USA Today: Half of Americans say income taxes are about right

[Jason Menard]

Talk about spinning the news. :roll: Check out the article. For one thing, this article doesn't produce all the numbers of the poll. If anyone can find them, that would be great, because I sure couldn't.
I did see this report mentioned on one of the cable news stations last night with all the correct numbers though. According to that report, of the majority surveyed who felt that "income taxes were about right", 66% of them pay no income tax!!! The number from that report does correspond to this quote rom the article:

In the poll, the number of Americans earning $20,000 to $30,000 who said their taxes were about right jumped from 37% in 1991 to 66% now. The tax rate on lower-income earners was cut from 15% to 10% in 2001, causing more to pay no federal income tax.

Now, in this great country of ours, the top 10% of the population pays 70% of the taxes. Where does this "rich" 10% begin on the pay scale? Around $92K!!! Anybody who lives in a major metropolitan area in this country knows that a large portion of middle class dual-income families are easily going to break this $92k mark. So when you hear these a-holes complaining about tax cuts only benefitting the "wealthy", the "wealthy" they are talking about includes these middle class families, who are helping to foot a majority of the tax bill.
Just a little something to think about this upcoming tax season.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Usually I make too much for a tax break for the middle class. Usually I make too little to enjoy a tax break for the rich.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Talk about spinning the news. :roll: Check out the article. For one thing, this article doesn't produce all the numbers of the poll. If anyone can find them, that would be great, because I sure couldn't.
I did see this report mentioned on one of the cable news stations last night with all the correct numbers though. According to that report, of the majority surveyed who felt that "income taxes were about right", 66% of them pay no income tax!!! The number from that report does correspond to this quote rom the article:

Now, in this great country of ours, the top 10% of the population pays 70% of the taxes. Where does this "rich" 10% begin on the pay scale? Around $92K!!! Anybody who lives in a major metropolitan area in this country knows that a large portion of middle class dual-income families are easily going to break this $92k mark. So when you hear these a-holes complaining about tax cuts only benefitting the "wealthy", the "wealthy" they are talking about includes these middle class families, who are helping to foot a majority of the tax bill.
Just a little something to think about this upcoming tax season.

So we got over half the population freeloading on a successful middle class. Of course these taxes mean that the middle class needs two incomes to live well. No more stay at home moms. But ever notice how social problems such as child/teen drug abuse, sex, pregancy, and delinquincy increased when moms aren't around when the kids get out of school at 3:30? And there is a correlation between juvenile crime and adult crime rates. So there you have it; parasitism, crime, class warfare, and the US slowly going to hell with Democratic demogogory on taxes.

[Cindy Glass]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:
No more stay at home moms. But ever notice how social problems such as child/teen drug abuse, sex, pregancy, and delinquincy increased when moms aren't around when the kids get out of school at 3:30? And there is a correlation between juvenile crime and adult crime rates. So there you have it; parasitism, crime, class warfare, and the US slowly going to hell with Democratic demogogory on taxes.

Yeah but we will have so much more money available to fight these problems now . :roll:

[Melvin Menezes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Now, in this great country of ours, the top 10% of the population pays 70% of the taxes. Where does this "rich" 10% begin on the pay scale? Around $92K!!! Anybody who lives in a major metropolitan area in this country knows that a large portion of middle class dual-income families are easily going to break this $92k mark. So when you hear these a-holes complaining about tax cuts only benefitting the "wealthy", the "wealthy" they are talking about includes these middle class families, who are helping to foot a majority of the tax bill.

Jason, probably I misunderstood the point you are trying to make, but I found your above statement kind-of self contradictory.
At first, your post seems to make a point that the top 10% of the people include 'all the rich business people as well as all the middle-class' families earning above pay scale of 92K per annum. So if the tax cuts are going to benefit all wealthy people, then those wealthy includes all middle-class above 92k families too and not just the rich.
But at the same time your post agrees that all the rich and all the middle-class families above 92K pay scale who are going to benefit from the taxcut form only 10% of the population.
This means
a) for those who are complaining, 10% wealthy == rich busness people only
b) for those who agree with your opinion, 10% wealthy == rich business people + middle class
But one fact that both sides seem to agree on is that 70% of taxes is paid by 10% and that the tax-cut benefits only those top 10%. The rest 90% will not gain anything from the taxcuts. So isn't their complaint valid in a way?
Or was the intention of yout post to prove that it is not just "10%" but more than that.

[Robert Paris]

OK, first thing - there is no middle class. What's the definition of middle?
1. Equally distant from extremes or limits; central: the middle point on a line.
2. Being at neither one extreme nor the other; intermediate.
Let's suppose I were to break up the 100% of citizens in the US by 10% brackets like this:
1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100
Now let's suppose I asked you to find me the middle. Would 80 or 90 be the right answer? Of course not! But do you know where the "middle-class" is? The government's official documents state it as being the 81-90 bracket. The problem is that the true middle (41-60) is earning so little that if they ever called them the middle class, we'd all realize we're living in a third world equivalent society.
[ January 23, 2003: Message edited by: Robert Paris ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:

Jason, probably I misunderstood the point you are trying to make, but I found your above statement kind-of self contradictory.
At first, your post seems to make a point that the top 10% of the people include 'all the rich business people as well as all the middle-class' families earning above pay scale of 92K per annum. So if the tax cuts are going to benefit all wealthy people, then those wealthy includes all middle-class above 92k families too and not just the rich.
But at the same time your post agrees that all the rich and all the middle-class families above 92K pay scale who are going to benefit from the taxcut form only 10% of the population.
This means
a) for those who are complaining, 10% wealthy == rich busness people only
b) for those who agree with your opinion, 10% wealthy == rich business people + middle class
But one fact that both sides seem to agree on is that 70% of taxes is paid by 10% and that the tax-cut benefits only those top 10%. The rest 90% will not gain anything from the taxcuts. So isn't their complaint valid in a way?
Or was the intention of yout post to prove that it is not just "10%" but more than that.

My main point was that certain political figures, in an effort to try to use class envy to their advantage, take great pains to point out how all these proposed tax cuts only benefit the "wealthy". They make these claims merely to advance their own fiscal agenda while playing on classism and flat-out lying about who benefits from these cuts. Well, the definition of "wealthy" that they use begina at $92k, which is quite definitely not wealthy.
Of this "top 10%", the vast majority of them fall within the $92K-$200K income range (skewed towards the lower end of course). Again, we are talking about primarily dual-income families. As these working families are hefting far greater than their fair share of the tax burden, then quite rightfully they should benefit from any tax cuts. Keep in mind that people making $30,000 and below effectively pay no income tax.
Additionally, while the claim is made that "only" the wealthy (the top 10%) benefit from these cuts, what is actually happening is that as you go down the income scale you are see effectively lesser benefit. This doesn't meant that the guy who makes $50k isn't benefitting, he is just benefitting less than the guy who makes $95k. So what we have is not tax cuts where only 10% of the population is benefiiting, we are talking about proposed tax cuts where all tax payers are benefitting, but some tax payers are able to achieve greater benefit. Good for them, they are likely shouldering an unfair share of the tax burden anyway.

[Melvin Menezes]

JM: My main point was that certain political figures, ...
Got it.
JM: Of this "top 10%", the vast majority of them fall within the $92K-$200K income range ...
Got it.
JM: Additionally,..., what is actually happening is that as you go down the income scale you are see effectively lesser benefit.
Got it too. And that is exactly the point. If the government had a lot of surplus money that it collected in the form of taxes but then realized that some part of the tax should be returned back to the people, then I agree that those who paid more should receive back more. But if the whole idea of tax cut is to simulate the economy, then wouldn't it be better to target a larger tax paying population, (which happens to be those incomes 30K+ to 92K)?
Those who made more money, paid more, as well as saved more. So they are probably already spending as much as they need or may be only a little less than they would like to. But if more money is distributed towards those 30k-92k group, more people will be able to contribute towards the economic simulation. This approach might sound like socialism, but won't it be good to lean a little bit away from extreme capitalism when the economy is not at its best.
Good for them, they are likely shouldering an unfair share of the tax burden anyway.
Didn't get the 'likely shouldering an unfair share' part here.
(Btw, I personally feel good about the tax cuts and am no economist by any means)

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
[QBThose who made more money, paid more, as well as saved more. So they are probably already spending as much as they need or may be only a little less than they would like to.

I think that's all a bit subjective.

But if more money is distributed towards those 30k-92k group, more people will be able to contribute towards the economic simulation. This approach might sound like socialism, but won't it be good to lean a little bit away from extreme capitalism when the economy is not at its best.

Yes it does sound a bit socialistic. We are not, nor should we be, in the business of wealth redistribution.

Didn't get the 'likely shouldering an unfair share' part here.

A fair tax system would tax people proportionately the same. Since this isn't happening, then I think we could say that our tax system is not fair. As such, those getting taxed at say 40% are shouldering more than their fair share of the tax burden than somebody in the 28% tax bracket.
The more I think about the whole thing the more it annoys me. If everybody were to pay the same percentage of their income in taxes, then of course those who make more will still be paying more tax. However that apparently isn't good enough. Not only do people pay more taxes the more they make (as they should), they pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes because of our perverse tax system, while at the same time we have others who pay no income tax at all. So if that's not bad enough, you get these idiots playing these class warfare games every time the administration mentions anything that might bring a little relief.
But on the other hand, it could be worse. There are many countries who rape their citizens far more than ours does.

[Shura Balaganov]

A Fair Tax System?.... :roll: It's like a robber, deciding that since he already robbing this one guy, why not to rob his friend also? :roll:
There's is no other purpose of the tax cut, but to stimulate the economy. "Fair game" is a political BS. The more money in taxes government collects, the more power they have. There's no insentive to refund these money, period. Unless economy is in real bad shape, and burocrats risk to lose all their benefits altogether - only then they'll give up some. Parkinson's Law.
Number two. I absolutely disagree with the statement that top 10% pay most of the tax. It is a too bold statement to assess. Although majority of tax burden is on the higher tax bracket people, I am suggesting a way to identify "tax brackets", or classes:
1. People who don't pay, or pay very little tax because their income is too low
2. People who pay significant amount of tax that affects their lifestyle.
3. People who pay significant amount of tax, but this doesn't affect their lifestyle (for instance people who's income is above $100K per person)
4. People who don't pay enough tax because they can afford to hire a tax specialist to redstribute money elsewhere.
I am stating that most taxable group in America is group #2. This is probably your 40K-120K families give or take. Note, that "their lifestyle is significantly affected by tax.
And last, but not least. There's a tendency in US of shifting tax burden from corporations to individuals. Individuals already pay for the majority of US budget. If you look at top 50 corporations, almost none pays above 10% tax, and 4 or 5 do not pay tax at all.
So all these tax cut talks by the government are at the least misleading, if not dishonest.
Shura

[Paul Stevens]

Major fallacy in your logic Shura. Businesses never pay taxes. Individuals always pay taxes.
Let me put it plain. If you increase a tax on business, they have 2 choices. Pass on the cost. Or eat the cost and lose money. Which will they do. Pass on the cost. Who pays for that passed on cost. Either another business who will then pass it on to individuals. Or individuals.
The other problem was changing the arguement of the top 10% paying the most dollars in taxes. That statement is fact. You changed the arguement to something else entirely.
The first 2 paragraphs of yours I agree with.

[Melvin Menezes]

JM: Yes it does sound a bit socialistic. We are not, nor should we be, in the business of wealth redistribution.
We are not talking about taking money from the mass, rich and poor alike, and then re-distributing it evenly. We are not talking about redistribution of wealth as in extreme socialism a.k.a. communism or even modarate socialism. We are talking about reducing taxes for economic simulation. So why not reduce more taxes on the lower brackets? Kind of "optimal socialism", if there is such a term.
JM: A fair tax system would tax people proportionately the same. Since this isn't happening, then I think we could say that our tax system is not fair. As such, those getting taxed at say 40% are shouldering more than their fair share of the tax burden than somebody in the 28% tax bracket.
Then according to you, to make it fair, we have only two options- increase the percentage of tax for lower brackets or decrease that of the higher brackets. Either way, we must make them "equal". Right? So which of the two ways would you propose to make it fair?
To say the above in a different way: Let's Keep the economic stimulation aside for a while. Even in a perfectly stable and growing economy, the government needs money for zillions of things- building roads, security, etc. and it collects money by way of taxes. Do you think it is possible to tax people proportionately the same and still generate the same revenue that the goverment is right now?

[Melvin Menezes]

JM: Keep in mind that people making $30,000 and below effectively pay no income tax.
Yes, they effectively pay no income tax. But whenever they spend that money, they do pay sales and service taxes and this money too adds up back into the govt revenue (okay, this time it goes to state govt revenue not federal).
[ January 28, 2003: Message edited by: Melvin Menezes ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
[b]Then according to you, to make it fair, we have only two options- increase the percentage of tax for lower brackets or decrease that of the higher brackets. Either way, we must make them "equal". Right? So which of the two ways would you propose to make it fair?

It would have to be a combination. Some people's taxes might go up, some might come down.

To say the above in a different way: Let's Keep the economic stimulation aside for a while. Even in a perfectly stable and growing economy, the government needs money for zillions of things- building roads, security, etc. and it collects money by way of taxes. Do you think it is possible to tax people proportionately the same and still generate the same revenue that the goverment is right now?

No, if this werer to happen I do not think they would be able to generate the same amount of revenue through income taxes. Income taxes aren't the only means to generate revenue however.
The bigger problem is fiscal efficiency and fiscal responsibility. The government currently practices neither of these. Through efficient and responsible spending, our tax dollars could go much further than they do now.

[Melvin Menezes]

About the percentage of taxes on income at different income levels, this is what I understood from your posts: To have a fair tax system, make everybody pay the same percentage, say X%, of their income in taxes. That means increase the % for those paying less than X right now, and decrease the % of for those paying more X, so that they all pay exactly X% of their incomes.
In this case, (i) you agree with me that they would not be able to generate the same amount of revenue through income taxes, and (ii) I agree with you that income taxes aren't the only means to generate revenue.
But that fact still remains that the loss in income tax as in #(i) can be of considerable amount, because 70% of the taxes are paid by 10% people and we are proposing to reduce their taxes from whatever they are paying to a certain X%. And if the government needs to generate revenue by other means as in (ii), then they have to do so again to those same 10% people, because ultimately it is them who have the money
In short, reaching that commmon X% may sound making it fair mathematically, it sure does not seem to help much in economic stimulation.
OR by saying this, "It would have to be a combination. Some people's taxes might go up, some might come down.", did you mean to say it has to be less than X% for some people and more than X% for others? If yes, then that is unproportional (and unfair according to you) and that is what is happening right now.

JM: The bigger problem is fiscal efficiency and fiscal responsibility. The government currently practices neither of these.
I don't know much about how and/or why the government currently does not practice either fiscal efficiency or fiscal responsibility.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
About the percentage of taxes on income at different income levels, this is what I understood from your posts: To have a fair tax system, make everybody pay the same percentage, say X%, of their income in taxes. That means increase the % for those paying less than X right now, and decrease the % of for those paying more X, so that they all pay exactly X% of their incomes.

Yep. that is pretty much what I (with all my vast economic experience :roll: ) was advocating.

In this case, (i) you agree with me that they would not be able to generate the same amount of revenue through income taxes, and (ii) I agree with you that income taxes aren't the only means to generate revenue.

Yep and Yep.

But that fact still remains that the loss in income tax as in #(i) can be of considerable amount, because 70% of the taxes are paid by 10% people and we are proposing to reduce their taxes from whatever they are paying to a certain X%.

Check out this site for some interesting reading, particularly the sections on the flat tax and the problems with the current tax system. Among other things they talk about the inefficiency in adminstering the current tax system. Such inefficiencies run rampant throughout the government and are responsible for wasting countless billions of dollars.

[Shura Balaganov]

Paul Stevens: Major fallacy in your logic Shura. Businesses never pay taxes. Individuals always pay taxes.
Let me put it plain. If you increase a tax on business, they have 2 choices. Pass on the cost. Or eat the cost and lose money. Which will they do. Pass on the cost. Who pays for that passed on cost. Either another business who will then pass it on to individuals. Or individuals.
I do not see the fallacy. Businesses do pay taxes. Their income is taxed. The fact that they use "creative" (or just plain old boring) accounting to redistribute their money in order to avoid being taxed, doesn't make them better than individuals.
In fact, the irony is that because individual needs X dollars a year to live makes him an open target for tax collectors. He cannot claim that his taxable income should be (Y - X), where Y is revenue, as all corporations do. So by successfully maximizing X a corporation can basically avoid paying tax. Here go your corporate jets, $400/night hotels and such.
What should an individual do in order to outsmart the sucker game? Incorporate Let the other half of Americans enjoy their "taxes that are about right".
Paul Stevens: The other problem was changing the arguement of the top 10% paying the most dollars in taxes. That statement is fact.
It may as well be a fact. But a fact of no use. Sure, if top 1% of population owns over 80% of the riches, it makes sence. I didn't think the statement could lead to a meaningful conclusion (i.e. "10% paying the most taxes, so..."), that's why I took a liberty to suggest my own classification.
Shura

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
Sure, if top 1% of population owns over 80% of the riches, it makes sence.

So.

[Matthew Phillips]

It may as well be a fact. But a fact of no use. Sure, if top 1% of population owns over 80% of the riches, it makes sence.

But they don't. As per the IRS the top 1% earns 20.81% of the income but pays 37.42% of the tax.
Also keep in mind that the income tax is not a tax on wealth. It is a tax on income. There is a very big difference.
[ January 30, 2003: Message edited by: Matthew Phillips ]

[Paul Stevens]

He was talking about the wealth not actual income.

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
He was talking about the wealth not actual income.

I understood that, but wealth is not taxed by an income tax.

[Paul Stevens]

That was his point. He changed the arguement in the middle and brought up a different topic. I think to try to make the point that the "rich" don't deserve a tax break because they are rich.

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
That was his point. He changed the arguement in the middle and brought up a different topic. I think to try to make the point that the "rich" don't deserve a tax break because they are rich.

That's what I figured, but I am trying to bring it back to the fact that we are not talking about a tax cut for the rich (wealth does not get taxed). We are talking about a tax on income earners.

[Paul Stevens]

I am in agreement with you.

[Anonymous]

I guess I missed the most interesting part of the discussion...I was busy doing my taxes :roll:
Matthew Phillips: We are talking about a tax on income earners
I am with you guys. I've heard a very good interpretation on this, something like "tax on trying to become rich"
An individual, who enjoys an average $50,000/year income during his/hers life span, in 30 years earns $1.5 million before tax. Assuming roughly 27% tax bracket, it comes out as $1,095,000. Say, during this time individual buys a $200,000 house. With 7% interest rate, assuming 20K downpayment, the total price comes out around $431,120. That leaves roughly $664K. In 30 years average american will probably need 6 cars. Assuming an average $2K/year depriciation, and $1K/year insurance+maintenace, we are left with $574K. THAT'S ROUGHLY $19,140 PER YEAR, on food, clothes, entertainment, etc.
I guess income taxes are about right, huh?... :roll:
Shura

[Anonymous]

Oh, in my previous calculations I forgot minimum $2K/year pension plan contibution, interest rate on car loans, home improvements, etc. And there are more: kids, college tuitions, books, hobbies, and don't forget vacations...
Anyway, my point is that $50K/year is not such a big sum of money, especially if you are starting in this country from scratch (or even worse, college debt, but that's another thread). The only way an "average american" can become wealthy is by starting his/her own business (assuming there will not be another .com bubble)
Which totally makes sence.
Shura

[Paul Stevens]

Borrowed from another site.
If you don't understand the Democrats' version of tax cuts (and you are not alone), this will help explain it for you:
50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due.
The team was about to mail refunds when the congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee's interpretation of fairness. After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the ticket holders of the most expensive tickets.
That would be unconscionable.
The DNC plan says:
People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. Call it an "Earned" Income Ticket Credit". Persons "earn" it by demonstrating little ambition, few skills and poor work habits, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.
People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because that's only fair.
People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don't need a refund. If they can afford a $50 ticket, then they must not be paying enough taxes.
People in the $75 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way too much to spend.
The people driving by the stadium who couldn't afford to watch the game will get $10 each; even though they didn't pay anything, they need the most help.
Now do you understand? If not, contact Representative Nancy Pelosi or Senator Tom Daschle for assistance.

[Melvin Menezes]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
Borrowed from another site.
If you don't understand the Democrats' version of tax cuts ...
50,000 people go to a baseball game...

Paying for baseball tickets is paying for receiving a service and is a voluntary action. Paying taxes is a duty imposed by law. Where's the analogy :roll: ?
and btw, democrats version surely does not mean refunding 15 to those who paid 10 AFAIK.
Talking about spinning :roll: ?

[Jason Menard]

That's a good one, Paul. And probably a little too close to the truth as well.

[Paul Stevens]

I plan on driving by baseball stadiums on rainy days just in case.

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:

Paying for baseball tickets is paying for receiving a service and is a voluntary action. Paying taxes is a duty imposed by law. Where's the analogy :roll: ?
and btw, democrats version surely does not mean refunding 15 to those who paid 10 AFAIK.
Talking about spinning :roll: ?

Actually the U.S. tax code does include what is called an earned income tax credit. It allows people who do not earn a certain amount of money (sorry I don't remember the exact amount) to receive a refund of all income taxes paid and an additional "tax credit" for income they would have paid taxes on if they had earned it.
As to the issue of voluntary vs. imposed and services, isn't government a service of the people? Since you can be forced to pay taxes at the barrel of a gun (government can use force to acheive it's goals) doesn't the government have an even greater responsibility to the people to ensure that the law is equally applied to all people?
[ February 06, 2003: Message edited by: Matthew Phillips ]

[Paul Stevens]

To put it another way. Again FROM ANOTHER SITE.
The Truth about Taxes by Anonymous
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner.
The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men-the poorest-would pay nothing;
The fifth would pay $1:
The sixth would pay $3;
The seventh $7;
The eighth $12;
The ninth $18.
The tenth man-the richest-would pay $59.
That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement-until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.
But what about the other six-the paying customers?
How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the
sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal.
So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man.
"Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They were $52 short!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works.
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

[Melvin Menezes]

Good One!
But you sure do not even remotely think that the whole concept of taxing is as simple as the dinner story, do you? . Or is there some conspiracy by the CPA and H&R block people to propose highly complex tax systems instead of a flat rate tax system to avoid unemployment? And may be all the account professors are involved too in that conspiracy?

[Melvin Menezes]

PS: As to the issue of voluntary vs. imposed and services, isn't government a service of the people? Since you can be forced to pay taxes at the barrel of a gun (government can use force to acheive it's goals) doesn't the government have an even greater responsibility to the people to ensure that the law is equally applied to all people?
The government does have a greater responsibility to ensure that the law is equally applied to all people BUT at the same time the government also has a greater responsibility to ensure that none of the citizens are deprived of their basic needs. And that is why we have welfare programs. Those who run the baseball game show are strictly in a business of making money and don't give a damn if someone can afford to buy the tickets or not. The government cannnot think that way. So the analogy is not the right one.

[Matthew Phillips]

The government does have a greater responsibility to ensure that the law is equally applied to all people BUT at the same time the government also has a greater responsibility to ensure that none of the citizens are deprived of their basic needs. And that is why we have welfare programs.

Ensuring people have the basic needs is not a proper function of government. Protecting the rights of the people is. Welfare is based on the concept of taking away the property of one person and giving it to another.

[Paul Stevens]

In medicine, misdiagnosis leading to mistreatment and further injury can lead to malpractice suits. Unfortunately, in politics, misdiagnosis, mistreatment and further injury lead to re-election. -- Walter Williams
Your signature says it all.