On Oct 22, 8:46*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:

* * I don't get how. We, again, are talking wealth and that has nothing
to do with the relative progressiveness of taxes. If you want to
regulate wealth by taxation you have to make it VERY regressive at the
top end. Which is a whole ball of policy wax.

Policy wax...is that like a Brazilian?

From your sig, I see that you're a fan of bon mot. How does that
saying go?
Each according to his abilities.
or
With great power comes great responsibility.

I don't expect the old lady to fend for herself if she drops a bag of
groceries. It's far easier for me to bend down and pick them up
quickly.

The major disconnect we have going - and by we I mean we, is that
messages aren't getting through to people due to either their
perceived political or financial immunity.

Take traffic tickets. I was in Westhampton Beach on Main St. a couple
of years ago, and saw a guy in a very expensive convertible get pulled
over for being on the phone. He sat there, on the phone the whole
time, while the cop wrote out the ticket. What's a $100 fine to a guy
like that?

Me? I got a $100 ticket for being on the phone in the car while I was
talking to my brother. What did I do? Stop talking to my brother!
JK But I am more aware.

In Switzerland they have a progressive fine structure for speeding.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/13/s...ing-fine-ever/

Of course that's the record, but the fine is proportionate to income.
Take this guy (excerpt from that article):
"in Finland where the fine is calculated based on the vehicle's speed
and the driver's income. Back in 2002, Nokia executive Anssi Vanjoki
had to pay a fine of $103,600 for going 47 mph in a 31 mph zone."

That's going to get anybody to sit up and take notice.

Years in jail are one thing, as everyone lives life at the same speed,
but not everyone earns (or "earns") money at the same speed.

R