Quotation of the Day: Let's End Discrimination
"It's wrong to discriminate on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, or
religion, and it's just as wrong to discriminate on the basis of one's
income or capital gains. It's wrong to discriminate on the basis of
whether a couple is married or not, or whether they have children or
not, or whether they rent or own their home, or whether they make more
than $250,000 or not. We need to greatly simplify our tax code by not
discriminating on the basis of anything. We need to make sure that
everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, but we need to stop
punishing those that do and stop rewarding those who don't.
If the tax code distributes favors to every favored interest group, at
the expense of any minority group, we only end up being a nation of
special interests pitted against each other.
The more we discriminate on the basis of anything, the more incentive
our politicians have to pander to special interest groups, and the more
divided we become. This will be the death of us if we don't stop it."
~Scott Grannis
Even head tax for every individual. Anyone who can't afford it is deported.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteat the end of the day - this is essentially an advocacy for a flat tax and to reject a progressive tax system.
ReplyDeleteright?
a "flat" tax is already incredibly progressive larry.
ReplyDeleteif you make $50k and i make $100k, i pay twice as much.
only in the bizarre doublespeak of government is that "flat".
if we went to burger barn and ordered the same burger, we would expect to pay the same price. we would call that pricing fair and flat. referring to that as "regressive" would get you laughed out of town.
yet suddenly, my paying twice as much for the same thing (government) is called "flat"?
by what logic does that hold?
well maybe it's not a flat tax then, eh
ReplyDeletewhat would be a "non-discriminatory" type tax?
Even head tax for every individual. Anyone who can't afford it is deported.
ReplyDeleteNot at all. The very poor can be propped up by charities. But if many people can't afford the tax it means that government is spending far too much and that it needs to be cut back. That is the point of the posting. Once you get rid of the redistribution government will shrink to a more sustainable size.
well maybe it's not a flat tax then, eh
ReplyDeletewhat would be a "non-discriminatory" type tax?
A poll tax where every citizen paid his share of the cost of government. If that happened you can be sure that most people will vote to cut most of the wasteful programs and bureaucracies that have been harming individuals and society for all these years.
Maybe we should publicize that a tax code favoring married households and home ownership has a disparate impact on black people. The NY Times would be crusading for tax changes within a week.
ReplyDeletea tax code favoring married households and home ownership has a disparate impact on black people
ReplyDeleteNot if they actually get married.
No, but they don't, and liberals are always arguing the validity of disparate impact -- i.e. the reason is irrelevant. Only the outcome. It's how they convince people that black incomes are lower than whites because of racial discrimination -- except that if you adjust for educational attainment, job experience and other factors it's not true.
ReplyDelete"what would be a "non-discriminatory" type tax?"...
ReplyDeleteWhy a repeat of this question when you've already been told dozens of times larry g?
From CNBC: The Falling Fortunes of the One Percent
The presidential election has given us two myths about the rich. First, that their incomes, and income inequality, are at all-time highs. Second, that the wealthy pay less in taxes than ever, and lower taxes than the rest of us.
A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, however, suggests that both may be false.
(there's more)
If the tax code distributes favors to every favored interest group, at the expense of any minority group, we only end up being a nation of special interests pitted against each other.
ReplyDelete=================================
Agreed. Itis called competition. Those epcial intersts with the best economic argument get the best treatment.
What is wrong with that?
The rich and successful have a lot more to protect. Why shouldn;t they pay more for the additional value of services they receive?
Would we really be better off withthe rich living in gated enclaves, hiring their own high level of protection, with everyone else left to their own devices?
Agreed. Itis called competition. Those epcial intersts with the best economic argument get the best treatment.
ReplyDeleteWhat is wrong with that?
Easy. When businesses compete they try to convince customers to choose their products by offering a better product or a better deal than the competition. That is very different than a competition in which it is decided how little is stolen from taxpayers and how much is transferred to a special interest group that managed to best bribe the politicians.