Barack Oboma or Noboma which do you choose?

[strokeitnow]

Trish, all well and good but everyone who is a US citizen gets those same benefits.

Why should I have to pay more for the benefits?

Simply unfair to charge myself more because I can afford to pay it.

Noboma in 208

[trish]

Trish, all well and good but everyone who is a US citizen gets those same benefits.

Of course that's just false. Read my post above more carefully, or just think about it. Businesses benefit much more from having a stable monetary system in place than a job hold below the poverty line. Businesses and corporations not only use but depend for their survival on the federal highway system and other infrastructure provided by government agencies. Their use and benefits do not equal that of an average citizen.

If you're a business owner or a stock owner, my tax dollar subsidizes your business and the business in which you're invested.

By supporting the flat tax you've already conceded it's fair for you to pay more than someone with less taxable income. Why should you think its fair? Because you make larger use of government services and gain larger benefits.

To argue that a flat tax is most equitable, you have to prove the unlikely proposition that generally uses, benefits and cost to the commons are proportional to taxable ncome.

[Gh0strider]

How are you figuring a tax rate of 75%. I have looked at is tax plan and even though it is repressive even for the top income bracket, I do not calculate a tax rate of 75%

[Cuchulain]

The flat tax is just another Reichwing scam. It's effectively regressive. People who make less can't afford to pay the same % of income in tax as their wealthier fellow citizens. Let's set the rate at an arbitrary 50%: If you make $1 million and pay $500k in taxes, you still have $500k. If you make $50k and pay $25k in tax, you're left with $25k. Get the picture?

"The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government--not the least of which is the protection the State gives him." - Teddy Roosevelt

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." - Thomas Jefferson

[NYBURBS]

The flat tax is just another Reichwing scam. It's effectively regressive. People who make less can't afford to pay the same % of income in tax as their wealthier fellow citizens. Let's set the rate at an arbitrary 50%: If you make $1 million and pay $500k in taxes, you still have $500k. If you make $50k and pay $25k in tax, you're left with $25k. Get the picture?

It's not really quite so simple. First of all, what is your definition of wealthy? With the federal tax set as it is, a person living in suburban NY tends to pay more in income tax than a similarly situated person in say the suburbs of a mid-western state. The wages tend to be quite a bit higher in NY, but the cost of living is also tremendously higher. Person (A) in NY makes 90,000 dollars a year and has to now pay a larger percentage in taxes than Person (B) from the Mid-West who made 70,000 dollars, even though their standard of living is relatively the same.

I don't know that a flat tax is the answer, but I do know that this current system is far from equitable. Further, this notion that we need to hammer people that we consider wealthy is just downright silly. There are a lot of loopholes and tax breaks that the mega-rich get, and that should be addressed. However, most people that get hit over the head by the current tax system are simply hard working people trying to achieve something worthwhile. That should be encouraged, not punished.

[Cuchulain]

Person (A) in NY makes 90,000 dollars a year and has to now pay a larger percentage in taxes than Person (B) from the Mid-West who made 70,000 dollars, even though their standard of living is relatively the same.

A reasonable point, but it doesn't change the fact that a flat tax is regressive in application.

I do know that this current system is far from equitable

Agreed. It needs a lot of work from calm, sensible people (dunno where we'll find THEM ) to make it fair to all and balance the needs of society.

this notion that we need to hammer people that we consider wealthy

I'm not looking to hammer anybody (well, I'd gleefully 'hammer' Hannity, Billo or Limbaugh until they were bloody pulp, but I digress...). Those who get more from society should give more back, but not to the point of unfairness. A sane progressive income tax is a building block for the middle class, a hand up to the poor and fair to the luckiest among us.

Do we want to live in a 'we' society, where we're all in this together or in a 'me' society where it's every man for himself and devil take the hindmost?

[hippifried]

Do we want to live in a 'we' society, where we're all in this together or in a 'me' society where it's every man for himself and devil take the hindmost?

There's no such thing as a "me society". It's an either/or thing. Even in a pride, the lion (who did nothing to make the kill) eats first because he's bigger & badder. But he doesn't take or hoard it all, & he doesn't let the hyenas interfere with the feeding by the rest of the pride. Everybody does what they're supposed to & everybody shares in the reward. That's society at its most basic. Singular egoism is anathema to social order.

[Cuchulain]

Even in a pride, the lion (who did nothing to make the kill) eats first because he's bigger & badder. But he doesn't take or hoard it all, & he doesn't let the hyenas interfere with the feeding by the rest of the pride. Everybody does what they're supposed to & everybody shares in the reward. That's society at its most basic.

So to follow your pride of lions analogy, human society at its most basic would be the serfs eating the scraps from the king's table?

Singular egoism is anathema to social order.

Tell that to Dubya.

[hippifried]

So to follow your pride of lions analogy, human society at its most basic would be the serfs eating the scraps from the king's table?

But they still get the scraps, & the king protects them while they eat. When you disolve the responsibilities, there's no more society at all. Without social order of some sort, we don't even survive as a species. The egoist mindset isn't just antisocial. It's self destructive, & therefore, insane by definition.

Tell that to Dubya.

Why? Been trying, but he doesn't seen to be listening. He's gone in a few months any, so he's become irrelevant.

[Cuchulain]

But they still get the scraps, & the king protects them while they eat. When you disolve the responsibilities, there's no more society at all.

You may be right technically. Seems like just semantics in the context of my 'we' and 'me' society comment. I'd call a feudal society where the top dog get's his pick of everything and the majority gets his leftovers a 'me' society...and the CONservatives' idea of heaven.

The egoist mindset isn't just antisocial. It's self destructive, & therefore, insane by definition.

Immoral, crazy and ultimately self-defeating, which is what I've always felt about the CONs philoshophy. Most people tend to agree with Progressive ideas if you present them w/out the demonized term 'Liberal' attached to them.

He's gone in a few months any, so he's become irrelevant

That malignant little prick will be doing damage up until the moment they usher him out the WH door. A perfect example would be his recent endangered species shenanigans: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...pbLVAD92HL5R00
I also fully expect him to preemptively pardon Cheney and the other thugs in his administration to w/ever degree he can before he leaves.