People stopped working back then because taxes were too high?Originally Posted by Alan
People stopped working back then because taxes were too high?
How about corporations pay their taxes before this latest tax breaks and things will be good.
I am dumbfounded that their tax rate dropped by 40%!!! (21 instead of 35%). Shouldn't all brackets have dropped by 40%? Hell, that difference would have by far paid cash for Him's dumb wall!
Yeah, I hear all of those countries have become desolate wastelands, the tumbleweeds rolling toward the borders in the vacuum created by the tens of millions of citizens fleeing those countries...
Success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome. - Booker T. Washington
I wouldn't think so, but at those rates it wouldn't take long before the big payers stopped taking the risks required to earn that much, the driven people lose some of their drive and the middle class is diminished to a point where they are no longer able to save. But maybe that's the goal, I'm not sure.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Of course that's not true and I never implied any such thing, and that wasn't the point. In each of those countries, some degree of some citizens personal assets are claimed by the government as a "wealth tax" and at least one potential candidate for our Presidency has proposed the same, and now Teacher Terry knows.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Nice try. In that same post, you use the term "level of utopia", a goal your previous posts here have never endorsed. You can hide behind the notion that you're just stating facts, but your opinion is clear through your choice of terms.
You don't like the idea of taxation that more evenly applies the costs of society to all regardless of the sources of their wealth. You don't agree that taxation to fund government has any positive benefit once the most basic services of protection (and maybe preservation) are paid for. It's OK. It's a difference of opinion. I (obviously) see it differently. We can discuss the difference and compromise rather than denigrate one approach or the other. Clearly many developed and very prosperous countries tax on that basis and it's accepted by their citizens. Almost all of us can vote with our feet; I think it says something that so many do not.
Many Americans differ on that score, either. I live in a high-tax state. I see what it buys me as a citizen and I'm okay with that. Are there opportunities for improvement? Certainly. But I think the government here makes a good effort and that holds more value to me than the few dollars I'd keep to myself in a low-tax state (and likely pay for one way or another). To each their own.
Success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome. - Booker T. Washington
Very late to the party but our total tax was 14.6% of our AGI for 2018 and 20.1% for 2017. Thanks Trump! And taxes were way easier to prepare too. FWIW among my friends a few broke even and a few paid less, but those who said they paid more were simply under withheld and ended up owing. But upon questioning their overall tax burden as a percentage of AGI was generally less. But don’t get me started on my California state taxes. ��
Oh yes, there's no doubt I have an opinion, and I generally enjoy seeing how people respond to opinions they don't share, so thanks for that. The use of the word "utopia" is intentional as I think it's a word that accurately reflects a societal goal while limiting the number of pixels required to describe it. It's unfortunate that it also evokes images of governmental systems incompatible with a constitutional republic due to the amount of force required to enforce parity, but in the end I think it's good to make sure people know that requirement.
I live in a high-tax state. I see what it buys me as a citizen and I'm okay with that.Believe it or not, so am I, although I do resist the implication that the government is the best way to achieve societal goals and that any dollars the government allows people to keep beyond the amount required to cover basic necessities is unfair to others.
I have another opinion that many people do not share, that being that using the power or threat of government force against 49% to ensure fairness to 51% is not fair. That democratic tendency is the reason this country is a republic, current popularity notwithstanding.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Ok. So what you’re saying is that in the 50s/60s the big players stopped taking risks, people stopped trying hard and the middle class was nearly wiped out. Got it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote