On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 09:06:49PM -0400, Bryan-TheBS-Smith wrote:
> Steven Johnson wrote:
> > Secondly, here are a couple of anecdotal tales to share about the integrity
> > of the WSJ. During the last presidential election the WSJ posted the same
> > innacurate story about the benefits of Forbes flat tax not once, but twice.
> > The story was based on flawed data that was known to be flawed. Because
> > the gist of the article was pro-Investor they forgoed their responsibilty
> as
> > a reporter to take on the responsibility of political lobbyist to promote
> > "their candidate".
>
> If you understand how the money multiplier works, and how income
> taxes destroy it -- by taking the money out of the economy before it
> can multiply -- you'd understand a flat tax is warranted.
>
> By taxing the "supposed rich" we are only taxing our investors.
> Investors, not government, creates jobs.
Absolutely correct.
Another way of looking at this is that if you penalize production, you
get less of it. It's reasonable to say that, in general, the higher
one's income, the more s/he produces. Yet tax rates steeply rise with
income.
> People who already have
> wealth don't pay income tax.
Umm, Bush and Cheney are both considered rich and both paid considerable
income tax last year (anecdotal evidence). I have heard or read that the
wealthiest do in fact pay most of the taxes (by percentage of overall
individual income taxes collected, not going by the tax tables).
> So, again, all we are doing is taxing
> those who aren't already wealthy.
>
I agree with you on the flat tax, but you sidestepped the issue, which
was the supposed integrity of WSJ. I don't know whether your data are
correct or not, but Steven brought up a good point or two. Frankly, it
raises red flags with me when anyone says a press outlet has that much
"integrity".
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:54:47 EDT