>>Further to what Marcia said - if we, as a policy, feel it is OK to redustribute from the wealthy to the middle class....what incentive is there for anyone to want to move upward? And why WOULDN'T everyone pay some taxes - doesn't everyone utilize the services that the taxes purchase (defense, roads, environmental, safety, etc)?? In fact, there is a case to be made that the lower class uses MORE of these services! A flat tax structure helps to eliminate much of the animus between the so-called "classes" - everyone pays, everyone benefits.
>
>>non-applicable in the US. What properties have any Americans lost (at least since 1865).
>
>Don't you think that the lack of loss of properties in the USA due to war if not related to the amount of money spent on defense? and as a side note, there were properties lost after 1865, may be not many, but what about Perl Harbor?
>
>>Public transportation in the US is not even CLOSE to being paid for by fares LOL. See also Amtrack - a perennial billion dollar sinkhole.
>
>Yes, public transit is subsidized everywhere, afaik. But, they still pay the fare and more to the point, they use the roads less.
>
>>what does this have to do with taxes? I was referring to things like EPA regulations, etc which are used to protect all Americans - not just the rich.
>
>And I am sure you think those regulations are for the poor are the main contributors to pollution?
>
>>Again, how is this related to taxation? Garbage is a local issue. Energy? I still don't see the link. Energy is fairly close to being paid for by usage. But even so, they would be less likely to use energy-efficient cars. appliances, etc
>
>Garbage affects the environment, the more garbage you produce, the more damage you make; the more damage you make, more money is needed to fix the damage (or prevent or research or whatever, there is a reason why there is a "federal spending on the environment" on the US budget), and for that you need to pay more taxes.
>
>>Sounds fishy to me. I'm not going to Google but I suspect there is a much higher rate of usage of police and fire resources amongst lower incomes than higher.
>>*The only thing they might use more is health care system... oh, wait a second....
>>The ONLY thing???? That is absolutely laughable! How about entire govenment departments dedicated to food stamps, aid to mothers, unemployment, reduced cost school lunches, subsidized transportation, and REFUNDS on a tax return for which they made NO contribution???
>
>Well, you missed the point, it does not matter it was a joke, just like your heath care system.
>
>
>>Exactly how is getting paid minimum wage - or being unemployed - a TAX that they pay?? One half of all Americans conttribute nothing - or worse yet, get a REFUND - for trillions in services available.
>
>I did not triy to imply unemployed, I hope those claims about 50% of people not paying taxes was referring to working people otherwise the claim is ridicoulous. What I meant is that if there were fair wages, and I do not consider a minimum wage fare as it fails to provide a family with house, transportation, food and clothing, so let's say the minimun wage is 8$ where it should be, let's say for arguments sake $14.
>Then if the income tax is 30%, they are already overpaying $2
>
>
>>
>>Our local governments provide services to ALL citizens with a flat tax. It is clearly possible and fair. The rest of the argument boils down to social policy making...not a tax "system" problem.


Hugo, I really wish we lived in the same metro area. You would be a good lunch companion.