In a message dated 10/29/04 12:40:57 PM Central Daylight Time, aemit@xxxxxxxxx
writes:
> I am pissed off.
>
I am not surprised. Part of my intent was to illustrate to folks on the list
the degree to which OT posting did not forward the purpose of this list,
which happens to not be providing space for political discourse.
> Did you ever consider that this top 10% of income earners probably gets
> even
> more than 70% of the income and that the bottom 50% of taxpayers probably
> don't
> even get 5% of all income?
What you are proposing in just supposition. I feel certain that is not the
reality of the situation, however if you would like to present some irrefutable
facts to the contrary, off list, I'd be happy discuss them with you. What is
sounds like you are saying is that each of us should pay our fair share in
the relationship our income level has to the total income of all people. If
that is the case, I don't think you would find many at the top who would be
opposed to the idea.
> This sounds almost like an attempt to get rid of the opinion of those
> poorer
> voters, because they will ask for more from the richer voters.
That is absolutely incorrect. I believe that every citizen who is eligible
to vote should vote. What I proposed was something which might change the way
people think and feel about particular issues by having them have a direct
financial stake in their government and how it is run.
Is this still > democracy?
Absolutely!
>
> To me this is a less even distribution of means.
That is how it works out in a free society with a free enterprise system.
Typically those who take risk get rewarded although many times they get slapped
across the knuckles. Most of us who embrace the system, continue to go for
the brass ring.
>
> Maybe those who pay nothing or little have a small or no income at all.
Exactly, you understand! Small income equals small percentage of tax. That
is why it is called a graduated income tax. No income equals no tax.
> Don't you think that these people wouldn't be concerned about a government
> that
> spends billions of dollars on warfare?
I don't think people who have little or no financial stake in paying for that
which government does, have the same interest in the fiscal responsibility of
their government.
As one who has seen the horrors of war first hand in the service of my
country, I find myself in the group who is in the overwhelming majority. That
is
those who are sane and who do care about such things. Not wanting to
disappoint
you, but my concerns on this issue as a human being have absolutely nothing
to do with how much is being spent or who is paying for it.
In the realm of financing government programs, I am just as concerned about
how we pay for hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, police, social programs and
all the other myriad of things government pays for and I absolutely believe
that if one lives in the country they need to have a direct measurable
financial
stake in financing all of that which government does. When that situation
occurs, the people will absolutely hold there elected officials to a different
standard.
So, there it is. You and I have each made your feelings known to list and I
respectively request that is you or anyone else feels compelled to carry this
any further, please do it off list.
Bill Barber
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|