I'm new to the forum here. John S. Harvey, Ph.D. Madison Wisconsin 1997.
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/15/01 12:12PM >>>
Yann forwards:
At a time when the top 1% of U.S. citizens owns more wealth than
the bottom 95% the new U.S. President wants to further cut the taxes
of that wealthiest 1% while vast numbers of the bottom 95% live
paycheck-to-paycheck and owe enormous credit card debts.
MJ
Those 'wealthiest' persons currently 'contribute' a 33% 'share'
of the income taxes extracted while only creating 15% of the
earnings.
Those bottom 50% pay less than 5% of the income tax burden.
Why should any person pay more or less to fund a monopoly service
which has force as its insurance to obedience?
Answer: Simple benefits received principle. One of the primary
responsibilities/benefits of government is protection of property, obviously the
"rich" value this benefit much more highly than do the poor. A second major
responsibility is enforcement of contracts/the legal system again the benefits are
clearly weighted towards the wealthy. A third benefit is protection from foreign
invasion, again those with the most to protect should pay the most for the protection.
Since the distribution of WEALTH is more heavily skewed than the tax burden
distribution one can argue that the wealthy actual get a good deal at only having to
pay the 33% share cited above.
JSH
Yann forwards:
The fact is that tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was 88% in
the two decades following World War II, a time when the U.S.
economy was booming. Working-class and middle-class Americans
saved more and charged less then, too.
MJ
The cost of Government was far less than $100 per person as well.
That those 'wealthier' people have not be bludgeoned by the theft
of taxation to the same degree as the 'poorer' is merely a function
of time. Lessening the burdens of taxation for EVERYONE (especially
those who actually shoulder the burden) will necessarily help to
improve evereone's lot.
The problem is spending (most of which is unconstitutional).
**Only unconstitutional according to your interpretation of the constitution, the
Supreme court has not ruled it to be so.
JSH***
It is simply more expedient to create factions to create diversionary squabbles.
Again, why should any person pay more or less to fund a monopoly
service which has force as its insurance to obedience?
Regard$,
--MJ
Answer: Public Goods.
JSH
