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

[Sue Hovey]

Hear, hear.  Bob, you've outdone yourself.  Send this as a letter to the 
editor.  It'll improve the tone of that page many times over.  I think the 
best well-thought-through letter to the editor I read (including my own) 
came from Ken Beidler and that was months ago.

Sue Hovey

-----Original Message----- 
From: Ted Moffett
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 10:02 AM
To: Robert Dickow
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [!! SPAM] Re: CNN Breaking News

Hilarious and seriously thoughtful, provocative... A great relief from
some of the garbage on this list...

One of the best posts I've read on Vision2020 ...

Maybe Conan et.al. would pay good money for this skit!

Thanks!
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 8/11/11, Robert Dickow <dickow at turbonet.com> wrote:

> 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. "
>
>

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================