[Vision2020] [!! SPAM] Re: CNN Breaking News

[Robert Dickow]

My $.02 cents worth.. plus tax (except where prohibited):

 

I think some of the taxation points raised on V2020 of late are a little
undeveloped and way oversimplified. (I don't think I needed to point that
out). The grocery tax has always been considered a regressive tax (it
burdens lower income more heavily than wealthier people) because food
represents a higher percentage of their income spent on necessary spending.
So, that's not very fair from a viewpoint of percentage of income. But how
does one set these standards? A modicum of a sense of fairness and the
political process of course. And the points about rich people not
benefitting from tax for education misses other points. Even if you have
ZERO kids in school, or never had kids, it is a good thing to support public
education because-among other things-you help prevent the otherwise
uneducated and (therefore most likely) unemployed people from dropping by
your house to burglarize your belongings. That taxation then is a benefit
after all-however difficult to measure. And I still have to pay my gas
taxes, which go into road construction, even on roads I may never travel
over at any time in my life. That's fair. I might need to go down that road.
I'm paying for potential. It's an insurance policy; I pay for insurance even
if my house never burns down. A flat tax on retail consumption alone
wouldn't be fair, at least not on the argument that the rich people would
end up paying their fair share because they spend "more" than lower income
people. Duh.  And Donovan does point out that the fault in the system is
that it assumes everyone benefits equally, which is probably not accurate. I
bet some smart folks have gone over that concept in depth, but just in terms
of simple practicality, because of the staggering complexity of achieving
such a goal you'll never have a system that benefits everyone equally in
terms of dollars or services received. But then, we should keep in mind that
these systems are meant to benefit the community at large, as a resource,
not serve the needs of each individual. Does it not seem proper that someone
should have to pay taxes to pay for libraries and city parks, even though
you happen to be illiterate and an agoraphobic? And, so big deal if I happen
to get food stamps and the rich folks don't? Some rich lady still might
still end up needing those food stamps when her stock holdings tank or her
banks go under or she falls for a really, really attractive email-based
Nigerian con game.

 

So, I hereby propose a uniform tax system based on number of breaths taken
per year. People who jog, pant a lot, or are heavy smokers will be taxed
more based on consumption, and people with consumption won't pay a cent.
Fair is fair.

 

Bob Dickow, troublemaker

-------------------------------------------------

"..Really?  Where is this data?   (And I don't mean a HuffPost blog post. I
would be wanting to read some real raw data.)  The wealthiest of Americans
don't qualify for welfare, yet they are taxed for it.. the wealthiest of
Americans are more likely to opt for private schooling, but still must pay
the taxes for public schools.  (To an extreme degree, the HIGHER the income
level you go the LESS likely you are to have more (or any) children. but yet
the taxes are there... ). but I don't want to digress too far.

 

Admittedly, I should have been a little more clear in where my opinions lie:
I am in strong favor of a FLAT % TAX based upon RETAIL CONSUMPTION.  

 

Jay"

 

--------------------------------

Donovan Arnold wrote: 

 

 

"The fundamental problem with the flat tax theory is that it assumes
everyone benefits equally from the government. "

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110811/e61f3746/attachment.html