From the right: The bottom 10% are "lucky duckies"

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

For example, a rich person should contribute a lot more to the local police department, because he benefits a lot more from their services.

And in the U.S. he pays a lot more, as most local funding comes from property taxes. He also pays a lot more for the schools, roads etc. I pay more in taxes every year now than I used to make when I was younger, and I am only a middle class person who owns his own house.

[Kropotkin]

The real "problem" with the article is not it's views on the taxes. Some like the WSJ and DanS don't think there should be any elements of redistribution of wealth through the tax-system. It's first and foremost a normative statement that's beyond right and wrong (although DanS' use of the term 'Class' in his post is somewhat interesting, at least from my point of view). There's also the hinted perspective on how to messure cost and benefits. It's normative as well. my personal view is that the WSJ shows a good example of the rights paradoxal mix of ruthlessness and naïve innocence.

Anyhow, the key thing in it is really the WSJ's perspective on people with a low income. "Lucky Duckies" is a clear nominee for a "Let them eat Cake"-award. It's really a lot like the way people wrote about those happy negros in the not so good old days. It puts the entire article in another light. Quite contraproductive for their virews in my not so humble opinion.

[JohnT]

So we have one editorial taking swipe at another. And that's news?

I subscribe to the WSJ and must have missed the editorial in question - I'll look it up tonight (it's 8:30am here) before commenting on something that I haven't even read.

I will say that it sounds more like a warning and oblique advice to the Republicans: 29,000,000 potential voters have no stake in the lowering or raising of income taxes, but those same voters are getting creamed by payroll taxes. Therefore, your future strategy should de-emphasize income tax cuts and emphasize payroll tax reform (like cut the rate by 2% but raise the cap to $125,000) if you want to attract these voters.

I'll alert the RNC.

[JohnT]

Oops.

[Dr Strangelove]

How does the portion of the tax burden for each segment of the population comopare to their portion of the gross national (or domestic) income? If the top bracket pays half the taxes, what portion of the nation's income do they get? What portion of the nation's wealth go they own?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
How does the portion of the tax burden for each segment of the population comopare to their portion of the gross national (or domestic) income? If the top bracket pays half the taxes, what portion of the nation's income do they get? What portion of the nation's wealth go they own?

Are you proposing a flat rate tax?

[Sava]

I bet if you did an in-depth study about who pays what, I'm sure you'll see that the top 1% and corporations end up paying much less taxes (as percentage of income) than the middle and lower classes. With all the corporate welfare, bermuda tax dodging, and Bush/Reagan style cuts, the wealthy make out like bandits.

BUT SADDAM IS BAD, WE MUST DISARM HIM!!

[Dauphin]

If you look at what percentage people pay just to live (e.g food, rent, electric etc) you will find poor people pay a lot more for basic needs. Seeing as they have a higher cost of living it stands to reason that they are less able to pay taxes. Having progressive taxation (to me at least) is not about redistribution of wealth, but about letting poor people have an opportunity to live.

I would have thought this obvious.

[Sava]

It is obvious to those who aren't drowning in selfishness and self-righteousness.

[GePap]

I say we get rid of taxation on incomes and switch to a proggresive sales tax on all transaction. Tax people for consuming, not earning, with very low if any taxation on basic needs and high taxes on luxury items and certain services.

Let the boys at the WSJ take that!

Also funny is the fact the the WSJ has asked its writers not t use GOP anymore since some of its readers don't know what it stands for: I guess when they talk orgasmically about the republicans, they want to be sure everyone will know who they are speaking so orgasmically about. (Though if you don't know what GOP stands for, why would you know all the other abbreviations in that paper?)

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by GePap
I say we get rid of taxation on incomes and switch to a proggresive sales tax on all transaction. Tax people for consuming, not earning, with very low if any taxation on basic needs and high taxes on luxury items and certain services.

Can you say "Smuggling"?

[Sava]

That would only work if the taxation is less than the amount it costs for smugglers to peddle their warez.

[chequita guevara]

I'm in agreement with DanS, up to a point. Everyone should be taxed. Everyone needs to have a monetary stake in the system. However, I think the income tax structure should be far more progressive. Taxes on basic necessities like food (labeled tax loopholes by the politicians in Florida) should be substantially lowered or abolished. Tax on unemployment income should be abolished. (I know, rather self-serving of me).

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Tax on unemployment income should be abolished. (I know, rather self-serving of me).

It seems pointless to me anyway. What is the difference between the current situation and abolish the tax and giving less in benefits. As far as I can see its just about paperwork and funding channels.

(It does effect later employment, but I'm thinking longer term unemployed)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Taxes on basic necessities like food (labeled tax loopholes by the politicians in Florida) should be substantially lowered or abolished.

In some states taxes on food are abolished. In New Jersey, there are no taxes on food (except candy), water, and even clothes.

And how did all people from the 'right' get represented by a random WSJ commentary? I don't remember voting on that .