jim_flanegin wrote:
> --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote:
>>
>>> authfriend wrote:
>>>
>>>> --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@>
>>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think some reasonable attention could be put on our
>>>>>>>>
> social
>
>>>>>>>> programs without having to resort to charges of socialism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to what I've read, Jim, in order to balance the
>>>>>>>
>> U.S.
>>
>>>>>>> federal budget, the government would have to raise payroll
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> taxes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> by 30% and cut all entitlements by 50%.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or just roll back the gigantic tax cuts for Bush's
>>>>>> superrich cronies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Or, as some economists have pointed out, simply
>>>>> institute a flat tax of 15% of income, NO deduc-
>>>>> tions, for all working individuals and all companies
>>>>> and corporations. NO deductions or exemptions of any
>>>>> kind for corporations.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to their figures (because a great
>>>>> number of corporations pay no taxes at all as
>>>>> a result of loopholes and incentives), this plan
>>>>> would raise nearly double the amount of tax
>>>>> dollars per year as are raised now, while prov-
>>>>> iding most people with an effective tax *cut*.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Actually, a flat income tax would make the tax
>>>> system as a whole regressive, so that the poor would
>>>> pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes,
>>>> while the rich would pay a smaller percentage. And
>>>> the middle class would also suffer if there were no
>>>> deductions. Plus which, if corporations have to
>>>> pay more tax, they'll just pass it on to consumers
>>>> in higher prices, and to their workers in lower
>>>> wages.
>>>>
>>> No, no, the percentage stays the same. The argument is that 15%
>>>
>> of a
>>
>>> poor person's income would be a much greater blow to them than
>>>
> to
>
>> a rich
>>
>>> person. There was a proposal by a 1980's third party
>>>
>> Presidential
>>
>>> candidate who suggested that one wouldn't pay the flat tax until
>>>
>> they
>>
>>> had an estate worth $100K. I think the same candidate was where
>>>
> I
>
>> heard
>>
>>> the idea of 100% tax once someone has an estate of $12
>>>
> million.
>
>> We
>>
>>> don't need billionaires throwing their weight around and
>>>
> everytime
>
>> they
>>
>>> sneeze putting 1000s out of a job.
>>>
>>>
>> If the ultra rich paid the same taxes as the middle class (28%),
>> we'd collect $120 BILLION from just the 400 wealthiest Americans.
>> Don't worry because they could keep the other $780 BILLION to
>> themselves.
>>
>>
> Ooops-- Should be $280 BILLION in taxes, keeping $720 BILLION to
> themselves. And that's just 400 people!!
That's still way too much power in the hands of 400 people. Society
needs to learn that concentrated wealth is not a good idea. And about
how many of those 400 are enlightened? My bet: 0.
