"Dan Moos" wrote in message
...
Alright, I've been listening in on this tax debate, and I can no longer
resist puting in my say.

What tax debate? My only comments have been to point out how simple-minded
thinking doesn't prove anything (like trying to claim that the wealthy
obviously pay more than their fair share, for example). Only a fool would
make an attempt to debate taxes in a piloting newsgroup.

Being such a fool, and not having gotten sucked deep into one of these
off-topic divergences in awhile, here I go...

From a standpoint of fairness, I suppose we could dicker all day that ones
persons "fair" is another persons "unfair". That's silly, because it is a
cop out to debating the facts of the argument.

It's not a cop-out to the point at hand. It specifically addresses it.
That is that one cannot simply say something is or is not "fair". The word
is too vague to have any meaning in this context.

I am a construction worker with no college education. [...]

Another guy , like me, has no college education [...]

ANOTHER guy is a real go-getter. [...]

First problem with your simplistic view: the three people to whom you refer
are stereotypes. In reality, many people who work very hard and who are
very good at what they do make very little money, while many people who
don't work very hard and who are not all that good at what they do make HUGE
amounts of money.

You cannot generalize a person's non-financial worth to society by their
income.

Why is the government entitled to such a large amount of the rich guy's
money, and so small a percentage of mine, and so even MORE small a
percentage of the fast-food worker. What greater services has the
successfull person been given by our government that he needs to pay a
premium.? We reward success with a tax penalty?

It's not a system of rewards. It's a system of *taxes*. Generally
speaking, it's designed to redistribute the wealth so that the government
can provide a variety of services for all citizens. The system does not IN
ANY WAY attempt to consider whether a person has come by their wealth
deservedly.

In the simplest example, the obvious reason a pure flat tax is NOT fair is
that below a certain income, taxing that income is taking food from the
table. One can try to fix that problem by exempting people making less than
that certain amount of money from paying any taxes. But wait!

When it comes to disposable income, clearly some expenses are more
"necessary" than others. For example, while no one really *needs* a book,
having books helps a person's education, which will give them an advantage
in the workplace, which will create a larger tax base (it's in the
government's best interest to improve overall wages). On the other hand,
does that rich guy over there *really* need *three* tennis courts? Surely
one or two would do.

So a graduated tax system is created, exempting the lowest-paid earners
altogether so that they can still eat, and exempting the middle-paid earners
somewhat so that they can at least enjoy some of the luxuries that allowed
the top earners to get where they are.

To further complicate matters, tax law is written not just to redistribute
wealth, but also to guide social practices. Thus the deductions allowed for
charitable given, for example. Any time the government has an idea of how
they want people to behave, but they don't feel that they can make it a law,
they look to the tax code to push people in the direction they want them to
go.

Even that's a simplistic way of looking at things, but hopefully it gives
you some idea of why the issue is large enough that some people cannot even
address it fully in an entire career, never mind could any justice to it be
done in an off-topic post to a Usenet newsgroup.

Actually, the poor person is far more likely to be taking advantage of the
social programs that the rich guy is paying so much for.

As well he should. One of the reasons we tax the rich and give to the poor
is to try to "level the playing field". Wealth creates wealth, and without
some redistribution, the wealthy just get wealthier and the poor just get
poorer. Granted, that's still happening in this country to some degree, but
it's not happening as fast as it otherwise might have.

Of course, if there is a possibility that less revenew will be generated
if
we went to a flat tax, but does that automatically make it bad? Maybe our
country shouldn't attempt so many social programs until we can afford it.
They are good, but if the money isn't there, then, well.....

The money IS there. It's just being spent on tennis courts rather than food
for the poor, if you don't tax the wealthy.

And consider this. Bush is commonly accused of giving tax breaks to the
rich, and also for somehow being responsible for the jobless rate.

People attribute all sorts of silly things to the President, Bush or
otherwise. Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper. In
particular, I don't see how the overall economy and unemployment rate can be
blamed on a single person, never mind the President.

I *do* feel that the tax cuts were unwise, and I do feel that Bush was a
major player in causing them to happen, but the biggest effect of the cuts
has been to plunge the country into even deeper debt. The main problem with
the economy is a result of over-eager stock market trading in the technology
sector, and Bush hardly had anything to do with that.

Well,
common sense suggests that the easier we make it for businesses to
succeed,
the more jobs will be generated. The bigger (richer?) the business, the
more
job generating potential.

"Common sense"? Forget about it. Things just aren't that simple. First of
all, the definition of "make it easier for businesses to succeed" is
undetermined in your post. What if we make it easier for businesses to
succeed by allowing them only be taxed if they actually engage in
manufacturing in the US? If you do that, you wind up with FEWER jobs in the
US, not more.

But what if we continue as others would have it. How are we to generate
more
jobs if we tax the crap out of the job generators. I am unlikely to evr
employ anyone. The only way a tax break causes me to help the economy is
by
increasing my ability to buy things, which would slowly help the economy.

Actually consumer spending is a strong force in affecting the economy. That
said, stimulating consumer spending by creating a larger deficit is no more
a responsible economic policy than stimulating consumer spending by allowing
them to borrow more money than they could repay in a lifetime.

Debt is only helpful to an extent, beyond which it hurts things.

I live in Washington. If Boeing were taxed fairly at the same rate I am,
they could no doubt DRASTICALLY drop they're prices.

You'll have to define "drastically". However, by any normal definition,
you're just plain wrong. An employer like Boeing already enjoys pretty
significant tax benefits. Local governments go out of their way (as best
they are able to afford to) to encourage businesses to locate in their tax
jurisdiction by giving them economic incentives. The theory is that a
smaller percentage of something is better than a larger percentage of
nothing.

Didn't you ever wonder why Boeing moved their headquarters to Chicago?

They are capable of
creating thousands of jobs. Jobs mean tax payers. The more thjobs, the
more
tax reveniew, and soon it balances out. The liberals have never let Bush
implement his tax ideas properly, and so the crippled versions that pass
are
called failures. Well, duh.

Ahh, yes. The old "trickle-down" theory of economics. Didn't work in the
80's, and it's not going to work now. It has nothing to do with your theory
that "the liberals have never let Bush implement his tax ideas properly".
Bush made very clear that he wanted a tax break for the *individual*, and he
got that. Letting the wealthy keep their money does NOT make things better
for the poor. It just gives the wealthy more leverage with which to exploit
the poor.

Pete