wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 May 2011 18:44:10 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:


Let's say your burger flipper makes $30,000 and your "wealth class" makes
$1,000,000

The burger flipper (given the numbers above, the ones you snipped) would
be
paying all of $900 in taxes. Your "wealth class on the other hand would be
paying $146,400. The effective tax rate, and you love talking about
effective rates, would have the effective tax rate on the burger flipper
be
3%, your wealth class, on the other hand, would have an effective tax rate
of 14.6%

$900 for a low income in taxes is almost 90% of what they have over
what it takes to live on

Let's see about that shall we...

Poverty level (ability to survive) is $24,000

Which means he's $6,000 above that.

Of which he pays $900 in taxes

or....15% of what they have over what it takes to live on.

So where did you get 90%? Pull it out of your ass?



$146,000 to an Income on $1 million has virtually no affect on their
ability to survive.

Depends on their expenses doesn't it? Certainly I've heard of millionaires
going bankrupt and as such it would seem these taxes could certainly play a
part in that just like anyone else living beyond their means.



So the tax is clearly affecting the wealth class far more than it would
the
burger flipper, so your objection has no merit.

Only in dollar amount--not what burden it has on the earner.

Really? How exactly do you determine the burden if not by the dollar amount?

One person is effectively paying 3% of his income in taxes, the other is
paying 14.6%. Seems to me the burden on the rich is higher, assuming his
lifestyle is also proportional to his income.

Oh, but that's right, you don't want people who busted their ass to get
ahead to have any benefits for doing so.

If there is no benefit for getting ahead, why would you bust your ass to do
so?