 |
|
Add to My Group
|
October 30, 2008 at 19:58:46
|
|
|
1
1
The only question is as to sustaining the change [to higher taxes] before the people. I believe it can be sustained, because it does not increase the tax upon the "many poor" but upon the "wealthy few" . . . I go for all sharing the privileges of government who assist in bearing its burdens. copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org The chap was well-dressed, as was his wife. She expressed her disdain with her husband's choice. He would cast his ballot for John McCain in this election year. Taxes were his only concern. This lovely lady declared herself an active Democrat. She had been a Clinton supporter, Hillary that is. Now, she was decisively behind Barack Obama, and proud of it. I might not have known this or much else about the couple of strangers; however, in the year 2008, everyone seems anxious to share political concerns. Those in malls understand the woes and are apprehensive they might be next. With more citizens out of work, millions find they cannot pay the mortgage. Ruthless subprime rates raked many United States residents over the proverbial coals. Home loan representatives, who indulged in illicit although not illegal, practices, have helped cause an abundance of foreclosures. Many Americans are out on the streets. Rage, resentments, and calls for a revolution, are rampant. However, on the issue of tax policies those who benefited under the Bush plan want no change. Dollars held tightly in the palm of an individuals' hand make sense to those such as this stylish gentleman I met more than a month ago. For me, the discussion of government assessments began long before America became acquainted with "Joe the Plumber." It commenced when I met a couple whose names I do not know. Perchance, as I tell this tale, I will call them John and Jane Doe. The man, woman, and I did not exchange names, although we had an extensive conversation. The three of us were in a second-hand store. Still, we all wondered whether we could afford to buy even one item. Today prices are high. The cost of living soars. Incomes are depressed; dollars are too. Small businesses suffer. Workers employed in large and smal companies fear they will not be able to survive. In September 2008, 159,000 jobs were lost. This monthly calculation is the worst seen in five years. Americans are not surprised. This computation confirms what most have felt. The economic downturn is severe. Hence, the trepidation for higher taxes. Talk of tariffs adds to the daily stress people experience in hard economic times. John Doe expressed, for him, the only issue of import is levees. His spouse Jane sighed. Restless, she pleaded to her husband, "There is more to consider." However, her husband remained resolute. This genteel gent was concerned with his own fortune, not with societal failures. The proposal presented before the public by Barack Obama says persons such as "Joe the Plumber" and the fine fellow who stood before me are reminiscent of Socialism. Republicans and Independents who see themselves as rugged individualists react strongly to the idea of wealth redistribution. Democrats attempt to remind all Americans of history. A prominent Republican, Abraham Lincoln, first introduced the strategy that would rearrange the division of riches. During the Civil War, as costs to run a nation and sustain a war effort could no longer cover expenses, President Lincoln imposed an income tax, a progressive rate of return applied to revenue. Responsibly in 1862, the then President of the United States choose to seek and preserve fiscal common sense. Unlike the current Commander-In-Chief, the former Chief Executive believed budgets must be balanced. Thus, citizens were charged a fee on income in order to pay for the conflict between the States. The Civil War Commander also grasped an awful truth; if war is profitable, people will prefer the fight, President Lincoln hoped to ensure economic gain would not be an incentive for bloody battles. While his plan worked, the prosperous protested, just as they did during the Persian Gulf conflict. Commander-In-Chief Lincoln struggled in his efforts to find a way to pay for the Civil War. Initially, President Lincoln turned to bankers to pay for the battles. After all, the citizens called barons of capitalism, in a derogatory fashion, had the money and the means. Yet, then, just as now, financiers would not fund what they thought an uncertain future. In the nineteenth and twenty-first centuries, lenders groused; loans are liens. Repayment is required. The individuals of yesteryear who wished to secure and retain personal profits were more than reluctant to part with cash. Indeed, they refused. The stranger who stood before me and "Joe he Plumber' might relate. They too do not want to contribute a penny more of their cash to assist the country. Miserly might best describe the early proprietors of principal. The term may also apply to the gracious gentleman in my presence, the person I refer to as John, or to "Joe," the man who fits pipes for his wages. President Lincoln may, too, have been as these fellows are, early in his career. However, wartime realities transformed him. As Chief Executive of a country divided, Abraham Lincoln realized the toll discordance takes. Lincoln learned to consider Thomas Paine a prophet. He acknowledged, as the astute author penned in Common Sense, as the population increases, individuals and small clusters of people can no longer care for themselves, friends, and family. Nor can a modest collective control the chaos that comes when people are overwhelmed by a desire to be the one and only. John may wish to ponder the wisdom his wife expressed. Plumber Joe may want to join him. What the two thoughtful men might define as Socialism is, what Thomas Paine and Abraham Lincoln would classify as a society where government is of, by, and for the people. Perchance, the truth of what became self-evident after the Republican experiment of 1862 had a profound effect on what occurred decades later. The excise became permanent with the adoption of the Constitution's 16th amendment in 1913. Earlier the Supreme Court had rejected the duty; however, Congress, members of the Grand Old Party and Democrats together, overturned the decision. Income tax has allowed America to civically function and build communities that flourish for near a century and one half. For the last one hundred years, citizens of this country have endured, enabled by a tax system that secures education for all. The current tax structure redistributes wealth so that we all might travel on paved roads, feel safe on secure bridges, and enjoy the creature comforts of cheap electricity, and access to ample water. John McCain, Sarah Palin, "Joe the Plumber," persons of their ilk, and perhaps John Doe may prefer to be without the luxuries Americans take for granted. Fear of what they characterize as Communism or Socialism, could cause our society to crumble further. That is exactly what the person I refer to as Jane, John's life-long partner, had endeavored to communicate as the three of us exchanged philosophies on the floor of A Consignment Shoppe. Jane attempted to assert the Bush Administration engaged in redistribution. George W. Bush gave to the super-rich and took from the poor and Middle Class. The trickle-down theory was in truth a splash up. The abundantly affluent were doused in dollars. Common citizens crumbled under the weight of the wealthiest gains. Jane hoped she could explain, as did I. Our efforts proved futile. Neither of us had, close at hand, the evaluation of experts. Perhaps, had John been able to see the charts and graphs, had he read the terms of an agreement with Barack Obama or with John McCain, he would have recognized as Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, and we did. Refundable "Universal Mortgage Credit" of 10 percent of mortgage interest for nonitemizers up to $800 Make Research and Development and renewable energy production tax credit (wind, solar) permanent Extend childless Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) phase-in range and increase phase-out threshold; increase EITC phase-in rate to 45 percent for families with three or more children; increase add-on to EITC phase-out threshold for married filers to $5,000 Make Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit refundable and equal to 50 percent of child care expenses less than $6,000 Make saver's credit refundable and change to a 50 percent match of the first $1,000 of contributions Mandate automatic 401(k)s and automatic IRAs Reduce maximum corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent (phased in by 2015) Increase the dependent exemption by two-thirds (phased in by 2016) Convert Research and Development credit to 10 percent of wages incurred for Research and Development, make permanent Require information reporting of basis for gains Restore 36 and 39.6 percent statutory income tax rates in 2009 Restore phase-out of personal exemptions and itemized deductions (PEP and Pease) for households making more than $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples), increase the PEP and Pease threshold Close loopholes in the corporate tax deductibility of CEO pay Tax carried interest as ordinary income Reallocate multinational tax deductions Impose a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies Require publicly traded financial partnerships to pay corporate income tax Codify economic substance doctrine (requires transactions that qualify for tax benefits have economic justification beyond those benefits) Create an international tax haven watch list of countries who do not share information with the U.S. and require greater financial disclosure to decrease tax shelters Eliminate oil and gas loopholes Unspecified corporate base broadeners Require employers to provide insurance or pay a percentage of payroll to support the national plan Small business healthcare tax credit of 50 percent of employer paid premiums The "Sage of Omaha" thinks the strategy Barack Obama wishes to exercise is wise. The multi-billionaire investor states Barack Obama "is going to bring outstanding ideas" to the White House. Warren Buffett worries that America, under John McCain might stay the course that has not served us well. As the nation's economy free falls into a downward spiral, Warren Buffett reasons. After voicing support for Obama, Buffett nonetheless noted the US economy had managed to do "awfully well" despite a depression, two world wars, and many financial crises. "They say in the stock market ... buy stock in a business that's so good that an idiot can run it because sooner or later one will," he added. "Well, the United States is a little like that. We can take a little mis-management from time to time," Buffett said. The Arizona Senator has faith; if he devotes his attention to everyday Americans, he can still win the presidency. The people's choice is a reflection of how the public feels about the economy. If John McCain can convince John Doe, the man who might be an Investor, and Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, the self-described soon-to-be owner of a profitable small plumbing business, that Barack Obama, like Abraham Lincoln before him, is a Socialist, Senator McCain will be successful in his bid for the White House. Granted, if McCain become President, John Doe may not be provided for. Jane, his spouse, and I are sure Senator McCain will not care for our needs, but then Commander-In-Chief aspirant and Arizona affluent, McCain does not want the vote of those who recognize the rich reaped greater treasures from the Bush redistribution of wealth plan. Senator John McCain does not desire the vote of Obama supporters, such as billionaire Warren Buffett, who he cannot sway with slams of Socialism. John McCain's only wish is to seize a commitment from constituents who have not learned from history. The abundantly affluent Arizona Senator desires to hold on to those voters who are apprehensive. He seeks support from citizens who declare, as the Republican candidate does, the proposed tax plan of Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, is as Abraham Lincoln's redistribution of wealth strategy was, "Socialism" References to the past and hopeful future . . . 
~ Letter to William S. Wait, March 2, 1839, reprinted in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, volume 1, p. 148. Rutgers University Press. (1953, 1990).
~ Letter to the Editor of the Sangamon Journal, June 13, 1836, reprinted in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, volume 1, p. 48. Rutgers University Press. (1953, 1990).Times, as the adage states, are "tough." Yet, life goes on. Families still celebrate birth dates, nuptials, and anniversaries. People continue to purchase gifts, although most do not feel they can afford to shop. Persons do not purchase until they drop. Instead, individuals in stores stop and chat of the financial crisis. They speak of fears and folly. Countless recount tales of pink slips received. Others anxiously await what they cannot predict. Will they soon be among the 6.1 percent unemployed Americans? Barack Obama John McCain New Tax Cuts Refundable "Making Work Pay Credit" of 6.2 percent of earnings up to a maximum earnings of $8,100 per worker
Eliminate income tax for seniors making less than $50,000 per year
Rename the Hope Credit the "American Opportunity Tax Credit" and expand it to a refundable credit of 100% of the first $4,000 of college expensesAllow first-year deduction of 3 and 5-year equipment, deny interest deduction (expires after 2013) Capital Gains Increase maximum capital gains rate to 20 percent for those earning more than $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples) Make permanent current rates on capital gains and dividends, (0 and 15 percent) 2001/2003 Tax Cuts Permanently extend child credit expansions, 10, 15, 25, and 28 percent rates, and changes to tax implications of marriage Make permanent all provisions other than the estate tax repeal Alternative Minimum Tax Extend and index 2007 AMT patch Extend and index 2007 AMT patch, further increase exemption by additional 5 percent per year after 2013 (temporarily) Estate Tax Make permanent estate tax with $3.5 million exemption and 45 percent rate Make permanent estate tax with $5 million exemption and 15 percent rate Simplification Provide taxpayers with simple returns the option of pre -filled tax forms to verify, sign, return to IRS Create optional alternative tax with two rates and larger standard deduction and personal exemption Revenue Raisers and Tax Havens Eliminate oil and gas loopholes Repeal domestic production activities deduction Health Income-related federal tax subsidies for health insurance purchased through new health insurance exchange Replace exclusion from income for employer sponsored health insurance with refundable credit of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families who purchase qualifying health insurance
As economic experts evaluate the numbers, calculate the computations, and consider how the Presidential challengers will pay for public works and raise revenues, the conclusion the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center professionals reach is a resolute reminder from the past. If John McCain is elected, American wealth will be redistributed as it was under George W. Bush. The smallest percentage of the population, the select few who qualify as super-rich will prosper. Should voters place Barack Obama in the Oval Office, we the poorer Middle Class will survive, perchance, even thrive. The two candidates' tax plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution . . .
The infrastructure [the supply of power and water, public transportation, telecommunications, roads and schools,] the luxuries that make life in America lovely will not exist without taxes. The discreet dude, John Doe, who spoke of his stocks, bonds, and levees imposed on income could have come to the conclusion that if we hold on tightly to what we, as individuals have, our hands are not open and free to build a greater communal wealth. The Oracle who resides in Nebraska understands this. "I think that the US has followed and is following policies which will cause the US dollar to weaken over a long period," he said.
The Presidential candidate, McCain understands that Mister Buffett may muse of more than his personal pocketbook. However, John McCain grieves not for one vote lost. Senator McCain and his handlers trust in human nature. Common people disregard the good sense of one who is unaffected by the financial crisis.
http://BeThink.org
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 12 comments |
|
Taxation
This article was on the McClatchy newspaper website today: Economists Say Obama, McCain Can't Do Much to Close the Wealth Gap http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/55034.html Neither candidate comes close to distributing the wealth of the country fairly. Taxes on the extremely rich should go back to where they were in 1980 at 70%. by Sean Fenley (7 articles, 41 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 264 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:01:05 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: I thank you soooooooo very much
Dearest Sean Fenley . . . I thank you for the excellent reference. A very wealthy man whom I am close to spoke of those days. He was still rich even then. While I understand and think taxes on the rich are low, and Barack Obama will not raise them more than a bit, I think there is more to consider. For me, the problem will not be resolved unless or until we abandon the ideas imparted by Edward Bernays. When we see self as more important than society, we do not consider the community and how we are one. Freud's nephew was trained to sell the public or war during World War I. He realized if he could market combat, he could convince people of anything. To help advance the need for purchases and profits in an industrial nation, one grown through the assembly line, Mister Bernays realized psychologically the public could be persuaded they need, rather than want. I believe that is why the producers have and the workers do not. Edward Bernays' helped to shape society near a century ago. Freud's Nephew and the Origins of Public Relations created a Century of Self. by Betsy L. Angert (71 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 82 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:53:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Yeah
You're right the idea that the self is more important than the community is incredibly strong in this country. I don't know how taxes will be raised so that they make sense in terms of a fairer distribution of wealth, but I'd loved to see it happen (the Republicans will CERTAINLY call this a redistribution of wealth, but I don't consider myself a socialist, plus it's fine to redistribute wealth to the rich by not the middle class and poor?). I've been struggling with the idea recently that the American public is more liberal than either party. You might want to read this article: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/perlstein/print I'm not sure why the Democrats aren't more liberal if stuff like this is true. The only thing I can come up with is that their policy reflects their campaign contributors and not where the American people stand on issues. by Sean Fenley (7 articles, 41 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 264 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 31, 2008 at 7:47:33 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: common sense taxation
would be a flat tax. Using arbitrary numbers for ease of conversation, let's look at this. A 20% tax rate, over/above an earned income of $30,000 per family. This would include "Joe the Plumber" and Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Those making less would pay no income tax. The advantages of this system are quite obvious. For the government to go to war, they would have to get a tax increase past the congress to pay for the war. (no new money printing , of course) Politicians would be hard pressed to favor one group over another with tax breaks and other manipulations. This would probably fix the corrupt lobbying practices going on as well. If other large spending "needs" are wanted, this could be done at the state level. As far as roads and other public uses, this should be done with gasoline taxes and taxes on other specific areas. The wealthy would not flourish under this system, as it would be hard to avoid paying their fair share, which they now do with lawyers and accountants. (and political bribes) In my opinion this (flat tax) fixes so many of the problems we have, all by itself. The only downside that comes to mind is that accountant types would have to find new work. As far as the collectivist type tax policies you seem to be advocating, this is how the rampant corruption is allowed to exist and continue. Some interests will always be squabbling for more of the pie. Schools will always be in need for more, as will health care industries, and minority groups, and on and on to no end. Collectivism cannot work any more than socialism or communism can. Of course politicians will never allow a flat tax system as their power over the people would diminish to a very large degree. Those are my thoughts anyhow. by sommers (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 174 comments [38 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 31, 2008 at 9:56:54 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Flat Tax, Good One
Ha, ha a flat tax. You want a waitress or a say a carpenter to pay the same amount of taxes as Warren Buffet! Rofl! by Sean Fenley (7 articles, 41 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 264 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 31, 2008 at 7:58:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: good one.
Sean, please look at the first paragraph after "look at this". The waitress would pay no taxes at all, as she probably wouldn't make over $30,000. The amount paid if she did would be small. On the other hand Buffett and others wouldn't blink at not having to pay taxes on the first $30,000. It wouldn't matter a bit to them. However, "the rich" having to pay 20% of all income over $30,000 would annoy the dickens out of them. Buffett would pay many millions in taxes each year. An immediate reflexive response may be that it sounds unfair, especially if you're conditioned to a progressive tax system. The end of corruption in politics, with it's lobbying and bribery, and favoring different groups would be far more beneficial to all, than being concerned about tax percentages. I think. by sommers (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 174 comments [38 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 1, 2008 at 10:54:49 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: US moves - quietly - toward a flat tax
Dearest harry sommerer. . . Your wish has come true; however invisibly. America has adopted a regressive flat tax, slowly. Surely the super-rich benefited. Perhaps that is the reason John McCain and Sarah Palin scream so loudly. The two have reaped abundant rewards. I share an article that warned of what has become a far worse situation. Without much public debate or even awareness, the United States is heading toward an almost flat tax. That means the middle class will pour nearly as large a share of its income into tax coffers as millionaires and billionaires do. Throw in another tax cut along the lines of the two successfully supported by President Bush, and the middle class could actually pay a little more. That change would reverse decades of US policy and constitute a major victory for some conservatives who have long advocated a flat tax. "Another significant tax cut could be enough to eliminate progressivity from the US tax system," says Brian Roach, an economist at Tufts University in Medford, Mass., and author of a new analysis on what citizens really pay to all levels of government - federal, state, and local. . . Then in 1996, Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes championed a 17 percent flat tax that would eliminate personal deductions and many other loopholes, and exempt interest, dividends, and capital gains. . . . Mr. Forbes did not win the Republican nomination and his proposal soon faded into obscurity. Today, with state taxes becoming more regressive - and the two Bush tax cuts providing large tax savings for the rich - the tax system is moving in the direction of a flat tax, but doing so out of the spotlight. For example, despite sharp debate about the administration's tax cuts on the campaign trail, talk about whether taxes are regressive or progressive is hardly material for the stump speeches of presidential candidates. A break for the poor But at the top, the tax system has already become regressive. The super-rich pay proportionately less in federal income tax than the merely rich. In 2000, the nation's 400 richest taxpayers, making an average $173 million, paid an effective tax rate more than 5 percentage points lower than those making $1.5 million to $5 million, notes economist Martin Sullivan in Tax Notes magazine. That gap has probably shrunk a bit since then. In 2000, the peak year for stock market prices, the super-rich probably saved some taxes on their huge capital gains. (Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income.) Since then, stock-market capital gains have diminished. But Congress also cut the capital gains rate from 20 to 15 percent - a provision especially beneficial to the rich. "At the rate we are going, in which more and more investment income is simply untaxed, we will end up with a federal income tax that is not only regressive at the top, but regressive overall," warns Richard Kogan, an economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington. "The middle class will be the tax-bearing class." by Betsy L. Angert (71 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 82 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 1, 2008 at 8:03:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: "follow the money"
I thank you. What a great article and reference. Who knew. I totally concur. Those who sponsor candidates have quite an influence on the American community. I share a treatise; the theme, "follow the money." by Betsy L. Angert (71 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 82 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 1, 2008 at 8:25:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: dear Betsy
that flat tax article you posted is dated 2003, 5 years ago. With the upcoming election apparently going to B Obama, a wealth redistributor, Mr. David R Francis is/was off his game. Couldn't find this modern Mr. Francis on th web. I like to view ones politics when reading their writings. The social security and medicare taxes are a legitimate issue as far as regressive taxes go. FDR should have made social security private accounts when this all started, with the government biting the bullet on the first recipients. But this is a whole other issue. A flat tax would salvage what is left to us now. If the SS and medicare taxes are undermining a potential flat tax regarding fairness, raise the bar on taxable earnings higher to compensate, or find another solution.(can be done) It is collectivism we must move away from in my opinion. The injustice of collectivism is obvious, as it requires force. These sorts of systems always fail. (200 years or so) I think we're on borrowed time without dramatic change toward the individual. by sommers (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 174 comments [38 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:27:04 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: tax burden on Middle Class worsens
I am well aware that the article was from 2003. I included the date in my reference. For me, this makes the point more poignantly. The prediction has come to pass. Consider the current economic crisis. Who pays taxes and who does not. The Middle Class bear the burden. WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 - Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush's tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study. The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline. Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush's tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top - especially the top 1 percent of income earners. . . . Economists and tax analysts have long known that the biggest dollar value of Mr. Bush's tax cuts goes to people at the very top income levels. One reason is that two of his signature measures, tax cuts on investment income and a steady reduction of estate taxes, overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest households. I also offer a link which provides more of the author's commentary. by Betsy L. Angert (71 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 82 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:02:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Betsy,
the "flat tax" with an entry level ( above the arbitrary $30,000) corrects these things that that article talks about. No one gets a break or an advantage under that system. The politicians would have far less reason to take lobbyist bribes that corrupt the system, and allow government to separate us into opposing groups, to their advantage. I'm thinking, once people form solid opinions about funding society, it becomes........"never the twain shall meet" by sommers (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 174 comments [38 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:36:58 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Regressive or . . .
I believe a flat tax will always punish the poor. Ultimately, it is a regressive structure. It is said, to serve is the highest calling. Perchance, those who understand empathy are further evolved or emotionally, economically intelligent. They understand if my brethren suffer, I too pay and feel his pain. May I share words familiar to those who think life is more than meager money, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be required." As John F. Kennedy stated and attributed, "For of those to whom much is given, much is required" by Betsy L. Angert (71 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 82 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:34:41 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
