"DSK" wrote in message
...
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.

Why should any function of government redistribute wealth? I don't recall
that provision in the Constitution.

That did sound dangerously close, didn't it.


Actually it sounded like dangerously common sense.

Which proves we so-called Neocons are not without heart or conscience, as
you've implied heretofore.

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?

Hardly a fair comparison. That tax was exclusively aimed at the wealthy. A
federal sales tax, which would replace the current income tax, would not
have the same ultimate effect as that ill-conceived luxury 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.

Do you think the current income tax laws do not impose a federally-mandated
administrative burden on businesses? My guess is that administering a
federal sales tax would be a snap compared with wading through the ponderous
tax codes that exist today.


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

That should *always* be on the table. Sadly it almost never is. And when
it is, it's lipservice, not substance.

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.

Those same police and courts don't protect the poor from rich people
exploiting them, robbing them blind, and such? I wasn't aware our legal
system only worked in one direction.

... 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.

I fail to see what difference that makes. They drive on the same roads.
I've had some absolutely horrible junkers in the past, and frankly smooth
roads meant more to me than to the guy in the new S-Class Mercedes.

The poor can visit the same parks if they can get the time off work.

LOL. The wealthy generally get that way by working their butts off. Most
of the poor that I meet don't work at all.

The poor breathe the same air, except that usually polluting factories &
power plants are located closer to their neighborhoods than to yours.

That's generally true, and unfortunate. Clean air should be for everyone,
but it ain't. Visit Gary, IN, sometime for a graphic demonstration of this.

Etc etc etc.

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

Who said being wealthy was a bad deal? Not I.

... 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)!

The SEC is a double-edged sword for the wealthy. But that's not the
point--if you wish to give examples of services that generally benefit the
rich, I'll be happy to produce as many or more that benefit only the poor,
and typically at the expense of the rich and middle classes.

...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.

Wrong. I don't qualify for those benefits. My income is above the limits
of those programs. Or were you advocating I lie to obtain such 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?

Pretty damned close, actually. I literally had nothing when I graduated
from college. Oh, except for mountains of student loans, all of which I
paid back.

... 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.

Don't blow smoke up my ass. I've thought about it at length, and I'm still
unable to find and substance to your claim that I benefit more than the poor
from governmental spending.

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.

Do you think that income taxes don't stifle business and hurt the economy?
Remember when the marginal tax rate at the top end was over 70%? You may be
too young, but I remember it well. And I also remember people telling me
that it was advantageous to them to work less, make less, and retain more.
Few spouses worked in those days, in order to lower the marginal tax rates
which took a bigger bite out of a family's income than the additional work
created. And we haven't even begun to discuss the effect that less
disposable income (from over taxation) has on the economy.

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?

Absolutely. But what you are failing to take into account is the boon to
the economy that eliminating the federal income tax would have. People
would have more to spend, boosting the economy, creating jobs, giving people
more discretionary income for buying things that they want. So it wouldn't
be necessary to tax at the 22% rate. Something more like 12-15% is
considered reasonable by some of the proponents of a federal sales tax.

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

Occupies more road space

Really now. You can't believe this is significant. The Bently is 20' long
while the Focus is 16'. Insignificant to the utilization of roadways.

& pollutes more air.

Perhaps, but once again insignificantly. What is more significant are the
smog-belching cars that the poor are often forced to drive. They pollute
far more, or at the very least average out against the wealthy's big utes
and sedans.

... 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.

Tell that to the oil companies, who've recorded record profits over the past
decade or so when big, consumptive vehicles became popular. And tell that
to the companies that have created a mega industry in aftermarket tires for
performance and larger vehicles. Not to mention that the insurance company
stocks in my mutual funds are performing about as well as any other facet of
those funds.


His corporation still pays sales tax.


???
No

Of course it does. If the company buys a new car for him, it pays sales
tax. Or have you already written in an exclusion clause to the non-existent
federal sales tax for corporations to buy their executives nice cars??
We're not dealing with a federal income tax any longer, if the fed. sales
tax takes effect.

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.'

He was absolutely serious then, and he was right. And those he commands to
"shut up" can tell him to go **** himself. That's free speech.


Max