04-08-2003, 05:52 PM
Flat taxes are considered "fairer" than progressive income taxes. But, I still rail at the idea of the government profiting from my success. The poor would still pay little to nothing, the rich would pay less, leaving the increase to... yes, that's right the middle class. As for value judgements, all tax systems discriminate against something. We are just used to the idea of the government discriminating against our ability to earn money. They are trying to convince us that earning alot of money is bad, so the more you earn the more you should have to pay (the government). Great system for maintaining an upper threshold on wealth.
Yes, there are Americans getting richer, and some from boom corporations (i.e.. Microsoft) are entering the classes of the noveau riche. I would argue that the progressive income tax system itself is designed to prevent most hard working American's from becoming "rich", and places an upper boundary at the "upper middle class". My definition of rich is that your assets alone sustain your lifestyle. Then you have 100% free time to either get richer, or just enjoy life. The only way to break this bondage is to overwhelm the income stream. Frankly, IMHO, you cannot do this by being an employee, except maybe at the highest levels within the top companies. And, mostly those CEO type positions are kept for the groomed sons and sometimes daughters of America's money aristocracy with prerequisites of attendance at the best schools, and then brought up through the management ranks. Most of these schools reserve positions for the sons and daughters of alumni, perpetuating the quota of privilege.
Ok, so what is the other way? Entrepreneurship (including talent). Sometimes a random great idea, carefully nurtured and protected from thieves and scammers (like lawyers, larger corporations, or even people like Mr. Gates) will result in some new rich people (egg. Steve Jobs). But, frankly I think most of us have a better chance at winning the lottery or becoming rock stars. Even once a person has achieved great wealth, ignorance and a lack of understanding of how to maintain wealth can siphon it all away quickly. I've experienced the trials and tribulations of 20 years of entrepreneurship.
Yes, there are Americans getting richer, and some from boom corporations (i.e.. Microsoft) are entering the classes of the noveau riche. I would argue that the progressive income tax system itself is designed to prevent most hard working American's from becoming "rich", and places an upper boundary at the "upper middle class". My definition of rich is that your assets alone sustain your lifestyle. Then you have 100% free time to either get richer, or just enjoy life. The only way to break this bondage is to overwhelm the income stream. Frankly, IMHO, you cannot do this by being an employee, except maybe at the highest levels within the top companies. And, mostly those CEO type positions are kept for the groomed sons and sometimes daughters of America's money aristocracy with prerequisites of attendance at the best schools, and then brought up through the management ranks. Most of these schools reserve positions for the sons and daughters of alumni, perpetuating the quota of privilege.
Ok, so what is the other way? Entrepreneurship (including talent). Sometimes a random great idea, carefully nurtured and protected from thieves and scammers (like lawyers, larger corporations, or even people like Mr. Gates) will result in some new rich people (egg. Steve Jobs). But, frankly I think most of us have a better chance at winning the lottery or becoming rock stars. Even once a person has achieved great wealth, ignorance and a lack of understanding of how to maintain wealth can siphon it all away quickly. I've experienced the trials and tribulations of 20 years of entrepreneurship.