If you're making $500,000 a year I can see being taxed accordingly for it....

0-$250,000 I think a flat tax should apply ... then $250,000-$500,000, more, then $500,000 and over you should be taxed no more than %25.

look dammit (funny dammit)! I just wanted to see my new avatar. What y'all say on here doesn't mean two shits because most of y'all probably won't vote. That's the way young people always are. And if it means that much to you, contact your damn Congressman and bitch. But posting stuff up on here won't get anything resolved.

W.T.F?

I do vote so don't get all holier than thou... If I remember correctly you're "young" as well so who's to say you'll vote?

I just wanted to know what you were talking about because I can make vague statements too.

I have voted in every damn national/state election since I turned 18, several local elections too. And I have called my Congressmen and Representative before. Just because I don't go to state political convention meetings or work for a state congressman for minimal pay doesn't mean I'm not involved in the process!

was done already. didn't work

Good job! I meant the general y'all.

Some yes, some no.


Riiiiight.

Just like Black voters aren't targeted by Obama and women voters aren't targeted by Hilary.

I haven't seen John McCain at a Nascar race. I have, however seen Obama trolling the poor neighborhoods and Hillary preaching up the women's associations (not to mention her presentation of herself as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" when around women's groups/liberals and "Hillary Clinton" with Bill by her side when in a more conservative area.

That is what I am getting at... the whole "if the poor can't pay, they shouldn't receive the benefit (ie, drink drops)" but in this scenario, the poor person is receiving an equal amount of beer as a rich person (which in real life, a rich person would be getting WAY more beer than a poor person). So when you say at the end that the poor people can't afford the tab (ie pay enough taxes to cover their beer consumption, the same consumption as that of the rich man) I think is a little misguided because they wouldn't be drinking as much beer...

In what way does the rich person get more than the poor person from the taxes they pay? Do they get to drive on better roads? Do they have a separate armed forced division that only protects the rich people?

Here is one of the Murdoch articles I was talking about:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/jun/28/usnews.money


Cliff notes:

yeah this is what I was getting at...

so everyone should pay to the lowest common denominator?

But the beer represents access to government security in things like freedom of speech, which they have equal access to, so in that case, why should the more wealthy person pay more?

The beer doesn't represent something that is measurable, it represents the fact that everyone gets it.

ok you and Impala have elucidated the "paying for services" part of it. got it.

You pose the question on why should the wealthy pay more...?
So what is the solution to this, I can think of two:
1) Everyone pays the lowest level so that everyone is on the same plane.
2) You keep the payment the same but limiting the services depending on what you can afford.

Are there any other alternatives?