that just sprung to mind last week.

So I ask again...
No, I dont acknowledge the unfairness in a progressive tax system and neither has any US president, D or R. Neither does any industrialized country in the world.

I acknowledge that the current system needs to be reformed and simplified, but in a manner where those with more disposal income continue to pay a higher marginal rate than those living from paycheck to paycheck or the majority in-between, middle class families with two working spouses who enjoy some of life's amenities and hope to save for an emergency or their children's the future at the same time.

---------- Post added at 11:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------

As to the fundamental principle in my mind, this is one area where I agree with that iconic free marketeer, Adam Smith:

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

and that iconic Republican Teddy Roosevelt, who would probably be vilified as a socialist today:

"I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective-a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 05-03-2011 at 08:18 PM..
dc_dux is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360