Replies

As best I can tell, you simply don't understand my posts.

Let me try to simplify. If you and I buy a $10 pie, I pay 60% and you pay 40%. Now we agree that everybody should theoretically pay the same percent of income. I earn $70 you earn $30. Currently, therefore, I pay 60% but should be paying 70%. Now, a $1 discount is given by the restaurant on the $10 pie. The allegory argues that simply because I pay 60%, I'm entitled to 60 cents of the $1 discount. According to our respective earnings, however, I should ultimately pay 70% of the $9 or $6.30. Therefore, even if you get the entire discount, I am still underpaying. This is purely mathematical. There is no particular political philosophy expressed. To put it another way, the allegory assumes the current tax burden is exactly correct. Only then, should a proportionate refund be given.

Now as a whole other concept, the cost of anything should be borne by those who benefit from it. Here's where a political aspect comes in. You assume that the brighest richest, most powerful members of society get the shaft in our society. (e.g. it's unfair that Gates pays more for the roads). I don't think this analysis passes even the most casual of "smell tests". Common sense should tell you that the smartest, richest, and most powerful would see to it that they not be taken advantage of.

Now, a $1 discount is given by the restaurant on the $10 pie. The allegory argues that simply because I pay 60%, I'm entitled to 60 cents of the $1 discount.

Then you are arguing that he should have paid 70% to begin with without establishing a case for him being undertaxed at the outset. You are then attempting to correct this original imbalance by claiming he doesn't "deserve" it rather than making your case that his original tax was too low.

You assume that the brighest richest, most powerful members of society get the shaft in our society

Attempting a new straw man argument ? No thanks, that isn't what I said at all. I must also note that you seem to have run away from defining "deserve".

You on the other hand assume that the converse is true. That anyone but the richest are getting the shaft.

Unlike your class envy angles, I have yet to make any value judgments as to what or who "deserves". What I have pointed out though is those with proven track records (ieGates) will be more productive with money than others (read congress).

Stop and pause for a moment and see if you can think about taxes and spending without looking through the lens of class envy.