|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
A flat tax is regressive. Someone making $100k per year can afford to lose 10% of their income far more than someone making $10k can. |
But the system is fair. The fundimental problem with your "Progressive" approach is selling the justification. You are basically advocating an unfair system for a moral/ideological stance, which is I want what you have.
You are right that most people survive off of the same amount of food stuff, but what type of food stuff. It comes down to who eats eggs benedict cooked by a servant, panckes by the wife, Captain Crunch out of a Box or Fruit Hoops out of a bag for breakfast. The spread still works out into a flat tax that is neither progressive or regresive.
I think the main problem the "poor" have is the social liberals constantly convincing them that they are not good enough. Since when did not having a college degree, having your kids share a room, having to shop at Save Mart versus Harris Teeter, not having cool emblems on the brest of your shits, wearing converse rather than Nike, not being able to aford having that mole frozen off, or not having the extra income to fund planting grass in your frond yard = OMFG YOU ARE SO DESTITUTE AND IMPOVERISHED.
If I can go into your home and find a pair of shoes that cost more than $50, cable or hell a TV at all, any brand name clothing, A CELLPHONE OF ANY TYPE, and a car less than 4 years old you are not poor. Or you are poor because you are living beyond your means, which is your fault. The conequence of bieng free to make your own decisions.
And the true tradgedy of all this, is that while everyone is running about spreading the money and programs around amongst this "fake" poor, deluding it to the point that it solves nothing, the real poor recieve the same half ass portion when without the delusions of the social banshees running around with their heads cut off their plight might be solved.
|
21-05-2004 12:42
|
|