From: one-if-by-land@concord.com   
      
   "Kris Krieger"  wrote in message   
   news:13srbh1r276ipd8@corp.supernews.com...   
   > "Michael Bulatovich"  wrote in   
   > news:fqk4h802d9h@news5.newsguy.com:   
   >   
   >>   
   >> "++"  wrote in message   
   >> news:TOOdnYSCyayQDlDanZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@rcn.net...   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Michael Bulatovich wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>"Kris Krieger"  wrote in message   
   >>>>news:13sp4m2h137oo9b@corp.supernews.com...   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>Er, a $12K car incurs less tax than does a $45K car.  A home costing   
   >>>>>$124K incurs less tax than does a house coting $265K.  Food isn't   
   >>>>>(and should not be!) taxed.  So I'm confused as to how sales tax is   
   >>>>>a higher ratio for the poor...?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Firstly, the poor spend a higher percentage of what they make than do   
   >>>>the rich. (Usually around 100%.) The richer you are, the more likely   
   >>>>you are to invest/save higher and higher percentages of your income.   
   >>>>There is no sales tax on investments or savings.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> But there is tax on your capital gains, and even if there are losses   
   >>> later, you cannot recapture your gains.   
   >>   
   >> Sure, burt the initial investment is not taxed, only the new money   
   >> made by the old money.   
   >   
   > Nothing has been exchanged, so there is nothing to tax.  All one has done   
   > is basically hand some money over to another person for them to use, and   
   > in return, they "rent" the money from you.   
   >   
   > If you invest in a company, what you're theoretically doing is investing   
   > in that company's infrastructure and operations - IOW, you're "renting"   
   > your money to the company (or city, or Federal Gov.t, etc.) sothat they   
   > can use it to hopefully expand their operations and thereby bring in more   
   > money.   
   >   
   >   
   >>>>Secondly, the poor pay the same tax on a loaf as do the rich, and   
   >>>>that tax is also a greater percentage of what they earn. Most flat   
   >>>>tax schemes shift the tax burden down the income ladder, the   
   >>>>difference generally being how far down before the bill is due.   
   >>>   
   >>> A number of flat tax schemes exempt food (except luxury food and   
   >>> drink), children's clothing and other necessities.  This helps take   
   >>> the onus off the poor and makes sure the rich get taxed, not   
   >>> sheltered.  There can be additional luxury taxes.   
   >>   
   >> The devil is in the details, but, like I said, you don't hear   
   >> advocates for the poor calling for flat taxes.   
   >   
   > Ah, but what *do* they call for?  As I've said, I remember what it's like   
   > to live in a roach-infested leaky basement apt. with a toilet that   
   > periodically backs sewage into the bathroom, and what it's like to run   
   > out of grocery money before payday because most of the $$ went to rent.   
   > So I'm not just barking out my ass - I know it's hard to get by, but, by   
   > the same token, I'm very leery on simplistically dividing the ehtire   
   > planet into "rich" versus "poor".  A lot of people who get called "rich"   
   > pay a hell of a lot of taxes, even when they're unlikely to use public   
   > services.  And a lot of people get called "rich" merely because they've   
   > worked like dogs and lived frugally, and managed to save a bit towards   
   > retirement and maybe buy a modest house.  It's *those* folks who end up   
   > getting hit up the most.   
   >   
   >> It was probably a   
   >> mistake on my part to introduce the concept of a flat tax into a   
   >> discussion about sales tax. In my mind they are similar, but obviously   
   >> different too.   
   >   
   > All taxes are both similar (in that they are taxes) and differnt (in that   
   > they use different mechanisms to extract money/value from different   
   > products, items, and so on).   
   >   
   > Meanwhile, what is the sales tax on a Learjet?   
      
   A lot.   
   But it doesn't matter because the only people that own them use them for   
   busniess purposes and write the whole thing off, which gets passed down to   
   the people at the bottom.   
   So, the poor guy on the street that purchases a loaf of bread with the last   
   of his money is funneling that coinage back up to the guy at the top with   
   the Lear.   
      
   This starts into the realm of *negative* money, where, if you don't *do*   
   something with it it becomes a major deficit to the owner.   
   If you won $10mil in the lottery you couldn't just put it in the bank and   
   live off of it because the *expense* would wear it out in a year or less.   
   You'd have to *do* something with it to keep it beyond the grasp of theives   
   that are running loose.   
      
   IOW, exactly what   
   > percentage do the "rich" contribute to local, state, and federal   
   > services...?  I know what comes out of the household funds via income   
   > taxes, porperty taxes, sales taxes, fees, and so on, and it is a frigging   
   > damn hell of alot, even tho' we're not "rich".  I also remember what came   
   > out back in my "roach motel" days.  I don't even want to think how many   
   > of me-back-thens this household could currently support.   
   >   
   > People alwasy like to ignroe that fact and claim that the "rich" don't   
   > pay anything whatsoever.  Maybe multi-millionaires should pay more,   
      
   Why, simply because they earn more money?   
   There is no logic in that.   
   Just as, there is no logic in taxing poor people more because they are poor.   
   People should pay for things they want regardless of being rich or poor.   
      
      
   but   
   > if that's the case, let's please be mroe specific, as opposed to the   
   > simplistic and utterly-undefined buzzwords of "rich" versus "poor".   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)