>>RE: The John vs. Mary income discussion...third, all else being equal, mary uses more services. the potential for workers comp is over double. Assuming a 20% flat tax rate John pays 10k, Mary pays 20k. Kinda works out.<<
it works out that people who own about 60% of the stuff pay about 60% of the taxes.
the problem with reducing the tax amount of the wealthy by $100s of billions is that someone else now needs to pick up at least a portion of the tab. the result? poverty and the lower class will become even more of an inescapable web than it already is. it will place such a huge burden on those least likely to support it that millions will have no real opportunity for feeding their kids nutritious meals, let alone improve their fiscal situation.
as long as you get yours, that is ok with you, right? well, i think differently. i really enjoy adding value to people's lives and watching them grow from something small to something better. i don't have a "hoard mentality, screw everyone else and their misfortune. it's their fault they chose their parents wrong." you may not actively think in this manner, however, the end result is the same. the poor get screwed, children don't get fed and the rich can brag about that extra "0" on their monthly brokerage statement. wouldn't that be shangri la, huh? hey, you don't hang out with those losers, so what does it matter if they are starving.
>>she uses more roads. How could you possibly assert that? Mary could live and work in the city and not even own a car. John might live 40 miles from work and have to drive in.<<
on average the assumption is reasonable. that is what i meant by inserting "all else being equal." of course, personal experience may vary.
>>i'm all for a system where everyone pays less. however, neither party has the cajones to cut back govt to reasonable levels.<<
>>You are so correct, sir.<<
unfortunately. |
