17 Apr '11 05:11>
Originally posted by spruce112358Progressive taxes, as far as I understand, have their ideological roots in the idea that taxes should only be raised on discretionary income, not on total income. Therefore, somebody with a greater discretionary income to nondiscretionary income ratio would incur a greater tax rate than somebody with a lower ratio.
Nobody on the left wants to take a swing at this one?
Let's put it another way. I am really rich. I make a hundred times more than you. I also pay precisely a hundred times over what you pay in taxes.
But, to a man I think, you on the left are of one voice that this situation would represent a huge "tax break for the wealthy".
I've never unders ...[text shortened]... 'X' were (in the proposed case) 100 -- as a lot of conservatives think it should be.
Admittedly, the trick is defining discretionary income, but I'll leave that for other people.