"Not all religions are bad. It's just that western religions tend to be. Christianity especially..."
Does that exclude ALL the children of Abraham? Or just the Christians?
"Theravada Buddhism is almost completely different." And Nara, Vajreyana, Shinto, etc? Because the religions of the east have prevented massive inhumane treatment of fellow man regardless what their RELIGIONS profess, right?
Religions aren't bad or good in that way -- it's the people that make them so.
"have been used for lots of bad, and has always been used to control other people and is manipulative and evil by design."
I can't even begin to say how bigoted that is. Really? Have you thought that you MIGHT just be an anti christian bigot? Replace "Christianity" with "Islam" or "Judaism" and repeat that same thing at your workplace or on the street...
Religions have been used as a JUSTIFICATION for societies to do what they would have done anyway to gain access to resources -- or to retaliate against those who tried to take your resources. If it wasn't religion, it would be skin color, eye shape, nostril hair color -- there would be SOME reason to say "those guys aren't like us -- and they are BAD".
I believe at the most fundamental level, all belief systems seek the same thing... they are traveling to the same destination. Some are just taking a longer, more obtuse path...
"Three more, more words: Mutually Assured Destruction."
It has worked fine. Care to cite an example where it hasn't?
Regardless, the doctrine is really only effective when nukes are only in the hands of states with an agenda which include their continued existence.
Non-states or rogue states have effectively ended this as a deterrent to the use of nukes AT ALL -- but it still keeps China/US/Russia from walking all over each other.
Because he's just ITCHING to push the button, right?
Or maybe... that button has kept the peace between the super powers. And it's not that US, USSR and China where you have to worry about a madman pushing the button, it's some non-nation setting off a few stolen (or provided) nukes...
In the context of the conversation above,you need to rememer nukes don't make the US suicidal crazy -- and not in the context of overly sensitive and paranoid anti-americanism.
And *MY* point was that sometimes the US Government DOES do something despicable (we can argue about frequency if you like, but I'd say rare) -- but it wouldn't do something suicidal.
Not to excuse the inexcusable, but to deliberately fail to treat disease with very limited communicability and long incubation period is hardly the same is releasing Captain Trips... While I might think my country can make some pretty stupid choices, they aren't the kind that would destroy civilization.
"Do sys admins get bonuses that are multiples of their annual salary for system reliability and security?"
While I'm not exactly a sys admin (more like the entire IT department in this case), I did get a bonus that was multiples of my annual salary as part of my hire package on a job I knew to be temporary (less than 10 years) as part of helping build up the company to sell off to a larger corp.
It's a lot easier looking for work when you have 5 years salary already banked...
Just for Aviation. One of the badge requirements states: "Find out about three career opportunities in aviation. Pick one and find out the education, training, and experience required for this profession. Discuss this with your counselor, and explain why this profession might interest you."
Yeah... JUST like counting beach sand... But if you want to just focus on Basketry and Fishing to prove your point, you're welcome to it... Your loss (and your child's).
"But Ender had this foisted upon him. The question is - what if this kid does not want what Ender wants. Foisting "just being a kid" on him, is just as bad as foisting "not just being a kid" on him."
Maybe I have parental blindness -- but I like to think I have hind-sight. I was once younger and I have some frame of reference. I've not met ANY 13 year old who can adequately choose what they "want" vs. what is best for them. Maybe those things align, but maybe they don't. My job as a parent is to do everything I can to give my kid(s) the greatest chance to be happy and secure (in that they can take care of themselves and their families) when they are adults. And that certainly didn't line up with what *I* wanted when *I* was 13...
"The other bit there, is that just because they're intellectually advanced doesn't mean that they should be permitted to completely waste their childhoods without a bit of screwing around and goofing off."
I totally agree with you. I'm the father of a (more that a little bit) gifted son. My wife and I made the choice to keep him in a a normal school -- in an age appropriate grade and only modestly advanced subjects (he's in the 6th grade taking 10th grade math (most likely he'll be doing 12th grade next year)).
The Psych, I think, said it best when he told us our son one may one day be highly successful in whatever field he chooses -- and get there fast if we let him. But he would likely have many social problems and could very well suffer from depression. *OR* he would do well staying where's he's at and provide him materials that challenge him OUTSIDE of school or addition to school and he would likely end up much more well adjusted and happier if not QUITE as successful in FIELD X.
Am I holding back my son's potential? I don't know. This is the path my parents chose for me (I was likewise gifted) -- and I'm happily married, have two wonderful kids and life is good.
"Boy scouts only requirement is that you be non-atheist. I still wouldn't suggest it though. The merit badge requirements are sad busy work. It woudl (sic) be stifling."
I would. The "sad busy work" part teaches independence and self motivation -- which might not be needed for this teen, but the social aspects great -- and many (at least in my son's troop -- and many scouts I've meet over the years) are self-motivated high achievers.
There was a reason why there was a "secrecy" mandate on the Constitutional Convention of 1787... It allowed for the free exchange of ideas without fear of public influence. Our entire Government, it can be argued, is founded on the idea that the "masses" cannot be trusted. Indeed, it can be argued that our government was designed to protect individual liberty and freedom at the expense of "group think" (what Madison refereed to as the "passions" which infringed on the rights and liberties of others).
That's why we're a Republic and not a direct Democracy. That's why the 17th Amendment (imo) was a monstrous mistake.
However, if those happened to ice sheets, we might reasonably expect to have seen them before, right?
Not necessarily. How long has humanity been looking at ice sheets and logging data on record sheets? When the ice is melted, its gone -- as well as any indication of how long it took. The best you can do is try to deduce things from the rise/fall of the sea level.
Considering how old the earth is -- and how many cold/hot periods their have been there's at last a reasonable question to consider... Is this abnormal over geologic scale vs. recorded history?
While I don't necessarily agree that closing the loopholes is necessary, it certainly should be part of the national conversation.
And if we allow loopholes, only allow deductions that would take the tax filer down to the lowest manditory rate (not get MORE money back than they actually paid in taxes, certainly, and to need to PAY the minimum 1% (or whatever that rate is)).
"but I argue that it is impossible for the poor to pay for society."
Not asking for them to pay for society -- asking for them to pay a nominal amount. 1%. which is tied to the highest tax rate such that if they raise the tax rate at the highest level, it raises all levels, but at a smaller ratio -- say 3:1 or 4:1. So, if the highest rate is 35% and you want to raise that to 55%, the lowest rate jumps up 3% or so...
There needs to be an incentive to have the entire electorate WATCH what our representatives spend. Right now, with nearly 50% paying no federal income tax, there is no incentive.
None of these are income taxes. None of these are being discussed as part of the "raise taxes" talks -- it's all INCOME tax.
Lets look at your three examples:
Federal Fuel Tax: It's around 18 cents/gal IIRC (more for diesel). It's also about ready to expire which would be a boon for the economy. Raise that rate higher than it is, and EVERYTHING costs more. It hurts the economy and fails to address the problems I described. It also wasn't meant to go to the general fund, but the Highway Trust Fund -- in other words, it's purpose is to offset the cost of maintaining infrastructure, not Defense, The Dept of Education, NASA, HUD, etc.
FUSC tax: Similarly, this tax pays for a narrow purpose.
SSI/Medicare: Again, narrow purpose None of this funds Defense, roads, DoE, HUD, etc etc etc.
People who don't pay income tax are unaffected by a raise in income tax. None of these really address the out of control spending that both parties are responsible for that got us to a 14 trillion dollar deficit. They have no reason NOT to ask for more programs, more spending, more whatever is it doesn't hit them in the wallet at all.
"Suppose there was a nominal 1 cent federal tax that all Americans of voting age had to pay, would that address your concern?"
No. 1%, yes. And tie it to the highest income rate -- even at a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio. So that if the highest rate is 35%, the lowest mandatory rate is 1%. If income taxes increase on the "rich" from 35% to 55%, then the "poor" will increase from 1% to 4%-5%. At $20k income, someone would pay a minimum of $200 per year (less than $17/mo) income tax. They'll be a lot more likely to responsibly spend "group" money (by way of their voting for representatives) if it means their taxes will rise to pay for "more stuff". This is why I believe they need to be invested in the system.
Amazing. You've no idea about supply side economics and the laffer curve -- or that tax avoidance *IS* one of the mechanisms that reduce tax revenue as tax rates go up. Yet you hurl insults at others and refuse to acknowledge your mistake.
You're wife must love you... if you're not divorced yet, that is.
"Oh right, because an economy that pushes everyone to seek a career based on expected income rather than "maximising their talents and interests" and completely ignoring "value contributed to society as a whole" is really working for the people."
I would argue that if people do plan their careers based on how they would like to live vs. what they like to do it WOULD work for people. Instead you end up with people with degrees in English or Art History and gobs of student loan debt they cannot repay. Is THAT really working for people?
"Nevermind that philosophers are among the most important people in our society - it's they who set the bars by which we will live in the future (and even they who determine what the scientific method actually IS so that science can progress), yet if that's what you wish to study and pursue you accept that you'll be spending your life in academia earning very little."
How many philosophers does a society need? Do we pay for ANYONE who wants to study philosophy? If so, why? When a PhD in Phil finishes his scholastic career and is $150k in debt, how can they hope to repay that? Is it fair to ask society to pay when there are already so many that they cannot find employment in their field at a rate which can repay their loans?
For me, Philosophy and History (history in particular) are deep rooted interests of mine. I made a choice to pursue a major that would afford me a reasonable level of comfort to live and raise a family and keep me interested. It has. I also have pursued my interest in History on my own time and dime. I've consulted for more than a few doctoral candidates on where they can find source material for their research -- at no charge (I'm very well versed on Colonial American History and 15th-17th European history). This is my "passion". And I didn't ask ANYONE to pay my way. BTW, I hold no degree in History.
I make my money as a DBA/Data Analyst -- and I've been cited as a source for a few medical research papers. It's a stimulating job that cost me little to pursue scholastically and has paid far better than a career in Philosophy or History would have.
"and it's why historically most writers had some other way to pay the bills. Many of the best books were written by people who were technically journalists or teachers - and ironically it's one of the few fields where women had historically had better odds."
Great! Why change a system that appears to have worked in the past? Having them focus scholastically on something that wont allow them to "pay the bills" doesn't appear to be working, does it?
An interesting side-thought came as I was writing this... If society managed to flip the bill for anyone who wanted to be an artist/writer, would we even NOTICE something great through the the "noise" of the flood of mediocre and bad? If Van Gogh didn't suffer, would he have painted? And even if he had, would he have ever been noticed? I'm not attempting to make any argument here other than just thinking out loud (or in type).
"We all pay taxes, we all understand that programs are paid for with taxes"
No sales or state taxes pay for federal programs. No sales or state taxes pay for defense, medical, medicare, etc... No sales or state taxes in anyway help reduce this crazy 14 trillion dollar deficite.
I must disagree with you in that *I* believe it matters quite a lot.
"Sales taxes range from 5%-10%, right? You're suggesting that a family of four spends only $6,000-$12,000 / year? "
$12k is about what our household spends on sales taxable expenses per year. I have a family of four. Granted, I excluded "big ticket" items such as cars because they, if purchased at all, are almost always purchased used and around every 5 years or so at the low end of the economic ladder... If it pleases you, add an extra $1000-$2000 per year for big ticket items.
The point I think you are missing is that it doesn't matter HOW much other taxes they pay if none of it contributes to the Fed.
And if you want to include all the other taxes that the "poor" pay, then I'm paying over 50%... and when I'm putting out more than HALF of what I've earned I get real antsy when someone starts asking for "more". Want to increase my federal taxes? Ok... fine... But everyone who currently pays NOTHING need to pitch in even a LITTLE... and if they want ME to pay more, fine -- they need to pay more at the same time. Even at a 3:1 ratio. Increase me from 30% to 40% federal tax? Ok, you go from 0%-4%. They are still paying an order of magnitude less than I am and are now invested in the system -- and hopefully, their VOTES will be for those who will spend our money (theirs AND mine) more responsibly -- and not just have them voting for people to spend MY money and not theirs.
Want to argue that they are only going to tax those making 100k more than me (or some arbitrary "rich" amount)? It's still wrong if the representatives in office pushing this are voted in by people who aren't vested in the system and have NOTHING to lose asking for more "stuff".
Slashdot Mirror
"To interpret by today's standard is absurd. You MUST interpret it in the context in which is was said."
I wish people would do the same with with our Constitution...
"Not all religions are bad. It's just that western religions tend to be. Christianity especially..."
Does that exclude ALL the children of Abraham? Or just the Christians?
"Theravada Buddhism is almost completely different." And Nara, Vajreyana, Shinto, etc? Because the religions of the east have prevented massive inhumane treatment of fellow man regardless what their RELIGIONS profess, right?
Religions aren't bad or good in that way -- it's the people that make them so.
"have been used for lots of bad, and has always been used to control other people and is manipulative and evil by design."
I can't even begin to say how bigoted that is. Really? Have you thought that you MIGHT just be an anti christian bigot? Replace "Christianity" with "Islam" or "Judaism" and repeat that same thing at your workplace or on the street...
Religions have been used as a JUSTIFICATION for societies to do what they would have done anyway to gain access to resources -- or to retaliate against those who tried to take your resources. If it wasn't religion, it would be skin color, eye shape, nostril hair color -- there would be SOME reason to say "those guys aren't like us -- and they are BAD".
I believe at the most fundamental level, all belief systems seek the same thing... they are traveling to the same destination. Some are just taking a longer, more obtuse path...
Re-read my post. It *WAS* inexcusable. You seem to think I'm endorsing it or something -- and that I suggest it wasn't communicable.
What I'm saying as the two topics are so vastly different that to compare them here in this context isn't applicable.
"If your country isn't chock full of genetic rejects, that the smarter people have long ago figured out how to exploit this particular situation."
Apparently not. At least not effective enough to pass on their genes... Maybe it's not as an effective exploit as you seem to think...
"Three more, more words: Mutually Assured Destruction."
It has worked fine. Care to cite an example where it hasn't?
Regardless, the doctrine is really only effective when nukes are only in the hands of states with an agenda which include their continued existence.
Non-states or rogue states have effectively ended this as a deterrent to the use of nukes AT ALL -- but it still keeps China/US/Russia from walking all over each other.
Because he's just ITCHING to push the button, right?
Or maybe ... that button has kept the peace between the super powers. And it's not that US, USSR and China where you have to worry about a madman pushing the button, it's some non-nation setting off a few stolen (or provided) nukes...
In the context of the conversation above,you need to rememer nukes don't make the US suicidal crazy -- and not in the context of overly sensitive and paranoid anti-americanism.
And *MY* point was that sometimes the US Government DOES do something despicable (we can argue about frequency if you like, but I'd say rare) -- but it wouldn't do something suicidal.
Because civilization was destroyed... right?
Three more words: Apples and Oranges.
Not to excuse the inexcusable, but to deliberately fail to treat disease with very limited communicability and long incubation period is hardly the same is releasing Captain Trips... While I might think my country can make some pretty stupid choices, they aren't the kind that would destroy civilization.
"Do sys admins get bonuses that are multiples of their annual salary for system reliability and security?"
While I'm not exactly a sys admin (more like the entire IT department in this case), I did get a bonus that was multiples of my annual salary as part of my hire package on a job I knew to be temporary (less than 10 years) as part of helping build up the company to sell off to a larger corp.
It's a lot easier looking for work when you have 5 years salary already banked...
Of course, you leave out Business, Animal Science, Aviation, Chemistry, Computer Science, Dentistry and Veterinary Med to name JUST a few...
And all the people involved with those fields...
http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/AdvancementandAwards/~/link.aspx?_id=6D5B316F02B3436D81212CBAE95A3617&_z=z
Just for Aviation. One of the badge requirements states: "Find out about three career opportunities in aviation. Pick one and find out the education, training, and experience required for this profession. Discuss this with your counselor, and explain why this profession might interest you."
Yeah... JUST like counting beach sand... But if you want to just focus on Basketry and Fishing to prove your point, you're welcome to it... Your loss (and your child's).
"You can teach busy work by having a child count beach sand. Just as useful as the merit badge system."
Yeah... because "counting beach sand" puts kids in direct contact with successful role models and introduces them various careers...
You underestimate the value of scouting... to the detriment of any sons you may have, I'm afraid.
"But Ender had this foisted upon him. The question is - what if this kid does not want what Ender wants. Foisting "just being a kid" on him, is just as bad as foisting "not just being a kid" on him."
Maybe I have parental blindness -- but I like to think I have hind-sight. I was once younger and I have some frame of reference. I've not met ANY 13 year old who can adequately choose what they "want" vs. what is best for them. Maybe those things align, but maybe they don't. My job as a parent is to do everything I can to give my kid(s) the greatest chance to be happy and secure (in that they can take care of themselves and their families) when they are adults. And that certainly didn't line up with what *I* wanted when *I* was 13...
"The other bit there, is that just because they're intellectually advanced doesn't mean that they should be permitted to completely waste their childhoods without a bit of screwing around and goofing off."
I totally agree with you. I'm the father of a (more that a little bit) gifted son. My wife and I made the choice to keep him in a a normal school -- in an age appropriate grade and only modestly advanced subjects (he's in the 6th grade taking 10th grade math (most likely he'll be doing 12th grade next year)).
The Psych, I think, said it best when he told us our son one may one day be highly successful in whatever field he chooses -- and get there fast if we let him. But he would likely have many social problems and could very well suffer from depression. *OR* he would do well staying where's he's at and provide him materials that challenge him OUTSIDE of school or addition to school and he would likely end up much more well adjusted and happier if not QUITE as successful in FIELD X.
Am I holding back my son's potential? I don't know. This is the path my parents chose for me (I was likewise gifted) -- and I'm happily married, have two wonderful kids and life is good.
"Boy scouts only requirement is that you be non-atheist. I still wouldn't suggest it though. The merit badge requirements are sad busy work. It woudl (sic) be stifling."
I would. The "sad busy work" part teaches independence and self motivation -- which might not be needed for this teen, but the social aspects great -- and many (at least in my son's troop -- and many scouts I've meet over the years) are self-motivated high achievers.
"What, we can't discuss things anymore?"
There was a reason why there was a "secrecy" mandate on the Constitutional Convention of 1787... It allowed for the free exchange of ideas without fear of public influence. Our entire Government, it can be argued, is founded on the idea that the "masses" cannot be trusted. Indeed, it can be argued that our government was designed to protect individual liberty and freedom at the expense of "group think" (what Madison refereed to as the "passions" which infringed on the rights and liberties of others).
That's why we're a Republic and not a direct Democracy. That's why the 17th Amendment (imo) was a monstrous mistake.
Not necessarily. How long has humanity been looking at ice sheets and logging data on record sheets? When the ice is melted, its gone -- as well as any indication of how long it took. The best you can do is try to deduce things from the rise/fall of the sea level.
Considering how old the earth is -- and how many cold/hot periods their have been there's at last a reasonable question to consider... Is this abnormal over geologic scale vs. recorded history?
While I don't necessarily agree that closing the loopholes is necessary, it certainly should be part of the national conversation.
And if we allow loopholes, only allow deductions that would take the tax filer down to the lowest manditory rate (not get MORE money back than they actually paid in taxes, certainly, and to need to PAY the minimum 1% (or whatever that rate is)).
"but I argue that it is impossible for the poor to pay for society."
Not asking for them to pay for society -- asking for them to pay a nominal amount. 1%. which is tied to the highest tax rate such that if they raise the tax rate at the highest level, it raises all levels, but at a smaller ratio -- say 3:1 or 4:1. So, if the highest rate is 35% and you want to raise that to 55%, the lowest rate jumps up 3% or so...
There needs to be an incentive to have the entire electorate WATCH what our representatives spend. Right now, with nearly 50% paying no federal income tax, there is no incentive.
None of these are income taxes. None of these are being discussed as part of the "raise taxes" talks -- it's all INCOME tax.
Lets look at your three examples:
Federal Fuel Tax: It's around 18 cents/gal IIRC (more for diesel). It's also about ready to expire which would be a boon for the economy. Raise that rate higher than it is, and EVERYTHING costs more. It hurts the economy and fails to address the problems I described. It also wasn't meant to go to the general fund, but the Highway Trust Fund -- in other words, it's purpose is to offset the cost of maintaining infrastructure, not Defense, The Dept of Education, NASA, HUD, etc.
FUSC tax: Similarly, this tax pays for a narrow purpose.
SSI/Medicare: Again, narrow purpose None of this funds Defense, roads, DoE, HUD, etc etc etc.
People who don't pay income tax are unaffected by a raise in income tax. None of these really address the out of control spending that both parties are responsible for that got us to a 14 trillion dollar deficit. They have no reason NOT to ask for more programs, more spending, more whatever is it doesn't hit them in the wallet at all.
"Suppose there was a nominal 1 cent federal tax that all Americans of voting age had to pay, would that address your concern?"
No. 1%, yes. And tie it to the highest income rate -- even at a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio. So that if the highest rate is 35%, the lowest mandatory rate is 1%. If income taxes increase on the "rich" from 35% to 55%, then the "poor" will increase from 1% to 4%-5%. At $20k income, someone would pay a minimum of $200 per year (less than $17/mo) income tax. They'll be a lot more likely to responsibly spend "group" money (by way of their voting for representatives) if it means their taxes will rise to pay for "more stuff". This is why I believe they need to be invested in the system.
Amazing. You've no idea about supply side economics and the laffer curve -- or that tax avoidance *IS* one of the mechanisms that reduce tax revenue as tax rates go up. Yet you hurl insults at others and refuse to acknowledge your mistake.
You're wife must love you... if you're not divorced yet, that is.
"Oh right, because an economy that pushes everyone to seek a career based on expected income rather than "maximising their talents and interests" and completely ignoring "value contributed to society as a whole" is really working for the people."
I would argue that if people do plan their careers based on how they would like to live vs. what they like to do it WOULD work for people. Instead you end up with people with degrees in English or Art History and gobs of student loan debt they cannot repay. Is THAT really working for people?
"Nevermind that philosophers are among the most important people in our society - it's they who set the bars by which we will live in the future (and even they who determine what the scientific method actually IS so that science can progress), yet if that's what you wish to study and pursue you accept that you'll be spending your life in academia earning very little."
How many philosophers does a society need? Do we pay for ANYONE who wants to study philosophy? If so, why? When a PhD in Phil finishes his scholastic career and is $150k in debt, how can they hope to repay that? Is it fair to ask society to pay when there are already so many that they cannot find employment in their field at a rate which can repay their loans?
For me, Philosophy and History (history in particular) are deep rooted interests of mine. I made a choice to pursue a major that would afford me a reasonable level of comfort to live and raise a family and keep me interested. It has. I also have pursued my interest in History on my own time and dime. I've consulted for more than a few doctoral candidates on where they can find source material for their research -- at no charge (I'm very well versed on Colonial American History and 15th-17th European history). This is my "passion". And I didn't ask ANYONE to pay my way. BTW, I hold no degree in History.
I make my money as a DBA/Data Analyst -- and I've been cited as a source for a few medical research papers. It's a stimulating job that cost me little to pursue scholastically and has paid far better than a career in Philosophy or History would have.
"and it's why historically most writers had some other way to pay the bills. Many of the best books were written by people who were technically journalists or teachers - and ironically it's one of the few fields where women had historically had better odds."
Great! Why change a system that appears to have worked in the past? Having them focus scholastically on something that wont allow them to "pay the bills" doesn't appear to be working, does it?
An interesting side-thought came as I was writing this... If society managed to flip the bill for anyone who wanted to be an artist/writer, would we even NOTICE something great through the the "noise" of the flood of mediocre and bad? If Van Gogh didn't suffer, would he have painted? And even if he had, would he have ever been noticed? I'm not attempting to make any argument here other than just thinking out loud (or in type).
"We all pay taxes, we all understand that programs are paid for with taxes"
No sales or state taxes pay for federal programs. No sales or state taxes pay for defense, medical, medicare, etc... No sales or state taxes in anyway help reduce this crazy 14 trillion dollar deficite.
I must disagree with you in that *I* believe it matters quite a lot.
"Sales taxes range from 5%-10%, right? You're suggesting that a family of four spends only $6,000-$12,000 / year? "
$12k is about what our household spends on sales taxable expenses per year. I have a family of four. Granted, I excluded "big ticket" items such as cars because they, if purchased at all, are almost always purchased used and around every 5 years or so at the low end of the economic ladder... If it pleases you, add an extra $1000-$2000 per year for big ticket items.
The point I think you are missing is that it doesn't matter HOW much other taxes they pay if none of it contributes to the Fed.
And if you want to include all the other taxes that the "poor" pay, then I'm paying over 50%... and when I'm putting out more than HALF of what I've earned I get real antsy when someone starts asking for "more". Want to increase my federal taxes? Ok... fine... But everyone who currently pays NOTHING need to pitch in even a LITTLE... and if they want ME to pay more, fine -- they need to pay more at the same time. Even at a 3:1 ratio. Increase me from 30% to 40% federal tax? Ok, you go from 0%-4%. They are still paying an order of magnitude less than I am and are now invested in the system -- and hopefully, their VOTES will be for those who will spend our money (theirs AND mine) more responsibly -- and not just have them voting for people to spend MY money and not theirs.
Want to argue that they are only going to tax those making 100k more than me (or some arbitrary "rich" amount)? It's still wrong if the representatives in office pushing this are voted in by people who aren't vested in the system and have NOTHING to lose asking for more "stuff".
Prick -- and you deserve to be called worse. Read the citation.