Ellendra at 11:25AM, March 21, 2012

@Ghostrunner: I'm curious about that statement. Suppose our friend Kam here got his comics noticed by a wider audience. Suppose the demand for books of his comics rose, to the point where he even got a movie contract. The books and royalties would make him rich, and he did it by exploiting the poor . . . how? (And before you say that never happens, that's how most authors who became rich did it. From Scott Adams to J.K. Rowling.)

KAM at 6:43AM, March 21, 2012

Thanks all!

hkmaly at 1:53AM, March 21, 2012

UncleRice: It would be interresting if some big company would stop "optimizing" and start to making its influence on goverment official. On the other hand, the unemployed would riot. After all, they have lot of free time for doing that. o11c: Not necessary if you only tax the money over some limit. Note that historically, tax started to be "per head", even literal flat tax is already much more progressive than that. GhostRunner: Not true. Some got rich on back of other rich. And some won the lottery.

UncleRice at 5:08PM, March 20, 2012

I often wondered what would happen if you multiplied each voter's vote by the $$ they payed in taxes.

ghostrunner at 10:23PM, March 19, 2012

well to be honest no one ever got rich who didnt do it on the backs of the poor, but since i hope some day to be rich, i'll just look the other way :D

man in black at 8:40PM, March 19, 2012

great page

o11c at 12:52PM, March 19, 2012

Never advocate for the flat tax. To do so is to directly say, "tax the poor more and tax the rich less". 10% of a poor person's income is a lot. 10% of a rich person's income is nothing. The tax system in the US barely counts as progressive at all. It's better at the federal level than at the state level. Consider this: each state initially has a 10% tax for the richest. If any state drops the tax rate to 9%, they will get more rich people to their state, and make more overall. But because every state is doing this ... Related: saying poor people should work instead of receiving welfare only works if there *is* work - and not temporary work, which is worse, both for the individual and for society, than no work at all.

Mr Kaos at 6:52AM, March 19, 2012

hmm...

Ozmandious at 6:15AM, March 19, 2012

I have to say, I am for the flat tax. Seems like an easy solution, but I'm not an economics expert, so what do I know?

hkmaly at 1:38AM, March 19, 2012

Some big businessis are NOT paying their fair share (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/major-corporations-tax-subsidies_n_1073548.html for example) due to politicians creating loopholes for them. Also, politicians didn't only wasted money they didn't have, they also ordered banks to waste money THEY didn't have (see Subprime mortgage and Community Reinvestment Act).