Replies

To address all of the comments so far at once, the richer should pay a higher percentage of their income than the poorer because they can afford it. That of course is a value judgment. It needs to be weighed against how the structure affects the growth of the pie. But supply side has been was oversold. There isn't much data to back it up at the brackets we are talking about here.

Your figures are just based on the personal income tax. You need to take into account all taxes, including FICA and local taxes, and figure that about half of the corporate income tax is a disguised sales tax. Looking at absolute dollars paid, rather than percentage of income paid, is interesting but tends to obscure the issue.

I would like to see the particular WSJ editorial too, but the WSJ's tone on this matter has become quite strident, and I do recall the WSJ worrying about talking so many folks off the income tax rolls would foster a soak the rich mentality. The WSJ tends to get a bit paranoid about these things.

Someone mentioned envy. I am afraid that shot rather misses the mark. :)

...and figure that about half of the corporate income tax is a disguised sales tax.

In my view, corporations don't pay taxes at all. Taxes are just another of their costs of doing business. Corporate taxes are either:

A) paid by their customers in the form of increased prices

B) paid by their investors in the form of reduced dividends.

Do you also believe that a person above your decided income level should be charged more for a good than a person who falls below it? For instance, if two people go into a restaurant and order the same meal, should the person, who makes $750,000 per year, be charged $50 for the meal as the person, who earns $735,000 per year, paying $15 for the same meal. Also, do you think that the person above the established income level should also have to pay a higher sales tax?

Also, what about the kid in college who has a job working at a clothing store part time, who may be getting more in salary and commission as opposed to his classmate who is working part time as a burger-flipper. The kid working in the clothing store can afford more than the burger flipper. Should he be taxed more?

Flat tax!! It's the only fair way. And, it is the only way in which the people that are getting a free ride get to see at least part of what it costs. It lessens the liberals' ability to use my tax dollars to buy the votes of deadbeats (but unfortunately, not the votes of the dead).

the richer should pay a higher percentage of their income than the poorer because they can afford it.

I would offer a meaningful response concerning the characteristics of a free society, but I think I'd rather just call you names. Unfortunately, even egg-sucking-dog-marxists are protectd by the rules of this site, so I will refrain from personal attack.

To address all of the comments so far at once, the richer should pay a higher percentage of their income than the poorer because they can afford it.

Might as well base a Tax structure on height and weight, that is as fair as what you prescribe.

How does "They can afford it" work? Who is the judge?

Do they get the same services as the "poor", i.e. Food stamps, Pell Grants, W.I.C., Earned Income Tax Credit, Fannie Mae et al?

If I can use your explanation, then the "Rich" should get 10 votes to every "Poor" person's 1 vote, since the Rich pay an unreasonable percentage more...after all, they can "afford it", right?

Perhaps that is the answer, to keep the "poor" from being able to vote to pick the "Rich's" pockets at will.

Someone mentioned envy. I am afraid that shot rather misses the mark.

Is "Guilt" a closer shot to the mark, then?