A progressive income tax is not really giving my money away to someone 
else.  Its about how much each person pays in income tax for government 
services received.  Under a progressive income tax, the greater my 
income, the greater my contribution to the government, but then the 
greater my income, the greater the value of the government services I 
receive.  This is only fair; since, the wealthiest individual receive 
more benefits from the government, than say someone working for a 
minimum wage that really doesn't have that much to lose.

I've heard a lot of bitching and complaining about how complex and 
taxing the current system is with many calling for a flat tax where 
everybody pay a flat percentage of their income to Uncle Sam.  The 
amount of tax paid under a flat tax increases as the income level of the 
individual increases, but the rate of tax remain the same based on the 
tax as a percentage of income.  Well, let's really make thing simple and 
have everyone pay a flat $1,000 tax; period.  Now wouldn't that be 
simple.  There wouldn't even be a need to file an income tax return; 
since, the amount of income a person earned would not be relevant to the 
tax calculation.  Under such a tax, the homeless guy who has zero income 
and Bill Gates who earns billions would both be required to pay $1,000 
in taxes.   With something over 300 million people in the USA, this 
would theoretically bring in about 3 trillion in tax revenue each year.  
See how simple it gets.  However, is a flat amount tax fair?  I'll 
answer my own question.  It's not only unfair, it not a viable system 
and would quickly wreck our economy.

Although a flat rate tax as a percentage of income is not as extreme as 
a flat amount tax, they are both unfair and difficult to administer; 
because, people in different income level have very different needs.  I 
suppose an entire book could be written on this subject, including the 
concept of diminishing return as it applies to income level, but I don't 
have time to get into that today, but saying Senator Obama's tax plan is 
a tax give of anyones income by government distribution is not true.

The progressive tax system in the USA has served Americans well over 
many, many, year, so why change a good thing.  The Bush Administration 
change in tax policy adversely affected the USA economy to the point 
that America is now in a recession, and the Bush tax changes resulted in 
a economic stimulus package to returned millions of income tax dollars 
back to the American people, so they had enough reward in the GDP to 
participate by consuming some of the products they labored so hard to 
produce.  Remember, the American consumer helps drive the economy, and 
helps to create the wealth held in the hand of big Corporations, 
management, and super wealthy individuals, and the bulk of consumption 
of good is service takes place by middle income folks.  LOL  Senator 
Obama's suggested tax policy is just to return the tax system back to a 
point where it is balanced and functioning again.

Regards,

LelandJ



John wrote:
> No kidding today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that
> read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.
> I got into the restaurant and again no kidding my server had on a 'Obama 08'
> tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just
> imagine the coincidence.
> When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that
> I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there
> in
> disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to
> someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server
> angrily stormed from my sight.
> I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server
> inside as I 've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was
> grateful.
> At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized
> the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter
> was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the
> actual recipient needed money more.
> I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept
> than in practical application.
>  
> You might try this experiment yourself
>
>
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to