Loading 1 Vote - +

RE: Resolution?

The proposal is to tax income, not confiscate assets. If the top bracket were 100%, they’d still be left with the same money as the people in the next bracket down — the tax rate is applied to money over some threshold, just like all tax brackets are.

Next year, their assets will once again pay them their revenues, and we’ll tax it again.

I suppose I was going off the deep end there, but I think I am hanging around the wrong people. All I hear day in and day out is how evil all those fat-cats are and how we need to “take them down a peg” and take away their ill-gotten gains. They shouldn’t ever make “excess profits”, etc.
That gets tiresome fast, and I suppose I slipped into a rant.

By all means, we should tax our citizens. An income tax on the total compensation (base + bonus + stocks + health plan, etc) and a sales tax would be nice. Thos who make more, will most certainly pay more.

I’m just not very keen on “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax”.

In fact, I’m not in favor of targeting any one group of people with a negative aspect of government based on any factor. Whether it’s race, gender, religion, socio-economic status, hair color or what ever. Call it a personal bias, or quirk.

To tax them more just because they can pay for it, is too much like forcing strong people to be manual laborors just because they are more able to do it.

Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
0 Votes  - +
RE: Resolution? by scottb

To tax them more just because they can pay for it, is too much like forcing strong people to be manual laborors just because they are more able to do it.

Analogies are problematic — if the analogy isn’t perfect, then it’s hard to tell when a conclusion drawn from it is correct.

Perhaps a better analogy would be a situation in which a group of people are stranded on a desert island after a shipwreck. Everyone is exhausted from swimming, but some of the cargo has washed up on the shore and it has to be moved to higher ground before the tide takes it back out. Everybody needs to pitch in, but it’s hardly “fair” to expect the biggest and strongest to limit his contribution so that he does the same amount of work as the weakest or even the average worker.

Government and taxes aren’t forced labor. Sure — we’d rather not pay them, but that’s not the salient point. I’d rather get rent and food for free, too, but it ain’t an option. Since I want the home and the meals, I pay for them. In our society, we’ve decided we want these things, and we need to pay for them. It’s more like the shipwreck analogy than the forced labor one.

What is OmniNerd?

Omninerd_icon Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.

Voting Booth

What if a spouse cheats?

20 votes, 4 comments