Flat 10% income tax

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nonsense.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The income tax did not qualify until the 16th Amendment because it is not in proportion to the Census.

Don't pretend that was what you claimed. You said direct tax in ANY FORM was prohibited.

That is what I said. The point goes to you in that regard.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Which is a non-sequitur because there's no way the 10th amendment prohibits federal funding of an interstate highway system.

And who in their right mind would want it to? This is the UNITED states, not the Balkans.

If the 10th Amendment doesn't prohibit their funding of an interstate highway system where in the Constitution does it give them the authority to fund an interstate highway system?

We've already been through this. I'm not going to play the filibuster game with you.

Has the constitutionality of the interstate highway system ever been challenged?

I'm not sure off the top of my head.

 

[Misty]

It would have to be at least a 15% tax.

Everyone wants us all equal, there ya go.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you are saying the interstate highway system was bad for America?
It did not contribute to the general welfare of Americans?

Nope.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you are saying the interstate highway system was bad for America?
It did not contribute to the general welfare of Americans?

The interstate highway system is written in the constitution.

Where?

 

[ihopehefails]

50's were pretty prosperous, incomes and wages were healthy, unemployment low, and we got a lot done as a nation. Paying 91% income tax, the rich were still able to live lavishly, employ millions of people, even produce things of value rather than just move theoretical money around for profit. Enormous tax cuts to the wealthy tend to result in a terrible economy and increased suffering for all but the wealthy, while progressive taxation tends to result in immense growth of the economy and inequalities of wealth, power, and influence reduced dramatically. This has played out over and over since we started collecting income taxes, the correlation is direct and unmistakable.

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. 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"

- Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations"

Thomas Paine, of course, devoted an entire chapter of his "Rights of Man" to advocating progressive taxation as a fundamental necessity to democracy to prevent the accumulation of undue influence and power in the hands of the few.

Your starting at $85,000 seems to recognize one degree of progressive taxation, but a flat tax runs counter to many key underlying principles of both capitalism and democracy. Beyond that, it doesn't really work and would result in less tax revenue in a time of recession, only exacerbating our economic woes.

This further proves one thing about leftist is that they are like a chameleons in that they assume whatever political camoflauge in order to hide their true agenda and that is to impose a communist state. This is a good example because in this he pretends to uphold the principles of free-enterprise yet advocates for a marxist tax scheme designed to destroy it. Free enterprise basically says that a person may work for their own benefit such as profiting in either trade or employment with others but communist income taxes schemes is designed to channel the positive effect of work away from the individual and to the community which is why most people who advocate a progressive income tax do it because they believe the money will be redistributed to the community.

I'm basically saying you are disingenious about your belief in the principles of capitalism and democracy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wealth is not a zero sum game, but it is far closer to a zero sum game than those on the right realize.


You want the recession to end?
You like paying $4/gal for gas?

Well you are not likely to have one without the other.

And yet all during Pres Bush's tenure we had lower levels of unemployment, higher levels of GDP growth, and lower gas prices than either today or what you are positing.

It seems to be a false dichotomy.

Clinton left Bush with a lower unemployment rate than Bush ever saw subsequently.

That's a non-sequitur. Nor does it raise any objection to what I wrote.

 

[Claudette]

This nation's tax code is so bereft of common sense as to make the entire institution teeter on the brink of total collapse.

Currently nearly half of all Americans pay NO income tax. With Obama's desire to increase taxes on the rich, while also increasing "relief" to the "working poor", this number is sure to increase.

And it is not Obama's intent that is soley to blame - GW Bush was responsible for nearly doubling the percentage of lower income non taxpayers with his tax cuts. While the common liberal cries of the Bush tax cuts helping the rich - they actually did far more to expand the base of non-paying federal income tax payers in America.

With 15% of earners paying nearly 85% of all income taxes, they system is so far out of whack we are destined to the proverbial tipping point far sooner than later.

A flat tax has merit, as ALL wage earners should be paying into the federal income tax pool Those who earn more will pay more while those who earn less pay less. Such an approach is both simple and fair.

As it is now, why should roughly half of "voters" be allowed to vote in federal elections if they are not paying into the federal income tax system? Why are they allowed to simply mooch the system and then have a say in helping to maintain their ability to continue doing so?

A far simpler tax code is long overdue - one that has all wage earners paying into the system vs simply being allowed to enjoy the benefit given them off the backs of the minority who actually do pay federal income taxes.

So right. The half that pay nothing seem to enjoy all the benefits at no cost to them. The taxpayer getting hosed again. If there was a flat tax then all should pay it. Rich and poor.

As for the tax code. Don't hold your breath. The code as it is is so confusing only a tax specialist can understand it. If they made it simple they wouldn't need all those IRS employees. Hell they could probably garnish wages and do away with the IRS. Wouldn't that be nice?

 

[Big Fitz]

Nope. I would not want an income deduction. No more class divisions. I would allow a deduction for charitable giving though to take up for all the loss they will experience as they end all their charitable giving as a government function. I don't want the poor thinking they are entitled to a tax free existence because "the rich deserve to pay for them." BTW, this would also cover wealth and eliminate extra taxes like death tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, and so many others that really should not be.

Of course, this is not done till after the repeal of the Income Tax. and it's replacement with this one. The tax code should ultimately be less than 100 pages, and written at a 6th grade level.

Lastly, Tax day and election day are one in the same: the 1st Tuesday of November.

 

[ihopehefails]

This nation's tax code is so bereft of common sense as to make the entire institution teeter on the brink of total collapse.

Currently nearly half of all Americans pay NO income tax. With Obama's desire to increase taxes on the rich, while also increasing "relief" to the "working poor", this number is sure to increase.

And it is not Obama's intent that is soley to blame - GW Bush was responsible for nearly doubling the percentage of lower income non taxpayers with his tax cuts. While the common liberal cries of the Bush tax cuts helping the rich - they actually did far more to expand the base of non-paying federal income tax payers in America.

With 15% of earners paying nearly 85% of all income taxes, they system is so far out of whack we are destined to the proverbial tipping point far sooner than later.

A flat tax has merit, as ALL wage earners should be paying into the federal income tax pool Those who earn more will pay more while those who earn less pay less. Such an approach is both simple and fair.

As it is now, why should roughly half of "voters" be allowed to vote in federal elections if they are not paying into the federal income tax system? Why are they allowed to simply mooch the system and then have a say in helping to maintain their ability to continue doing so?

A far simpler tax code is long overdue - one that has all wage earners paying into the system vs simply being allowed to enjoy the benefit given them off the backs of the minority who actually do pay federal income taxes.

So right. The half that pay nothing seem to enjoy all the benefits at no cost to them. The taxpayer getting hosed again. If there was a flat tax then all should pay it. Rich and poor.

As for the tax code. Don't hold your breath. The code as it is is so confusing only a tax specialist can understand it. If they made it simple they wouldn't need all those IRS employees. Hell they could probably garnish wages and do away with the IRS. Wouldn't that be nice?

I to would like to see the income tax removed completely and replaces with something else but that is still a long way away so I thought a flat income tax would be more doable in the near future.

 

[QUENTIN]

50's were pretty prosperous, incomes and wages were healthy, unemployment low, and we got a lot done as a nation. Paying 91% income tax, the rich were still able to live lavishly, employ millions of people, even produce things of value rather than just move theoretical money around for profit. Enormous tax cuts to the wealthy tend to result in a terrible economy and increased suffering for all but the wealthy, while progressive taxation tends to result in immense growth of the economy and inequalities of wealth, power, and influence reduced dramatically. This has played out over and over since we started collecting income taxes, the correlation is direct and unmistakable.

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. 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"

- Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations"

Thomas Paine, of course, devoted an entire chapter of his "Rights of Man" to advocating progressive taxation as a fundamental necessity to democracy to prevent the accumulation of undue influence and power in the hands of the few.

Your starting at $85,000 seems to recognize one degree of progressive taxation, but a flat tax runs counter to many key underlying principles of both capitalism and democracy. Beyond that, it doesn't really work and would result in less tax revenue in a time of recession, only exacerbating our economic woes.

This further proves one thing about leftist is that they are like a chameleons in that they assume whatever political camoflauge in order to hide their true agenda and that is to impose a communist state. This is a good example because in this he pretends to uphold the principles of free-enterprise yet advocates for a marxist tax scheme designed to destroy it. Free enterprise basically says that a person may work for their own benefit such as profiting in either trade or employment with others but communist income taxes schemes is designed to channel the positive effect of work away from the individual and to the community which is why most people who advocate a progressive income tax do it because they believe the money will be redistributed to the community.

I'm basically saying you are disingenious about your belief in the principles of capitalism and democracy.

I'll get to the other questions/responses when I have more time to devote, but this is just bollocks. I'm not a communist (or a capitalist), but I also wasn't quoting myself or referencing my own views.

Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism said that the rich should contribute not only in proportion to their revenue, but more than in proportion. That's what progressive taxation is, that those who have more give more and throughout our history collecting income taxes, until the 80's when it was significantly diminished, that principle was followed (except in the period immediately preceding the Great Depression).

Thomas Paine, an extremely important and influential founding father of our democracy argued at great length for the same thing, stating it was essential to the function of the democratic process to prevent the excessive accumulation of wealth (and with it, influence and power) in the hands of the few.

Last I checked, not only do these thinkers we draw so much of our economic and political structure from predate Communism by a century, but they are among the original and most prominent advocates of capitalism and democracy.

I mean, what do you suggest, it's "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx, Engels, Smith, and Paine? Nonsense. If the progressive taxation advocated and implemented is "communist" then Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford were "communists" which is just as absurd.

Instead what this demonstrates is that you don't know what capitalism and communism are, and conflate capitalism with a Randian, 100% laissez-faire, completely unfettered free market system and any deviation from that "communism." While in reality, the person who invented modern capitalism agreed with progressive taxation and lots of hard-line anti-communists implemented just such a system. Since that's what capitalism is. Progressive taxation is not "Marxist", giving the means of production to the state and proletariat is and I said nothing about that and don't condone it. It's Red Scare tactics to conflate anything more progressive than a flat tax (like our capitalist country has always implemented) with "Marxism."

Democracy also depends on the power of the people being spread out and relatively equal, which the accumulation of power and influence in the hands of a few subverts and diminishes. Most of the founding fathers were pretty clear on this point and worked to avoid it. Income inequality has risen exponentially in the last 30 years and played a large part in undermining the democratic process (do you feel like you have much choice about who gets elected or do you feel like both candidates are decided for you by the wealthy and powerful?) We're not talking equal dispersion of wealth here, we're talking about a system that doesn't allow the top 1% to control 30+% with all the detrimental results. That's not democracy, it's plutocracy.

Basically what I'm saying is you're confused and misinformed about your belief in the principles of capitalism and democracy.

 

[Sinatra]

50's were pretty prosperous, incomes and wages were healthy, unemployment low, and we got a lot done as a nation. Paying 91% income tax, the rich were still able to live lavishly, employ millions of people, even produce things of value rather than just move theoretical money around for profit. Enormous tax cuts to the wealthy tend to result in a terrible economy and increased suffering for all but the wealthy, while progressive taxation tends to result in immense growth of the economy and inequalities of wealth, power, and influence reduced dramatically. This has played out over and over since we started collecting income taxes, the correlation is direct and unmistakable.

___

Utter rubbish.

The wealthy in America never paid 91% - regardless of the rate. Much the same in Europe. That money is sheltered and overall tax revenues are lower than they would be with lower tax rates.

JFK understood this and slashed the income tax rate and revenues and production increased - substantially.

And you would do well to study up on actual tax rates of the 1950s vs now. The overall burden of taxes and regulation is FAR greater than 60 years ago - to the point of choking off American industry and middle class jobs.

Some of the greatest economic sectors of the 1950s were found in nuclear power production, oil and coal production, textiles, plastics, automotives, etc - all of which were given substantial support from the post WWII industrialization that was in place. Since the 1950s, these industries, via increased regulation and stifling union costs, have in many cases shut down production in America for other countries - that is the result of your "progressivism".

And despite this time of production boom, still 20% of Americans lived in poverty during the 1950s - almost double what it is today. It was also the era of increasing corporate growth - something "progressives" such as yourself state you are against. Those corporation created jobs, profit, and crushed competition. If you support the era of the 1950's and 1960s, you best support that scenario as well.

It is remarkable how many Americans know so little of their own relatively recent history...

---

-----

 

[ihopehefails]

50's were pretty prosperous, incomes and wages were healthy, unemployment low, and we got a lot done as a nation. Paying 91% income tax, the rich were still able to live lavishly, employ millions of people, even produce things of value rather than just move theoretical money around for profit. Enormous tax cuts to the wealthy tend to result in a terrible economy and increased suffering for all but the wealthy, while progressive taxation tends to result in immense growth of the economy and inequalities of wealth, power, and influence reduced dramatically. This has played out over and over since we started collecting income taxes, the correlation is direct and unmistakable.



- Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations"

Thomas Paine, of course, devoted an entire chapter of his "Rights of Man" to advocating progressive taxation as a fundamental necessity to democracy to prevent the accumulation of undue influence and power in the hands of the few.

Your starting at $85,000 seems to recognize one degree of progressive taxation, but a flat tax runs counter to many key underlying principles of both capitalism and democracy. Beyond that, it doesn't really work and would result in less tax revenue in a time of recession, only exacerbating our economic woes.

This further proves one thing about leftist is that they are like a chameleons in that they assume whatever political camoflauge in order to hide their true agenda and that is to impose a communist state. This is a good example because in this he pretends to uphold the principles of free-enterprise yet advocates for a marxist tax scheme designed to destroy it. Free enterprise basically says that a person may work for their own benefit such as profiting in either trade or employment with others but communist income taxes schemes is designed to channel the positive effect of work away from the individual and to the community which is why most people who advocate a progressive income tax do it because they believe the money will be redistributed to the community.

I'm basically saying you are disingenious about your belief in the principles of capitalism and democracy.

I'll get to the other questions/responses when I have more time to devote, but this is just bollocks. I'm not a communist (or a capitalist), but I also wasn't quoting myself or referencing my own views.

Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism said that the rich should contribute not only in proportion to their revenue, but more than in proportion. That's what progressive taxation is, that those who have more give more and throughout our history collecting income taxes, until the 80's when it was significantly diminished, that principle was followed (except in the period immediately preceding the Great Depression).

Thomas Paine, an extremely important and influential founding father of our democracy argued at great length for the same thing, stating it was essential to the function of the democratic process to prevent the excessive accumulation of wealth (and with it, influence and power) in the hands of the few.

Last I checked, not only do these thinkers we draw so much of our economic and political structure from predate Communism by a century, but they are among the original and most prominent advocates of capitalism and democracy.

I mean, what do you suggest, it's "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx, Engels, Smith, and Paine? Nonsense. If the progressive taxation advocated and implemented is "communist" then Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford were "communists" which is just as absurd.

Instead what this demonstrates is that you don't know what capitalism and communism are, and conflate capitalism with a Randian, 100% laissez-faire, completely unfettered free market system and any deviation from that "communism." While in reality, the person who invented modern capitalism agreed with progressive taxation and lots of hard-line anti-communists implemented just such a system. Since that's what capitalism is. Progressive taxation is not "Marxist", giving the means of production to the state and proletariat is and I said nothing about that and don't condone it. It's Red Scare tactics to conflate anything more progressive than a flat tax (like our capitalist country has always implemented) with "Marxism."

Democracy also depends on the power of the people being spread out and relatively equal, which the accumulation of power and influence in the hands of a few subverts and diminishes. Most of the founding fathers were pretty clear on this point and worked to avoid it. Income inequality has risen exponentially in the last 30 years and played a large part in undermining the democratic process (do you feel like you have much choice about who gets elected or do you feel like both candidates are decided for you by the wealthy and powerful?) We're not talking equal dispersion of wealth here, we're talking about a system that doesn't allow the top 1% to control 30+% with all the detrimental results. That's not democracy, it's plutocracy.

Basically what I'm saying is you're confused and misinformed about your belief in the principles of capitalism and democracy.

I'm not denying that this is a red scare but quite frankly calling something a red scare to diminish any truth in it is like watching a bus about to run over a child and calling those screaming using bus-to-run-over-a-child scare tactics to get people to save the child.

T.Paine and Adam Smith did not advocate for a progressive income tax because you can't find anything in their books that says so other than a few lines that says they should get taxed and I've glanced at a few works of T.Paine and he did not agree with heavy taxation at all. In fact, it was one of the reasons for the American revolution in which he supported and the taxes the british were implementing were one of the reasons why he supported the successionary war.

However, he did say that power shouldn't be concentrated in few wich is why he opposed monarchy and unrestrained government but I can't see why he would confuse the wealthy as being the equivalent of the political powerful such as a king.

Further, Adam smith decried the heavy regulations that created the super wealthy in the first place because he knew that a free enterprise system actually allowed everyone to pursue wealth on their own unregulated by the government. It was the control kings had that prevented most from accumulating weatlth and allowed the politically connected to pursue their own wealth and use the king's power to kill its competition which created "wealth in the hands in the few".

A. Smith opposed wealth in the hands in the few but in his time that was created by being politically connected to the king or whatever power that existed. He knew that if you got rid of the constraints that wealth would naturally redistrubute by the individual actions of its citizens who were not restricted from pursuing their own self-interest.

This is what you really oppose deep down. Its not only free enterprise that you oppose but freedom of the individual that allows any one person to pursue wealth for any reason they want.

 

[Sinatra]

This further proves one thing about leftist is that they are like a chameleons in that they assume whatever political camoflauge in order to hide their true agenda and that is to impose a communist state. This is a good example because in this he pretends to uphold the principles of free-enterprise yet advocates for a marxist tax scheme designed to destroy it. Free enterprise basically says that a person may work for their own benefit such as profiting in either trade or employment with others but communist income taxes schemes is designed to channel the positive effect of work away from the individual and to the community which is why most people who advocate a progressive income tax do it because they believe the money will be redistributed to the community.

I'm basically saying you are disingenious about your belief in the principles of capitalism and democracy.

I'll get to the other questions/responses when I have more time to devote, but this is just bollocks. I'm not a communist (or a capitalist), but I also wasn't quoting myself or referencing my own views.

Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism said that the rich should contribute not only in proportion to their revenue, but more than in proportion. That's what progressive taxation is, that those who have more give more and throughout our history collecting income taxes, until the 80's when it was significantly diminished, that principle was followed (except in the period immediately preceding the Great Depression).

Thomas Paine, an extremely important and influential founding father of our democracy argued at great length for the same thing, stating it was essential to the function of the democratic process to prevent the excessive accumulation of wealth (and with it, influence and power) in the hands of the few.

Last I checked, not only do these thinkers we draw so much of our economic and political structure from predate Communism by a century, but they are among the original and most prominent advocates of capitalism and democracy.

I mean, what do you suggest, it's "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx, Engels, Smith, and Paine? Nonsense. If the progressive taxation advocated and implemented is "communist" then Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford were "communists" which is just as absurd.

Instead what this demonstrates is that you don't know what capitalism and communism are, and conflate capitalism with a Randian, 100% laissez-faire, completely unfettered free market system and any deviation from that "communism." While in reality, the person who invented modern capitalism agreed with progressive taxation and lots of hard-line anti-communists implemented just such a system. Since that's what capitalism is. Progressive taxation is not "Marxist", giving the means of production to the state and proletariat is and I said nothing about that and don't condone it. It's Red Scare tactics to conflate anything more progressive than a flat tax (like our capitalist country has always implemented) with "Marxism."

Democracy also depends on the power of the people being spread out and relatively equal, which the accumulation of power and influence in the hands of a few subverts and diminishes. Most of the founding fathers were pretty clear on this point and worked to avoid it. Income inequality has risen exponentially in the last 30 years and played a large part in undermining the democratic process (do you feel like you have much choice about who gets elected or do you feel like both candidates are decided for you by the wealthy and powerful?) We're not talking equal dispersion of wealth here, we're talking about a system that doesn't allow the top 1% to control 30+% with all the detrimental results. That's not democracy, it's plutocracy.

Basically what I'm saying is you're confused and misinformed about your belief in the principles of capitalism and democracy.

I'm not denying that this is a red scare but quite frankly calling something a red scare to diminish any truth in it is like watching a bus about to run over a child and calling those screaming using bus-to-run-over-a-child scare tactics to get people to save the child.

T.Paine and Adam Smith did not advocate for a progressive income tax because you can't find anything in their books that says so other than a few lines that says they should get taxed and I've glanced at a few works of T.Paine and he did not agree with heavy taxation at all. In fact, it was one of the reasons for the American revolution in which he supported and the taxes the british were implementing were one of the reasons why he supported the successionary war.

However, he did say that power shouldn't be concentrated in few wich is why he opposed monarchy and unrestrained government but I can't see why he would confuse the wealthy as being the equivalent of the political powerful such as a king.

Further, Adam smith decried the heavy regulations that created the super wealthy in the first place because he knew that a free enterprise system actually allowed everyone to pursue wealth on their own which evened wealth out more.[/QUOTE]
____

Bingo.

The tax burden currently being pressed upon Americans would shock and dismay the Founders - we have given up so much in the vile names of taxation and regulation...

 

[ihopehefails]

I'll get to the other questions/responses when I have more time to devote, but this is just bollocks. I'm not a communist (or a capitalist), but I also wasn't quoting myself or referencing my own views.

Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism said that the rich should contribute not only in proportion to their revenue, but more than in proportion. That's what progressive taxation is, that those who have more give more and throughout our history collecting income taxes, until the 80's when it was significantly diminished, that principle was followed (except in the period immediately preceding the Great Depression).

Thomas Paine, an extremely important and influential founding father of our democracy argued at great length for the same thing, stating it was essential to the function of the democratic process to prevent the excessive accumulation of wealth (and with it, influence and power) in the hands of the few.

Last I checked, not only do these thinkers we draw so much of our economic and political structure from predate Communism by a century, but they are among the original and most prominent advocates of capitalism and democracy.

I mean, what do you suggest, it's "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx, Engels, Smith, and Paine? Nonsense. If the progressive taxation advocated and implemented is "communist" then Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford were "communists" which is just as absurd.

Instead what this demonstrates is that you don't know what capitalism and communism are, and conflate capitalism with a Randian, 100% laissez-faire, completely unfettered free market system and any deviation from that "communism." While in reality, the person who invented modern capitalism agreed with progressive taxation and lots of hard-line anti-communists implemented just such a system. Since that's what capitalism is. Progressive taxation is not "Marxist", giving the means of production to the state and proletariat is and I said nothing about that and don't condone it. It's Red Scare tactics to conflate anything more progressive than a flat tax (like our capitalist country has always implemented) with "Marxism."

Democracy also depends on the power of the people being spread out and relatively equal, which the accumulation of power and influence in the hands of a few subverts and diminishes. Most of the founding fathers were pretty clear on this point and worked to avoid it. Income inequality has risen exponentially in the last 30 years and played a large part in undermining the democratic process (do you feel like you have much choice about who gets elected or do you feel like both candidates are decided for you by the wealthy and powerful?) We're not talking equal dispersion of wealth here, we're talking about a system that doesn't allow the top 1% to control 30+% with all the detrimental results. That's not democracy, it's plutocracy.

Basically what I'm saying is you're confused and misinformed about your belief in the principles of capitalism and democracy.

I'm not denying that this is a red scare but quite frankly calling something a red scare to diminish any truth in it is like watching a bus about to run over a child and calling those screaming using bus-to-run-over-a-child scare tactics to get people to save the child.

T.Paine and Adam Smith did not advocate for a progressive income tax because you can't find anything in their books that says so other than a few lines that says they should get taxed and I've glanced at a few works of T.Paine and he did not agree with heavy taxation at all. In fact, it was one of the reasons for the American revolution in which he supported and the taxes the british were implementing were one of the reasons why he supported the successionary war.

However, he did say that power shouldn't be concentrated in few wich is why he opposed monarchy and unrestrained government but I can't see why he would confuse the wealthy as being the equivalent of the political powerful such as a king.

Further, Adam smith decried the heavy regulations that created the super wealthy in the first place because he knew that a free enterprise system actually allowed everyone to pursue wealth on their own which evened wealth out more.[/QUOTE]
____

Bingo.

The tax burden currently being pressed upon Americans would shock and dismay the Founders - we have given up so much in the vile names of taxation and regulation...

That is correct. Adam Smith proposed free enterprise as the solution to the problem of wealth being in the hands of the few because individuals who are not inhibited by the government would pursue wealth and prosperity on their own and governments that work hard to inhibit people from getting rich at some point allow some people to escape those regulations which allowed them "free enterprise" while denied the same opportunity/right to everyone else. That is what creates wealth in the hands of the few.

 

[Sinatra]

I'm not denying that this is a red scare but quite frankly calling something a red scare to diminish any truth in it is like watching a bus about to run over a child and calling those screaming using bus-to-run-over-a-child scare tactics to get people to save the child.

T.Paine and Adam Smith did not advocate for a progressive income tax because you can't find anything in their books that says so other than a few lines that says they should get taxed and I've glanced at a few works of T.Paine and he did not agree with heavy taxation at all. In fact, it was one of the reasons for the American revolution in which he supported and the taxes the british were implementing were one of the reasons why he supported the successionary war.

However, he did say that power shouldn't be concentrated in few wich is why he opposed monarchy and unrestrained government but I can't see why he would confuse the wealthy as being the equivalent of the political powerful such as a king.

Further, Adam smith decried the heavy regulations that created the super wealthy in the first place because he knew that a free enterprise system actually allowed everyone to pursue wealth on their own which evened wealth out more.[/QUOTE]
____

Bingo.

The tax burden currently being pressed upon Americans would shock and dismay the Founders - we have given up so much in the vile names of taxation and regulation...

That is correct. Adam Smith proposed free enterprise as the solution to the problem of wealth being in the hands of the few because individuals who are not inhibited by the government would pursue wealth and prosperity on their own and governments that work hard to inhibit people from getting rich at some point allow some people to escape those regulations which allowed them "free enterprise" while denied the same opportunity/right to everyone else. That is what creates wealth in the hands of the few.