Re: Daschle


"Dave K" <dave.k@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ap1ko41r4jj6drqg2s4atm27v1p55ojilh@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:23:27 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
<invalidexample@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Dave K" <dave.k@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:s6ueo4t2af54v7d41nn88v80b42u3j9q59@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:50:31 -0600, Jim Rusling <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

He wants to tax the "rich" more...

I have no problem with that.

I am not now, Rich, and figure I never will be. The wealthy have
been preying on those less in income for years. I don't see any
problem with paying in proportion to benefits gained.

We see that in a lot of ways; trucks wear out roadway more quickly
than automobile, and they consequently pay more road taxes. The
wealthy benefit more from the systems of society, therefore they
should pay more. It is a fair approach.

I would take issue with the statement that the wealthy benefit more. The
poverty-ridden sections of any city require far more policing, more
ambulance services, more 911 calls, more emergency room visits, more
welfare, more crime, more burden on the legal system (plus the cost of
paying for both prosecution and defense), more incarcerations, more
rehabilitation programs, and more pauper's funerals.

Let's just take one of them: Police. Why do you suppose that fewer
policemen are required in the areas where wealthy people live? Would
you not call that a greater benefit?

Non-provision of a service is a non-benefit, costing next to nothing. If
every community in America was like Beverly Hills, policing would be
minimal.
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Beverly+Hills&state=CA vs.
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Camden&state=NJ

-- Ernie

Despite what anyone else might believe, I don't believe the people
living in poverty are not exactly thrilled with the situation.

A long time ago I saw an estimate that persuasively demonstrated that
giving
every adult below the poverty line enough cash to raise that person $500
above the poverty line would cut back city expenditures by 75%-- a return
vastly greater than the payout.

That holds with my view that putting money into the hands of the not
wealthy benefits society more than giving it to the rich.

As I've said before, Reagan had it right... and wrong. The rising
sea does help raise everyone, but you have to put that money into the
sea, not a private lake.
--

Cheers! :)




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Daschle
    ... I am not now, Rich, and figure I never will be. ... wealthy benefit more from the systems of society, ... I would take issue with the statement that the wealthy benefit more. ... living in poverty are not exactly thrilled with the situation. ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: Daschle
    ... wealthy benefit more from the systems of society, ... I would take issue with the statement that the wealthy benefit more. ... above the poverty line would cut back city expenditures by 75%-- a return ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: this land is whose land?
    ... starting a backpacking trip into the white cloud mountains of idaho. ... I took a little vacation recently--nine hours in Sun Valley, Idaho, ... Range from wealthy Jackson Hole, ... rich started pouring in. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • OT:The Public Overwhelmingly Wants It: Why Is Taxing the Rich So Hard?
    ... Why Is Taxing the Rich So Hard? ... Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy. ... much progressive politics. ... rules of American politics and the American economy in ways that have ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • OT:$230,000 For a Guard Dog: Why the Wealthy Are Afraid Of Violence From Below
    ... Why the Wealthy Are Afraid Of Violence From ... Insite has an interest in getting the paranoid rich to beef up ... but six highly?and expensively?trained ?executive protection dogs.? ... the notorious private security company Blackwater. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)