(November 12, 2014 at 2:13 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Why did you change your standard of what was considered fair? You first measure of what was considered fair was how much % savings each person got. Now your considering the total amount saved. You have to be consistent if we want to get anywhere. That was one of the criticism in the link I gave you about this bar stool economics.
This is what a marginal tax cut would look like if you matched it the % spend.
Original Cost -> New Cost -> % Savings
$59.00 -> $47.20 -> 20%
$18.00 -> $14.40 -> 20%
$12.00 -> $9.60 -> 20%
$7.00 -> $5.60 -> 20%
$3.00 -> $2.40 -> 20%
$1.00 -> $0.80 -> 20%
Some people on the left would say this scheme that you proposed is unfair because the richest guy gets more money back from the government then the poorest guy.
(November 12, 2014 at 2:13 pm)Surgenator Wrote: I already gave you links in my previous post on how the rich get tax deductions that are not avaliable to the rest of the population. A tax deductions is effectively a tax cut. These other links show how business are unfairly burdening the poor.
You have to ask yourself, Heywood, what should be the standard which we base our tax rates on? For me, it is effort+ability = financial mobility. And there has to be a minimum effort+ability that gives you a living wage.
I saw those links...but they do not back the claim that the rich pay less taxes then the poor....when we know the opposite is true. They do not back the claim that the rich receive substantially different benefits from the government than poor people do.
