...I got in an argument with a fellow about fare collectors.  Anyway, 
that's not the interesting part.

What really made me stop and think was when I realized that most 
everyone agrees that things "should" be "fair", but disagree what "fair" 
means.

To one camp, "fair" means that everyone pays the same price for the same 
service.  Ie, a gallon of gas costs Donald Trump the same X dollars as 
Joe Blow next door.  Since it's X for both guys, it's "fair".

To the other camp, "fair" means that everyone pays the same *percentage* 
of their income for certain goods.  I pay X% of my income in taxes for 
the benefit of good roads(1), and the Donald pays the same(2) X%.  Since 
X is the same, it's "fair".

I don't see how the second group can honestly support an economy based 
on hard work, innovation, or success.  Yet, every time someone suggests 
a tax as a solution for a problem, that's essentially the argument 
they're using.

"Bill Nigh has lots more money than I do, so why *shouldn't* he pay more 
for his electricity than I do?" type arguments.

Someone mentioned in Warp's thread on Music that it's just as much a 
crime to rob the rich as it is the poor(3).  Yet, Americans love 
"Rooting for the underdog", and look for any possibility of "sticking it 
  to the man."  The general idea, of course, is that it's a "noble" 
thing to take advantage of the success of others, and no great sin to do 
them wrong.  As if the fact of their success excuses our pettiness 
towards them.




(1) Of course, whether or not the roads are really that good is very 
questionable, especially around here...

(2) I'm well aware that the extremely rich could end up paying vastly 
different amounts of taxes compared to what I pay, but I don't see the 
point in complaining that someone only pays 10% taxes, totaling 
millions, when I pay around 30%, totaling a few thousand.

(3) I wish the Democrats would get over their "Robin Hood" mentality and 
figure this out.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> What really made me stop and think was when I realized that most 
> everyone agrees that things "should" be "fair", but disagree what "fair" 
> means.

I realized a while ago that if you're discussing what "fair" means, it 
means there's no "fair" answer. Otherwise it would merely be the 
"obvious" answer.

I was outside an amusement park ride. The ticket taker let one bodacious 
babe in for free. The other bodacious babe complained it wasn't fair he 
didn't let *her* in for free if the other got in for free.

That's when I realized that "fair" doesn't exist.

Or, as Calvin said:
"Time for bed, Calvin."
     "How come you get to stay up late and I have to
      go to bed? It isn't fair!"
"Life isn't fair, Calvin."
     "I know. How come it's not unfair in my favor more often?"

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Or, as Calvin said:
> "Time for bed, Calvin."
>     "How come you get to stay up late and I have to
>      go to bed? It isn't fair!"
> "Life isn't fair, Calvin."
>     "I know. How come it's not unfair in my favor more often?"

I love Calvin & Hobbes :)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

> To the other camp, "fair" means that everyone pays the same *percentage* 
> of their income for certain goods.  I pay X% of my income in taxes for the 
> benefit of good roads(1), and the Donald pays the same(2) X%.  Since X is 
> the same, it's "fair".
>
> I don't see how the second group can honestly support an economy based on 
> hard work, innovation, or success.  Yet, every time someone suggests a tax 
> as a solution for a problem, that's essentially the argument they're 
> using.

The rich people must support the poor people via % taxes, otherwise you'll 
end up with a 3rd world country with no infrastructure where the poor people 
starve and the rich live in castles.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> To the other camp, "fair" means that everyone pays the same *percentage* 
> of their income for certain goods.  I pay X% of my income in taxes for 
> the benefit of good roads(1), and the Donald pays the same(2) X%.  Since 
> X is the same, it's "fair".

  Everyone having to pay a fixed % of their income as taxes would be
much fairer than how taxing works here. AFAIK there are indeed some
countries where there's a fixed % of income tax. Not here.

  If your income is very small your tax % could go as low as 12%. Ok,
there's nothing wrong with that: It's only fair that if someone has
very low income he isn't taxed so much. After all, he needs to survive.

  What I feel more unfair is the other extreme: If your income is
enormous, you can end up paying up to 60% of it as tax. (And this is
only the basic income tax. There are other mandatory payments involved
too. I have heard of rather amazing situations, where people get only
something like 20% of their whole income.)

  I believe that in many countries (such as the US) a 60% tax sounds
completely incredible and outrageous. But it happens here.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> To the other camp, "fair" means that everyone pays the same *percentage* 
>> of their income for certain goods.  I pay X% of my income in taxes for 
>> the benefit of good roads(1), and the Donald pays the same(2) X%.  Since 
>> X is the same, it's "fair".
> 
>   Everyone having to pay a fixed % of their income as taxes would be
> much fairer than how taxing works here. AFAIK there are indeed some
> countries where there's a fixed % of income tax. Not here.
> 
>   If your income is very small your tax % could go as low as 12%. Ok,
> there's nothing wrong with that: It's only fair that if someone has
> very low income he isn't taxed so much. After all, he needs to survive.
> 
>   What I feel more unfair is the other extreme: If your income is
> enormous, you can end up paying up to 60% of it as tax. (And this is
> only the basic income tax. There are other mandatory payments involved
> too. I have heard of rather amazing situations, where people get only
> something like 20% of their whole income.)
> 
>   I believe that in many countries (such as the US) a 60% tax sounds
> completely incredible and outrageous. But it happens here.
> 

it must be the medical insurance ;-o

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:47f4b32f@news.povray.org...
>
>   I believe that in many countries (such as the US) a 60% tax sounds
> completely incredible and outrageous. But it happens here.
>

It maxes out at 45% here. Though that's just income tax and doesn't include
VAT (14%), road tax (I think 5% on all petrol/diesel) and the assorted other
involuntary drains.

Seeing that we don't have free schooling, public hospitals are a mess, the
roads are falling apart and so's the electricity grid, I have no idea where
all that money actually goes.

Welcome to the 3rd world. Where the rich support the politicians' expensive
holidays and mansions and the poor still starve.

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> Seeing that we don't have free schooling, public hospitals are a mess, the
> roads are falling apart and so's the electricity grid, I have no idea where
> all that money actually goes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Graph_%28military_spenders%29.jpg

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw escribió:
> VAT (14%)

VAT is 21% in Argentina. >_<

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:47f502ce@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> > Seeing that we don't have free schooling, public hospitals are a mess,
the
> > roads are falling apart and so's the electricity grid, I have no idea
where
> > all that money actually goes.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Graph_%28military_spenders%29.jpg

And it's not the millitary.
No big surprise, we've got no one to fight. Millitary's not even patroling
the borders anymore (Job belongs to the already understaffed police service)

p.s. I'm not in the USA.

Post a reply to this message