Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, boiled down, the complaint is that the top 10% pay 47.6% of all income taxes instead of 48.7%?
And that the middle 60% pay 35.2% instead of 34.6% of all income taxes?
Don't absolute figures count for anything?
Soak the rich indeed.
|
I just took a spin through a bunch of think tank sites re: flat taxes. One site included a link to some Senate hearing regarding the impact of such taxes. The writer argued that a flat tax would disproprtionately tax families of four making less then $25k. My wife and I make a lot more than $25k, and we're concerned about whether we can afford two kids! Why in the fuck are my taxes being tied to the concerns of an irresponsible person who has kids despite the fact that he barely has an income above poverty level? Godamnit. Because Cletus and Maybelline or a single mom in the ghetto decides to keep having kids they can't afford, me - the responisble one - has to take it on the chin? What the fuck? The irresponsible should not be used a an example for purposes of deciding tax policy. If we take out of the hypothetical all the loathesome swine (and bringing a child into the world iunder such conditions makes you that - a swine) who reproduce despite clear inability to pay for new mouths, my guess is the flat tax looks a lot more fair.
Its amazing. Genitalia might as well be loaded guns - the effect of their use by the lowest common denominator is probably THE single biggest problem in modern society. Just above the problem with allowing jackasses to together these "studies" for the Senate.
