Quote:
Originally Posted by smc
The flat tax is regressive. That's why so many wealthy people and their think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation support it. A lowly service worker needs a greater percentage of her income to survive than does a wealthy "captain of industry" or me, or, I suspect, Tracy Coxx. Why shouldn't we pay a higher percentage? What good does it do our country to have a regressive tax?
|
Flat tax is flat tax, and regressive tax is regressive tax. Our present tax code is social engineering run amok. The government should not get into the business of deciding who should have a bigger burden. Flat tax removes that and taxes everyone an equal percentage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc
Of course, if you are a person who hasn't a thread of social solidarity in her or his bones, it makes perfect sense to call for regressive taxation on income. Tracy Coxx, is that where you stand?
|
No. I support flat tax remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc
There is absolutely no reason why taxes should not be higher the more money you make.
|
It should not be the burden of 10% of the country to fund 68% of the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc
I'm for eliminating the entire "offense" budget, as I made clear. Why do you support keeping any of the "offense" budget, Tracy Coxx?
|
In case the need to defend ourselves arises.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc
I hope that you will state without equivocation -- that is, without raising an ancillary issue -- your support for a 100% elimination of the subsidies I mentioned to which your response above corresponds.
|
I will stop raising ancillary issues when responding to you if you will do the same with me. But yes, I support the elimination of 100% of subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas - with one exception: If US laws prohibit a company from doing work within our own borders, and that company's products are of value to the US, then it's only fair for that company to be subsidized to cover the additional expense of doing business elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc
It was a horrible compromise made by a president who is largely spineless. But he made clear he did not think it was a good idea.
|
With a democrat controlled House and Senate, why did a democrat president compromise and do something he didn't think was a good idea?
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc
The financial institutions take bailout money and make little credit available.
|
Well they can do that when they also run the treasury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc
Notably, you said nothing about my main point about sustainability, equitability, and social unrest.
|
If you want the wealthiest 10% of the country to pay for the operation of the country, don't be surprised when they want to call the shots. And it's not sustainable. It will last until over 50% of the country realizes they can vote themselves a share of the treasury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc
As for the "entitlement" discussion, I have no doubt that GRH is more than capable of responding.
|
Yeah, she's pretty good about that.