Obama's first failed appointment

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Redux

I would describe it more as a philosophical difference than an argument of futility.

I side with every president (of either party) and every Congress since the 1920s when the income tax was initiated that believed (or at least accepted) that a progressive income tax system is the "fairest of them all."

But I am a Washington insider.

Agreed. Again... The only fair system is a graduated system, where taxes increase as income increases. As you earn more, you can afford to pay more... They just need to get rid of all the ways rich people get out of paying.

[lookout123]

Could that be because of all the bullshit about damaging the middle class that is thrown upon it? I remember when I worked in the UAW plant the "information pieces" that were distributed to let all the employees know how horrible some proposals were so it was a good thing a specific political party existed to take care of people "like us".

Originally Posted by lookout123

Could that be because of all the bullshit about damaging the middle class that is thrown upon it? I remember when I worked in the UAW plant the "information pieces" that were distributed to let all the employees know how horrible some proposals were so it was a good thing a specific political party existed to take care of people "like us".

Sure, it could be.

Or it could be that many don't buy into the fuzzy math.

In any case, I dont think the "bullshit" claim would explain the lack of support for a flat tax over the last 80+ years.

In the end, it could be that many believe that as one's income increases, one should contribute a greater proportion of that income to the public expense.

[classicman]

Almost three-quarters of Americans think it is a good idea to raise taxes on OTHER people. Two-thirds of Americans think that they should pay less than they do now, while "SOMEONE ELSE" pays more.

I reworded that poll for ya. Perhaps thats clearer. That might be the reason - just saying.

Originally Posted by classicman

I reworded that poll for ya. Perhaps thats clearer. That might be the reason - just saying.

Nah...I think its much more conspiratorial.....dead capitalists and communists and dead Republican presidents channeling their thoughts during the polling.

Perhaps Adam Smith channelling from Wealth of Nations - It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion

Or Karl Marx from Das Kapital

Or Teddy Roosevelt from a speech on New Nationalism - that there was a "general right of the community to regulate" the earning of income and use of private property "to whatever degree the public welfare may require it."

Or Ronald Reagan when he signed his major tax reform legislation, including the redistribution of wealth through the expansion of the earned income tax credit.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

In the end, it could be that many believe that as one's income increases, one should contribute a greater proportion of that income to the public expense.

Yea, if I didn't do shit for a living I would think the same thing.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Yea, if I didn't do shit for a living I would think the same thing.

So in your opinion, the Roman patricians during the classic republican age did nothing for a living?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Redux

...In the end, it could be that many believe that as one's income increases, one should contribute a greater proportion of that income to the public expense.

YES! THAT! ^^^

[classicman]

And they said you didn't have a sense of humor. bwahahahaha

[lookout123]

pointing out that a bunch of politicians didn't have a problem with wealth redistribution isn't a great argument. politicians of all persuasions have the retention of power as their primary goal and selling animosity towards the other guy always plays in Peoria.

Originally Posted by lookout123

pointing out that a bunch of politicians didn't have a problem with wealth redistribution isn't a great argument. politicians of all persuasions have the retention of power as their primary goal and selling animosity towards the other guy always plays in Peoria.

And yet the flat tax has never played well in Peoria either as far as I know...or Crappo, MD or Boring, OR or Normal, IL or even Santa Claus, IN.

The support for a flat tax is and has always been flat, never reaching the level of widespread support anywhere....no other way to put it.

Perhaps that will change now with the new celebrity spokesman.........Joe the Plumber!

http://irsvote.com/

Now there is a credible person who I want speaking for me!

You must pay $.99 to express your support for his fair tax.....LOL....that seems fair!

[lookout123]

Eh, maybe he's looking for a job as a lobbiest.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Eh, maybe he's looking for a job as a lobbiest.

Originally Posted by lookout123

Eh, maybe he's looking for a job as a lobbiest.

If Joe is the best person the anti-tax movement can come up with as a pitchman to sell the flat tax..I don't expect anyone will benefit other than perhaps Joe.

He could do very well for himself with this initiative....better than his sagging book deal and country singing career.

Consider how that $.99 per voter is spent:

50% Fees taken by Telecoms providers such as MCI, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint etc.
20% Advertising and Public relations*.
10% Payment collection
7% Production costs and salaries for team
5% Platform costs to service providers
8% Leftover after other costs

Does that "leftover" = Joe's pocket?

Here is what I would do if I were Joe....start by posting the website on all the "We Love Sarah" blogs and boards and let it roll from there. Those enthusiastic activists wont bitch about $.99 and will certainly share it with fellow believers.

If he gets 1 million Palinistas to vote for a buck each.....that 8% leftover is $80,000 for Joe.

Nice scam!

[Happy Monkey]

Will he lobby for whichever side texts him the most money?