[Rhodes22-list] Flat Tax Anyone? What is fair Dave(political rant)

[Geankoplis]

Dave,
	There seems too much hand wringing about the unfair taxes, the
crushing burden of those taxes on the wealthy.  I agree with you, isn't
wealth the reward?  Didn't the system benefit those wealthy people?  If that
system exist to reward these people then why shouldn't they pay more to
support it?  They have more to loose than the little guy.  If the system
steals all their wealth then I guess those guys won't bother to earn their
vast sums of money.  People can complain all they want but their actions
speak louder than words.  If the amount of taxes someone pays is more
important than what they make, let them work minimum wage, an obvious
luxurious level of existence that should be suppressed as it is more money
than someone really needs.

Chris the tax payer

-----Original Message-----
From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
[mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On Behalf Of DCLewis1 at aol.com
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 8:29 PM
To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Flat Tax Anyone? Tossing ball back to
Slim(political rant)


Interesting that Ed thinks 36% tax is an oppressive tax rate (and that's
the 
max rate, not on your gross, its after deductions).  Look at the roads  you 
travel, the ATC, national security, public health, the commerce  
infrastructure, etc - seems like a one time good deal to me.  
 
For those of you who worry that you're paying school taxes for other
peoples 
kids, ask yourself who is going to be paying into the Social Security  fund 
on your behalf 10 years from now - it's those kids.  You better hope
they're 
educated and have good jobs, their Soc Security deposits are going  straight

to you.
 
Further, while Ed makes a good point regarding founders that begin and  
develop companies, I suggest they are likely a small fraction of the 1%
under  
discussion.  I would encourage you to consider the real 1% - consider the
Grasso'
s, who didn't start, found, begin or develop anything he just got the  NYSE
to 
give him an egregious pay package.  Or Nardelli of Home Depot, or  Skilling 
of Enron, or Conrad Black accused of looting the Tribune, or the guys  that 
looted Tyco, or McKinnel of Pfizer, or Immelt of GE, or  Waggoner of  GM, or
Ford 
of Ford......  Lets cut out the mythology and deal with cases,  and there
are 
a ton of cases, and in all those cases the MBAs that won the water  cooler 
wars stepped up to run major corporations and made out like bandits -
that's 
the real story and that's the real 1%.  I can't think of a single  S&P 500 
corporation that's run by it founder.  And I respectfully  suggest that the
MBAs 
that win the water cooler wars are no more entitled to  special tax 
consideration by society than anyone else - they are not founders,  they are
watch 
standers, and there is a difference.
 
Regarding founders: If you do found and develop a public company, you make  
out like a bandit even with the current tax code - and I don't begrudge that

one  bit.  But you reasonably make out so incredibly well that even after
taxes  
you are incredibly well off.  Consider Phil Knight, the guy who founded
Nike 
- I think he's the 48th richest guy in the US even after the current taxes,

and that's fine but he doesn't need a change in the tax code to help him out

he's doing very well thank you.  Consider Bill Gates, I think the richest  
guy in the US, money up the gazoo - under the current tax code.  Michael
Dell, 
absolutely not suffering at all - under the present tax code.  None  of the 
founder types I've mentioned need special consideration from the tax  code,
they 
are all doing very very well by any standard - and I don't begrudge  their 
doing well, but neither do I feel sympathy for the tax they pay.   They've
got 
it made and some of the reasons they have it made is the larger  society 
respects and enforces their intellectual property rights - at a real  cost
to the 
larger society - the larger society facilitates their production  efforts
with 
roads, power, terminals and infrastructure and security of all  sorts, and 
generally enables the commerce that they profit from so greatly - so  maybe
they 
should pay more for that increased support.  If that increased  support
weren't 
there, they'd have nothing or very much less.  The customs  inspector 
standing on the dock looking for counterfeit Nikes is not paid by Phil
Knight, but 
Phil Knight benefits directly from that customs inspector's  activities,
maybe 
Phil Knight should pay more tax than the rest of us.   Maybe Bill Gates
should 
pay more taxes, the US Government is investing time and  manpower trying to 
mitigate software pirating efforts in Asia and around the  world, a direct 
significant beneficiary is - Bill Gates.  I don't begrudge  any of these
guys 
their wealth, but I also think they, more than some day worker  in South
Carolina, 
are constructively exploiting, using, and benefiting from the  full range of

government services and in consideration they should pay more  taxes.  
 
Dave

__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list