You wouldn't know anything about that would you? Hope not anyway.
Let's say it takes a poor man with $30,000 annual income some $20,000 per year to purchase food, buy clothing, rent a modest apartment, and have an automobile.
On the other hand, let's say it takes a rich man with $30 million annual income some $20,000 per year to purchase food, buy clothing, rent a modest apartment and have an automobile (and there are people like that who are high income, low cost folks).
After basic life's expenses the poor man has $10,000 left over. The rich guy has $29,980,000 left over.
What is a fair tax for both of these men?
28% perhaps? That'd leave the poor guy with $7,200, and the rich guy with quite a bit more ~
No doubt the scale of the difference in the income of these two fellows escapes your attention, but the rich guy can easily become an investor and the poor guy can't.
Even if they have the same lifestyle their economic power is nowhere near the same.
I think a fair tax on both of these fellows is ZERO ~
We need a system that pulls revenues into the government from the economy at larger without targeting individuals. As i noted before the old tariff system did exactly that and neither the rich nor the poor in America were threatened with long jail terms for failing to cross every t and dot every i on an IRS form.
A state of liberty and freedom from excesses of the federal government requires no direct taxation of individuals ~ ever.
An old thread with a 1939 booklet about FDR and the New Deal. It’s all happening again. Obama even uses the some of the same phrases as FDR.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts
excerpt (the last two paragraphs are the most important):
[FDR said in a speech]: “Practices of the unscrupulous money-changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.... They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers....The measure of that restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.”
There was the pattern and it never changed. The one enemy, blameable for all human distress, for unemployment, for low wages, for the depression of agriculture,.... for want in the midst of potential plenty — who was he? The money-changer in the temple. This was a Biblical symbol and one of the most hateful....
..... “We cannot go back to the old order,” said the President. And this was a very hateful counter symbol, because the old order, never really defined, did in fact associate in the popular mind with the worst debacle in the history of capitalism.....
Large profit as such becomes therefore a symbol of social injury, merely because it is large; moreover, it is asserted that large profit had long been so regarded by the government and penalized for that reason.
Of all the counter symbols this was the one most damaging to the capitalistic system. Indeed, if it were accepted, it would be fatal, because capitalism is a profit and loss system and if profits, even very large profits, are socially wrong, there is nothing more to be said for it. But it was a false symbol, and false for these three reasons, namely: first, there is no measure of large profit; second, large profits are of many kinds and to say simply that large profits are “of course made at the expense of the neighbors” is either nonsense or propaganda, as you like; and; in the third place, the history is wrong.
It's the "fellows" who pay ZERO percent federal income tax (plus a few other idiots) who are enslaving the rest of us by voting for big government spending AND a "progressive" federal income tax. You wouldn't know anything about the propensity of such fellows, would you?
Any tax, whether it be an income tax or any other tax that one would suggest to fund the bare bones Constitutional functions of a federal government should not be progressive.
To point that out is appropriate. To imply that one is an inappropriate "class warfare" type when one points that out is utter nonsense.