Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Economics 101, Sociology 101, Social Justice 101, ---Physics 101?




----- Original Message ----- From: "John Mallinckrodt" <ajm@csupomona.edu>

Since this would appear to be directed at my discussion of (or,
perhaps, merely my "spouting off about") income and taxes for the
wealthiest 1% of all Americans and at least appears to suggest that
my argument was not objective because of the fact that it dealt so
heavily with percentages, I wonder if you could explain to me how
knowing the absolute numbers would in any way alter one's
understanding of the point I was trying to make.

Thanks,

John Mallinckrodt

The point that I'm trying to make is that the abhorance some here seem to have for the 'rich' is more aptly aimed at the top .01%, I think. I actually share the feeling that billionaires are unwarranted. However, I don't know how to prevent billionaires but allow millionaires--I suspect even some amongst us (at least prior to the market free-fall) might technically qualify. And who sets the limit on maximum allowed wealth? Once you start seriously tinkering here, then I do believe it can quickly descend into the 'straw man' system I suggested (remember I said I was being naive). ;-)

Actually I think you previously made a good argument for a flat tax system. Those with 20% of the wealth would then pay 20% of the taxes--no matter how few that might be. Being a naive 'social engineer' I want everyone to participate in funding their own government instead of one fraction subsidizing another fraction, currently (seemingly) the middle fraction supporting both the upper and lower fractions. Contributing your share (fixed percentage) then gives you more 'ownership'. I know, extemely naive! ;-)

Rick