I apologize for the prior wording; here's a better version:
A/ The progressive tax system perpetuates/increases a wealth gap, because
B/ it penalizes a certain demographic which Jeff has identified, as
C/ they must work several times as hard to double net gain,
F/ but the uber-rich invest instead of paying taxes
A if F, but F contradicts A.
(see below for discussion of C)
> You're implying that *any* tax system which allows the highest wealth
> class to accumulate wealth tax-free is regressive; ...
> You're synthesizing an argument ... which I've not made as a single
> argument, but rather several independent assertions ...
I synthesized the argument in the belief that you
don't knowingly make inconsistent assertions.
1/ Progressive taxes are evil
2/ FairTax(sm) is good
I can say "wrong, but JB-consistent".
3/ The Matthew effect is a problem
I have to wonder "correct, but why do G & J agree,
since J's #1 and #2 aren't consistent with #3?"
4/ Progressive taxes perpetuate and
increase the Matthew effect
I must say "false", by semantics.
* It could be flat, if no one pays any taxes.
It could be progressive, if everyone other
than the highest wealth class gets paid.
(pays negative taxes)
Realistically, it'd be regressive.
:: :: ::
> C is an accurate representation of my belief.
I thought "income" as top line and "net gain"
as bottom line amounts was consistent with
your terminology, if not, I can change it:
C/ they must work several times as hard to double net gain, since
D/ they face an aggregate tax rate which is TOO HIGH, and
E/ doubling income requires working twice as hard
C would be true, if E were true, but doubling
gross income doesn't require working twice as
hard. Luckier, and smarter, are alternatives
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:14:55 PDT