You're not exactly making your point there.

>What?? WHAT??? Of course equality was a founding tenet. But there was the issue of blacks and women and you are correct there. Equality meant, to them, amongst white males. Emancipation and the abolition of slavery were ideas that were far too "out there" for the Founders to countenance. Jefferson wanted to inject anti-slavery language into the Constitution or Declaration (I forget which) but backed off when he realized it would be too divisive. When looking at what the 18th Century intellectuals did from the viewpoint of the 21st Century, we're not being fair until we apply the vast difference in cultures.
>
>>I would dispute that equality was a founding tenet of this country. Founders like Jefferson and Hamilton did not consider themselves equal to all their countrymen. And then there is the matter of women and blacks....
>>
>>The income tax was established by an amendment to the Constitution. (14th? 15th?) And it was a graduated tax from the start. We have never had a flat tax, nor have other western nations. You act like it goes without saying that everyone should pay the same tax rate. You might like that but it isn't reality.
>>
>>>Urrrgghhh
>>>
>>>Mike, you are a dear friend but there are times.....
>>>
>>>Equality and the sanctity of the individual were the founding tenets of this country. And like free speech, all should be equal. You really can't make exceptions to that on principle. If you believe that some should be taxed more than others then you are violating the concept of equality and equal protection. Kobe is a bad example since he works for a firm that pays him more than others and expects higher returns. But the government should not work that way.
>>>
>>>I'll kick to you the same thing I did to Tamar - show me a Constitutional basis for your belief.
>>>
>>>>I am not hopelessly argumentative, honest injun. But a flat income tax is still regressive. Whatever the cutoff is, add a dollar and ask yourself if it hits that person harder than someone with a much higher income. Of course it does.
>>>>
>>>>This is not some utopian pipe dream or soak-the-rich thing. I just believe the more able should contribute more. Here is a non-monetary analogy. When the Lakers play, isn't Kobe Bryant expected to score more than his share of points? He is able to and he should. It's best for the team. Maybe that's a stretch (ow, my back hurts)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mike, you missed my posting about having exemptions from the tax for incomes under a certain level. No one "officially" poor should be subject to the flat tax. The tax should begin only on income above a certain level.
>>>>>
>>>>>>A flat tax is a completely different idea. And, needless to say, deeply regressive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A very simple example -- let's say there is a flat tax of 15%. Under this system someone with an income of $20,000 would pay $3000 and someone with an income of $200,000 would pay $30,000. The 3K is going to sting taxpayer #1 a heck of a lot more than the 30K is going to sting taxpayer #2. You can call it "fair" because the percentages are the same, but the impact is not fair or equal at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hey Nick,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You raise a good point. There are no rich men made poor by taxation. Do you know why? Because the tax laws are so torturous and have so many loopholes that the wealthy find ways to avoid the sting. Therein lies the problem - we don't need to tax the rich more, we need to focus on a flat tax with few loopholes where everyone is playing the same equivalent amount. Right now if the marginal rates are raised without reform of the tax laws it'll be another case of hiding wealth in tax shelters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You and Tamar have me all wrong on this. I am not advocating no tax changes on the wealthy; on the contrary - I am saying that democratic principles dictate that we have a flat tax rate with no loopholes (or maybe for the truly disadvantaged). To me, this is the sound and equitable way to finance government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As to Sweden and other extreme tax nations - it's a whole 'nother discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I think I've said here before. Show me a rich man made poor by taxation.They don't exist or have a bad accountant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I noticed you said that high taxation economies fail. Thats strange because high tax economies are among the most successful countries with a very high quality of life. (Sweden for example)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Nick, I'm not right-wing - I'm libertarian. Yes, a hiccup. I'm tired of all this garbage that this is the worst economic crisis since the Depression. It ain't. Look at the 70's with price fixing,energy crises, 20+% interest rates....but Obama and his cohorts have managed to convince everyone that everything is a crisis and that's how they are getting away with stuff that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>An "economic hiccup". Is that how its now described in the political badlands that are the US right wing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The hand that was dealt him??? From whom? He took an economic hiccup and turned it into the greatest deficit spending and land grab bonanza on the part of the Feds the world has ever seen.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Please, Mr. John, don't cut my cojones off! LOL
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Let's just say we seriously disagree about Barack Obama. I don't think he is an ideologue at all. He is playing the hand that was dealt him. IMO he is the steadiest minded president we have had in a long time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>As I said in another post a few minutes ago, the assignment is going great. You should keep them in mind for the future. Can tell you more privately if you like.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mike,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>BTW, before I cut your cojones off, let me say that I hope your assignment is going well and wish I could be there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The market is up partly because there is some artificial trading going on. Money is being dumped into the market that wouldn't be there normally and I don't pretend to understand why but that's what's happening.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think most of us anti-progressives did give Obama a chance and he's spit in our face. He is the imperial President; new czars all over the place that usurp the tradional powers of Congress. And then, hey, date night in Manhatten at taxpayer expense. Funny, I don't recall Bush doing that. But I guess Nero fiddles....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Obama is the biggest ideologue we've had as President since FDR. He will do what he wants to do and it'll all be cloaked with BS...and then the sheeople will wake up and realize they are paying 2-3K more to the Feds than they used to. Too late then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I agree with you. I would love to see us energy independent and tell OPEC to eat their oil for breakfast. But sadly, we've a ways to go yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Off shore drilling would certainly help. It would also help to create some of those jobs that Obama said that he was going to save or create with his spendulus package.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Give the guy a chance, Marcia. The stock market is up three months in a row under his tenure and his approval levels remain at historic highs. I know you do not agree with him philosophically. All I'm saying is keep an open mind.