Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!2212zap
From: 2212zap@mhuxm.UUCP (putnins)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.taxes
Subject: Re: Abuse of social contracts. (tax system)
Message-ID: <319@mhuxm.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Feb-85 11:28:39 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxm.319
Posted: Mon Feb 18 11:28:39 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Feb-85 08:30:14 EST
References: <2748@dartvax.UUCP> <445@ahuta.UUCP> <399@lsuc.UUCP> <110@styx.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 28
Xref: watmath net.legal:1409 net.taxes:681

> In article <399@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes:
> 
> > ... A fixed percentage causes hardship for those with
> > low incomes. The progressive system of brackets and marginal
> > rates is perceived as the "fairest", and is used in both the
> > U.S. and Canada.
> 
> Perceived by whom? I can't agree. There is something
> democratically satisfying about the idea that both moreAAND less
> fortunate people pay the same percentage of their gross income to
> the government to support its basic services. 
> 
> I think there is even economic justification for a "regressive"
> tax, e.g. 20% on the first $15,000, 15% on the next $30,000,
> etc., on the grounds that higher-income people simply don't
> consume government services at a linearly-proportional rate.
> Does a person earning $100,000/yr consume FIVE TIMES as much
> tax-supported public services (police/fire/school/defense/
> environment/etc.) than a person earning $20,000? No way. Yet he
> will pay (without cheating or abusive shelters) more than five
> times as much tax.
> 
Consider the arguement that the person making 5 times as much income has
5 times as much to loose if his house burnt down (no fire department), if he
was robbed (no police), or if the country was overtaken by a foreign power
(no defense).  Besides, taking your arguement to an extreme, we would have to
abolish all public welfare/service programs, since the family getting $10K/year
in public assistance "owes" that much to the governmnet.