Sure, I'll take a stab. I am willing to admit that the lower classes benefit from social services but I also believe that the rich are also benefitting from these as well. There are many Gov't subsidies protecting the markets for rich American business owners (which I am not necessarily against). I would also say that the rich benefit from a having more direct acces tot the ones who represent them than the lower classes do. I know it's only a couple, but its 0200 in the morning right now and will try to come up with some more later.

-Demosthenes

__________________
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

You always fall back on this same old defense. The rich are getting all of these undefined kickbacks and preferential treatment. Please.

If we can define rich as the people paying at top rates well over 30% on FIT, then I can say I am one of these people you speak about. I don't get any special kickbacks, subsidies or other stuff. I just pay through the nose for the privilege of creating jobs, health insurance coverage and sales tax revenues for the local government.

If you are talking about subsidies to certain industries, you also need to talk about the workers who benefit from these industries being propped up. When the us Govt bailed out Chrysler, it was for the auto workers' benefit & not the stockholder's benefit. When you hear talk about subsidies to the steel industry, its all about buying the votes of steel workers.

You are going to have to come up with a more original argument or at least a better supported argument if you want to convince me on this front.

I look forward to your response.

Honestly Dan, I've given up on either one of us being able to convince each other on this topic. Maybe if you've been where I've been or end up losing all you have like many Americans have, then you will change your mind. On the flip side of that, I don't know where you've been and maybe if I become a business who doe well for myself, then maybe my mind will change. Outside that, I don't see us convincing each other. And yes, I can admit that my last post was kinda weak, but hey, it was 200 in the morning, give me a break.

-Demosthenes

__________________
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

DanM,

You are defining "benefits" very narrowly. As in, "what services and goodies do I directly get in exchange for my taxes?"

That leaves out all the intangible benefits derived from taxes and equitable income distribution: stable markets, protection of private property, consumers with enough disposable income to buy products, low crime. Even such things as bus service and homeless shelters.

Without stable markets, you could not run a business without fear that the instability could wipe you out at a moment's notice. That benefits the rich more than the poor.

Without protection of private property, the rich (who have much more property) would have a lot more to lose than the poor.

Without consumers with money to spend, no one would be able to buy your products.

Low crime — which is linked more to economic opportunity than to enforcement — allows you to operate your business with minimal security costs, and also allows you to enjoy the fruits of your labor without undue fear. That benefits the rich more than the poor.

Bus service allows your lowest-income workers to get to work, where you can employ them for those low wages. That benefits the rich even though they don't use the service themselves.

Homeless shelters provide a place for the homeless to go, which at a most basic level means they're not sleeping in your bushes, breaking into your home in search of shelter, etc. That benefits the rich even though they don't use homeless shelters.

Public education improves the economic prospects of those who use it, reducing their potential burden on society — a major benefit to the rich even if you send your own kids to private school.

Even if you believe in and accept the existence of a permanent underclass, and even if you don't accept my arguments above, transferring a certain amount of wealth from the rich to the poor should still be accepted — simply as self-defense. Major wealth inequities are at the root of most revolutions. Western democracies are stable, in large part, because of the large middle class and the availability of economic opportunity. If the rich are allowed to concentrate their wealth through some misguided definition of "tax fairness", that model will be broken — and the guillotine could get a workout again.

To Dem,

If you had been where I have been and felt like you were a piggy bank for "enlightened" social engineers, then maybe your perspective would be different as well.

To Raytri,

All of the benefits you listed are enjoyed equally by all. Its silly to say a rich person benefits more from low crime than a poor person. If a poor person gets shot in the head, then he is just as dead as he would have been if he were a rich man. The only difference is that I am more likely to be paying for these benefits you and I equally enjoy than you are.

As for the things we all enjoy equally, I go back to my old formula. Have the top 20% of income earners pay for their share and that of the bottom 20% & have the middle 60% pay for its "Fair Share". I do not mind subsidizing those who have nothing, but I do mind subsidizing the discretionary income of the middle class just because they make up a larger voting bloc.

To say I am against the rich getting soaked is not the same thing as saying I want to cruch the poor. Maybe you assumed a bit too much in your last post?

Remember that without the top 20% of income earners you would have a lot of problems. First, you would have to find some other way to replace 60% of the tax base. Who is going to pay for all of those government services you enjoy if you don't have us to kick around? Second, you would have to find some other way to create jobs & health insurance coverage. Who do you think starts most of the businesses in this country? Third, you would have to take the time to find another scapegoat.

I really think you have pegged me wrong. I have never said we should not have a social safety net. I have gone out of my way to say we should not tax those near or below the poverty line. I think I have put a lot of effort into saying my beef is primarily with the middle class. Thats where you will find the real injustice of the "progressive" tax system we enjoy today. I am soaked so a middle class wage earner can take more in the form of services than he gives in the form of taxes. Thats just wrong. Please understand this is different from saying I want to tax some guy near the poverty line, because thats just not what I am saying.

To say the tax distribution should be spread more fairly is not the same thing as saying I am Scrooge and want to tax Tiny Tim's crutches.

If you give me a world where the % of tax dollars I put into the system is proportional to the income I earn allowing for an exclusion of those at or near the poverty line, then I have no problems. Thats a far cry from what we have now. Like I said, let the top 20% pay for the top 20% & bottom 20%'s & let the middle 60% pay for its own way.

I look forward to someone telling me how this is an evil or selfish proposition.

Honestly, I don't necessarily have a problem with that idea. But this would also mean that our Gov't would have to operate on a smaller budget, which I don't have a problem with. Where are the cuts going to come from though, I gurantee it won't be from Defense, or the salaries of Representatives and senators. You want to say that the tax burden should be fair, fine, as long as the taxes put in by the poor is being used in their interest (i.e. those social programs that you're not that big a fan of).

-Demosthenes

__________________
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

So what exactly are we going to ear mark for their benefit? As far as special programs to benefit the poor, I think that should be spread out to all taxpayers equally in proportion to their income earned. If I earn 10 times more than some middle class taxpayer, then I should pay for 10 times as much of the special benefits for the poor. The middle class, however, still should pay a pro-rata share of it. To give the middle class a vote on how the money should be spent while giving them a pass on any of the cost burden is an unwise move. Such decision making without any consequence or responsiblity is exactly how you get into a situation we have now with politicians who are not accountable for their actions. If these programs take a little bite out of the average guy's take home pay, then he is much more likely to hold his elected representatives accountable.

As for places to cut, it goes back to another point I have belabored. Reform of government. Effective campaign finance reform combined with term limits & the line item veto. Until we get politicians out of the mode of trading billions of taxpayer dollars for millions in campaign contributions, we cannot hope to have an efficient government. We have effectively created a structure of government that gives incentives to elected representatives to favor special interest over the common interests.

No more spending hundreds of millions of dollars for Alaskan highway systems that service less than 1,000 people because the Alaskan member of the House of Reps insists on this in exchange for voting on some bigger bill. No more subsidizing "Hooters" resturants in Shreveport, LA as part of the Energy Bill. No multi-billion dollar giveaways to the pharmacutical industry or insurance industry. If you cut corporate wellfare alone, you would be eliminating the need for hundreds of billions of dollars worth of taxes every year.

While we are at it, lets cut our foreign aid. I mean its one thing to give several billion to Egypt every year so corrupt Egyptian beaurocrats can divert the money to Swiss bank accounts, but why are we giving away so much money while our own citizens cannot be helped? Foreign aid should be a very small fraction of what is now spent. That will free up tens of billions more every year. Then we can delve into the corruption in bids for governmenrt projects. Fund the Office of Inspector General and give them the teeth to go after corrupt government contractors.

Raise the retirement age to something close to the average life expectancy. Go back to FDR's original intent when he established social security & medicare. If you want to sit on your butt for the last 15 years of your life, then do not look on it as an entitlement from Uncle Sam. Go earn & save.

Thats my start on costs saving moves.

Notice I did not say we should cut funding for schools, state medicaids, unemployment benefits or public housing. Its not all about the rich twisting their handle bar mustaches as they sip brandy at the local country club & maniacally laugh at the plight of the poor. Sometime the rich can be talking about the needs for a better government that is not so heartless. Things everyone would focus on if more of their net pay was being diverted into wasted tax dollars.

DanM,

I, too, don't have a major problem with your theoretical divide (rich pay top 20/bottom 20, middle class pay their own 60). I don't even have a problem with the middle class paying part of the bottom.

The problem becomes, as you and Demosthenes were discussing, whose ox gets gored. You list off a bunch of stuff.

Cut pork? Sure. But probably won't happen. What you call pork, constituents love, and it greases the legislative wheels.

Cut waste? Sure. But I think proponents of this always overestimate the potential savings.

Cut corporate welfare? Sure. But as you point out, we'd need meaningful campaign finance reform, and even then, the big employer in the district will always have outsized pull -- which is probably as it should be.

Cut Social Security back to the "minimal support" it was supposed to be originally? Realistically, political suicide. But okay, although I think there's nothing wrong with aspiring to provide a decent retirement for people who work their whole lives. Better, I think, to make Social Security means tested, and phase out benefits based on income. That way, the people who need it, get it, and the people who don't, don't. Most poorer people have a very difficult time saving for retirement, especially with the decline of traditional pensions.

Cut foreign aid? Now you've just gored my bull, buddy. I think we spend far too little on foreign aid, and that in part is why we're having to spend $200 billion fighting a war on terror. Generous, WELL-DIRECTED aid would do more to build our image around the world than any number of invasions. And by providing opportunities to people elsewhere, we reduce or eliminate the conditions that give rise to terrorism.

A great number of people have a great deal of interest in maintaining a large government. Any tax system needs to take that into account.

If you agree that my formula of the middle class paying for their pro-rata share of the government burden is correct, then you can convince each of them why they should be paying for a portion of a Hooters resturant in Shreveport, LA or a 600 million dollar bridge to connect an Alaskan island with 200 people to the mainland. You can explain why they should pay for a provision in the Medicare Reform Bill that restricts Medicare from negotiating for a volume price break like Wal-Mart or any other business would do. You can explain why we send billions in foreign aid to countries even when we know the money does not go into the hands of the people in need. And you can explain why each taxpayer should take home a little less to fund each of these priorities.

If you share the burdens of paying for the government on a pro-rata basis based on income earned above the poverty level, then you will have a lot more voters asking questions, holding politicians accountable and demanding value for their tax dollars. As long as the rich are told to cover everyone's tab with respect to taxes, then you are going to have an electorate that is best described by the old line from the movie animal house. "Fat, drunk & stupid". They just have no motivation to care because its not affecting their financial well being when the money someone else earned is wasted.

The priorities we fund sound great until we see how they can reduce our take home pay. Once its coming our of your pocket, however, then it becomes a totally different ballgame where value and accountability matter. Spreading the burden is the ONLY way you will ever reform government and thats why I think no meaningful reforms will take place until you put a flat tax in place with exceptions for income below the poverty line.