evildictaitor said:Taxes are inevitable - so how do you get the tax that isn't a "redistribution"? Either you put a flat tax per person which hits the poor very hard (as it becomes a high proportion of their income) or you choose a percentage based scheme which hits the richest in real terms the most. Arguably you should choose a weighted percentage system, since the super-wealthy pay as a proportion of their income much more on luxuries and non-essentials.phreaks said:*snip*
There is no such thing as a tax scheme that isn't a redistribution of wealth.
EDIT: Oh I see you changed your response, how nice.
The fact is that the top 5% of earners already pay 40% of the taxes.
You won't be happy until Marx himself is presiding over the Oval office, will you.
The CEO topic is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the tax issue or the redistribution of wealth, which is anti-capitalist on it's face.