in article calq3e$lp5$2@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/15/04 12:23 PM:

> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>> in article calmvr$js6$2@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/15/04 11:30 AM:
> 
>>>> thing that has changed is how flat that graduated tax is.
>>> 
>>> Which was rather the point; it flattened it, not simply reduced it down
>>> the line.
> 
>> And why is flattening it not a good thing?
> 
> I actually don't recall placing a value judgement on it.
> 
> Could you find that post for me, please?
> 
> I DO recall saying that the very rich benefit disproportionately from
> government services, but that's not quite the same thing, is it, Mr
> Schaal?
> 
> Mike

Let me get this right. You are not making a value judgment as to the Reagan
tax cut? If so, we are not in disagreement on that point.

As to your statement that the very rich benefit disproportionately from
government services, that is true only if one views the benefit on a per
capita basis. (In other words, they get a lot more benefits than the average
poor person.) On the other hand, if you look at how much they contribute in
taxes, the poor benefit disproportionately from government services.

For instance, Bill Gates receives a lot more government services than a
person who is among the working poor, but the ratio of government services
received to taxes collected would be a lot smaller than for the working
poor.

It all depends upon your point of reference.