Summations Only

Hello Frako Why is it more fair that the richer you are the higher the percentage? Why not 10% across the board regardless of your income? To me fairness is for it to be the same for everyone regardless of income.

Well I agree that those making more money should have to pay the exact same percentages as those making less. So in your example I would advocate that the higher income should have to pay the same 15% for various other taxes as the lower income. I don't think that the higher income should have to pay a higher percentage however. Like I said previously make it the same across the board, with no loopholes or tax shelters and let everyone share an equal percentage in their tax obligations. Well if we could eliminate all the loop holes then an equal percentage may net the same amount as the current system. Though I have not done anything close to the math to justify that statement, merely an idea. While having a tax system that rewards that, does not help. Having a tax system that punishes the same doesn't help either. The later seems to be none conducive to the strengthening of the economy. It seems like it is geared more to placing more wealth in the hands of the government where it can be lost to incompetence. The fact that those who have more have an easier time acquiring more than those that have less is a fact of life. I don't think that those accomplishments should be punished however.

True, the lower income can get more in food and rent than the higher income, however. The higher income also has more opportunities to allow that 1% to work for them and for the benefit of the economy as a hole than if it is just given to the government. Having worked for the government for the past 12 years I am certain that the last people you should be trusting with your money is them.

Hello crashfrog Well on that I guess we will just have to disagree. I have seen examples where management was conscientious of the public trust. I have unfortunately seen far more examples of fraud, waste and abuse. Though in full disclosure my work with the government has been with the DOD. So examples of mismanagement may be far more prominent in that department versus elsewhere. This I completely agree with. Many companies submit the lowest bid possible and then build in clauses to their contracts that allow for far more cost in the future. Though I believe the fault of this falls mostly on the contracting section of the government that allows for the agreement of such sloppy contracts. How many people’s paychecks are signed by those who are not wealthy themselves? I don't see many people on welfare creating new businesses.

Hello Nuggin,
First off if you are going to quote me I would appreciate it if you do not change what I write in your quotes. Thank you. So if we are currently taxing the rich a higher percentage and this money is being uneffectively managed by our government. Then what good is it going to do to tax the rich even more so that the government can mismanage those funds as well? How do you know? Do you think that the rich are just gonna pay more taxes and there is no down side to it? I think that those who are rich are more likely to pass on the cost of these taxes to the consumers and ultimalty the cost of goods and services will increase while the lower and middle incomes will stay the same.

I think it's funny how Warren Buffet has called for more taxation while at the same time striving to not pay the taxes he currently owes. clicky

Well in my opinion the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was a huge mismanagment of funding by the government. While parts of the bill included provisions that helped America begin to recover from a growing recession. Other parts were laden with non vital spending. Some examples include $650 million for digital TV coupons, $25 million for new ATV trails, $83 billion for the earned income credit for non-taxpayers, $54 billion for the Economic Development Administration, $1 billion to subsidize Amtrak. This is just a small list of items considered non essential. As a personal example I have seen the DOD spend millions building guard shacks, and baseball fields when they knew ahead of time that they were planned to be demolished directly after construction in order to be rebuilt elsewhere. Some just a few feet away from where they were originally built. Well then I would point you to the post office versus companies such as fed-ex or ups. It would seem that the government is awful in its inefficiencies You forgot to include that Richie Rich's competitor is also rich himself and therefore effected by the same tax hike as Richie Rich, so therefore passes this tax hike into the cost of goods and services just as Richie Rich did. So the consumer is left with both companies charging more for the same service. If you have such a problem with Richie Rich I would advocate that you use a local market, which is what I do. I don't think that we should be taxing more just because you have a problem with others having more than you.

I started typing a response and am unable to finish. I will get back to you as soon as time permits. Thank you for the interesting conversation.

Ok I concede the point it makes more sense to take the money from those who have money to use on frivalous expendentatures than to take it from those who need it for their necessities. I believe that this satement,

quote:

---

You wish to suggest that some government spending is useless --- but the more that this is the case, the greater the moral case for taking it from the rich rather than the poor.
  —Dr. A

---

makes the most sense to me. However that doesn't change my mind any that the government is a bunch of incompetent boobs. Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

Sorry but I have worked maintaing to much infrastructure built by the Army Corp of Engineers to say that it will be done well. Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

Hello Buzsaw No not really. I don't like frivalous spending at all. I think our government does to much of it and it should be limited. However there is some necessities that the government must spend money on. In which case it is easier for the rich to carry the heavier portion of these necesities than it is for the burden to be placed on the poor. I originaly stated that I would advocate a flat tax but the more I researched to try and defend that position the harder it became to justify it. No my position has always been and remains that it is our politicians and out of control spending that should be the focus of our attentions. Protesting the rich is merely complaining that those who are already bearing the burden of the tax load don't do enough.