No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like
cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product.

True, but the rich have to pay less in proportion to their means.


Maxprop wrote:
Of course. Are you one of those who favors redistribution of wealth?


Not really, but any function of government is going to
redistribute wealth in one fashion or another. I would
rather see a "redistribution" *from* those with $1/4 mill &
higher incomes than *to* them.



How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same?


An odd question. Most people, poor or otherwise, would love the
opportunity to pay less in taxes. But to continue the discussion, the
impoverished and working poor probably should pay a lesser proportion of
their meager income in taxes.

You liberal Demcrat you!


That did sound dangerously close, didn't it.


Actually it sounded like dangerously common sense.



... However the rich should not pay a proportionately greater percentage
of their income in taxes.

Why not? If they can live a far more luxurious lifestyle on a lesser
proportion of their income,


Which is why I'm advocating a federal sales tax. The rich buy more
expensive things, therefore pay greater dollar amounts of sales taxes.


Hmm, that didn't work for boats. Remember the "Luxury Yacht"
tax? I am against a Federal sales tax as it would impose yet
another Federally mandated administrative burden on all
business and would also supress aggregate demand.

You claimed at one point to be a conservative, what happened
to slashing Federal spending???





*and* they enjoy greater services & benefits from the gov't and from our
socio-economic system generally,


Do they? I pay a lot of income tax to the federal and state governments
annually, but have yet to see anything resembling "greater services &
benefits from the government" so far.

Well, let's see... first of all, the police & the courts
keep poor people from stealing all your nice stuff, so
that's a *huge* benefit to you that actually punishes the poor.


... The poor have access to the same
infrastructure that I do.

Right. The poor pay the same gas tax, but don't ride in as
nice a car. The poor can visit the same parks if they can
get the time off work. The poor breathe the same air, except
that usually polluting factories & power plants are located
closer to their neighborhoods than to yours.

Etc etc etc.

If being wealthy were such a bad deal, people wouldn't be so
eager to make more money.


... They have access to the same government services
I do.

That's true, the SEC protects the investments of the poor
just as much as they do yours (and mine)!


...But *they* have access to benefits and services of which I am denied,
such as Medicaid, welfare, WIC, educational grants to the poor, etc.

You're not denied those benefits at all, you just don't feel
like waiting in line & filling out all the forms & suffering
the condescension & hassle of minor bureaucrats that one
must go thru to get those benefits.



Perhaps I enjoy greater benefits from our socio-economic system than they,
but that's the way free enterprise works--you work harder, earn more, and
live better.

Uh huh. So you started out by yourself, in the woods, with
nothing but rocks & sticks, and built your business & home
up from there?


... So far you haven't convinced me that I am the recipient of
greater benefits and services than the poor.


That's because you haven't thought about it very long or
very hard. Although to give you credit, you're further
advanced than I thought in some ways.




then it is only fair that they pay the greater portion of the burden in
taxes.


I disagree--see above. But a federal sales tax would nicely achieve what
you advocate, right or wrong.


Along with stifling business & hurting the economy.


... Once again a federal sales tax would solve this issue.

No it wouldn't, unless it was exhorbitant.


Why? And what are you considering "exhorbitant?"


Well, let's put it this way... how much of the US economy is
gov't expenditures, something like 22% right? So that means
that to finance the gov't we'd need at least an 22% sales
tax... do you consider that exorbitant?



... If a rich dude wishes to buy a Bentley Continental, he'll pay more in
sales tax than a dude of modest means purchasing a Ford Focus.

ANd he'll use up more public resources when he drives it. So the tax
should be proportionally more, not just numerically.


That's bull**** and you know it. How does he use up more public resources?

Occupies more road space & pollutes more air.


... Conversely he pays
higher insurance premiums for the luxury car, burn more fuel, and go through
tires more rapidly, as well as spend far more on maintenance. All those
things help fuel the economy, keep people working, and generate tax revenue.


OTOH it does not generate any real wealth.


His corporation still pays sales tax.


???
No


How can you tell when he's joking?


Um, because he said he was in so many words?


Like the time he said that 'Freedom of speech means that I
can command those who disgree with me to shut up.'

DSK