Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
I don't think I said that, and I know I didn't mean that, but if I implied that anywhere it was completely unintentional.


Again, a matter of interpretation. I don't see it as punishing success so much as asking those who can afford it to shoulder a larger share of the burden. Punishing success would imply that everyone would be left with the same amount of money after taxes. Or regulating salaries so that everyone is paid the same, regardless of the job they do. When you set two men to digging a ditch, you can't expect the skinny 18 year old who's never held a shovel to be able to dig the same amount as the 20 year veteran who makes pro wrestlers look like little boys.


Again, this is a matter of interpretation. I don't see the tax system we have as being the ultimate problem. Yes, reform is needed. Take out some of the perks that allow the rich to avoid paying their fair share, close the loopholes that let people hide their wealth without penalty. But most of all, change the way the government spends the tax money. Eliminate the waste, penalize the cheaters and trim the budget. Then, when the ability is there to lower the taxes, lower them in the same proportion as they are collected, with the greatest savings going to those who pay the most.


I don't understand what you mean, here.

what about the wealthy that fund nearly everything? this picturesque america of everyones tax dollars pitching in is not true. the bottom 30% of the country (in income) gets MORE back than they PAID. Fair isnt "everyone should suffer from taxes equally" its "everyone should pay the exact same percentage of their income." The wealthy who are paying more are getting the least back from the government. dont bite the hand that feeds, its that same mentality that made john galt leave