The Punning Pundit

Some comments:

> Libertarians don't know economics, part
> something of an ongoing series...

Isn't that something of a sweeping (and arrogant) statement? For instance, I know that you have very liberal viewpoints... and yet this fact tells me absolutely nothing about your level of education in math, science, engineering, etc. The statement "Libertarians don't know economics" strikes me as conveying the same intellectual honesty as a statement like "black people don't know science".

> Draginol is claiming that it is unfair for
> the top 1% of wealth-earners to pay 20% of the
> taxes. What he fails to acknowledged, or perhaps
> even know, is that the top 1% of wealth-earners
> have over 30% of the wealth.

First: the top 1% do *not* have "over 30% of the wealth"... they have over 30% of the money. Money and wealth are very distinctly not the same thing. Conflating those two concepts is a common trick of those engaging in political rhetoric as opposed to reasoned discourse.

And that "30% of the money" figure is 100% acceptable. And that is 100% acceptable... because they either created that wealth that generated that money, or inherited it from someone that created it. They (or someone who loved them) made investements (thereby providing capital) or created goods or services that someone found value in.

> What that means is that America has a
> less-than-flat tax.

You can say that again. The other factoid that Draginol neglected to mention is that 50% of the taxpayers in America pay 96% of the taxes. (That figure was accurate as of 2004, the last year I've seen data for.)

1/2 of the taxpayers contribute 4% of the taxes... and can effectively control the taxation of the 1/2 that pay 96%. Answer this as a yes or no question: do you really find that fair?

> The poor pay more of their income than the
> rich pay of theirs.

As taxes? Not even close. The poor do not pay more taxes than the rich in either absolute dollars nor as a percentage.

> After all, the government is very much willing
> to bail out the rich when they run into
> financial difficulty...

First... while I fundamentally (and *wholly*) disagree with the gov't bailout of Bear Stearns.. that was at least partially a bailout of working-class stiffs who have their 401Ks and pensions tied up in Bear Stears. I am personally against the bailout of people who made loans like drunken lemurs, but you can hardly say the money being loaned belonged exclusively to wealthy hedge-fund managers... it belonged to your "average joe" as well.

> An argument that Draginol doesn't want to pay
> taxes is, well, no one likes to pay taxes.

I believe you're setting up a straw-man: Draginol never stated he didn't want to pay taxes... he merely pointed out that he (and many of us) pay an utterly disproportionate, unreasonable, and unfair amount of taxes.

I've never read anything written by Draginol prior to today, but I'm a great believer in hangin' a man fer what he said... not for what you wish he'd said.

> But an argument that he's overtaxed and
> therefore would like to
> flee the country just sounds odd...

Wow.

Seriously?

You don't believe that both individuals and institutions move to where they can get a better tax treatement??

Here is just one a a great many examples:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21494049/

-- DW

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: