Tweet
Re: stupid taxes....
I agree about raising taxes for the wealthy, but I don't define an income over $97,500 a year as wealthy. Yes, if someone makes $500k a year, you can probably safely assume he can afford a *reasonable* tax hike, but with someone that makes around $100k, you just don't know. That's assuming that taxing people more in that bracket will even lead to an increase in income. You're wanting to tax the wrong people, the upper middle class.
I also believe the poor should have to pay at least a token amount. There are so many people that don't have to pay a dime in income taxes. Sorry, but if you don't pay in, you don't have a vested interest in how the money is being spent. That's how democracy works, you put in your fair share and in return you get the functions and services of government.
Taxes, in my opinion, serve a dual purpose:
1) Obviously, to raise revenue for the government
2) To provide a check on the accumulation of excessive wealth that can compromise the democratic process. Excessive monetary accumulation equates to a concentration of power. Money=power.
My overall stated opinion is that if you're not trying to (A) raise revenue, or (B) prevent wealth accumulation that could be a potential threat to democracy, then there's no need to raise peoples' taxes. It's proven that raising taxes too high can actually hurt the economy and lower federal income tax collections. If you don't have as much, you can't spend as much, right?
Nationalized health care may not be a good idea. I'm still on the fence with it, but I think any attempt at it should be cautious and very well thought out. youngsc: you're right about corporate intervention corrupting politics, and corporations are a large part of why nationalized health care has not been adopted here, but that doesn't mean nationalized health care will work.
Before we do anything huge, we need to break the grip of the corporate lobby.
Originally posted by V6Bob
If you make less than $97,500 a year (individually, not family total) removing the cap doesn't affect you. If you do, you can afford it.
If you make less than $97,500 a year (individually, not family total) removing the cap doesn't affect you. If you do, you can afford it.
I also believe the poor should have to pay at least a token amount. There are so many people that don't have to pay a dime in income taxes. Sorry, but if you don't pay in, you don't have a vested interest in how the money is being spent. That's how democracy works, you put in your fair share and in return you get the functions and services of government.
Taxes, in my opinion, serve a dual purpose:
1) Obviously, to raise revenue for the government
2) To provide a check on the accumulation of excessive wealth that can compromise the democratic process. Excessive monetary accumulation equates to a concentration of power. Money=power.
My overall stated opinion is that if you're not trying to (A) raise revenue, or (B) prevent wealth accumulation that could be a potential threat to democracy, then there's no need to raise peoples' taxes. It's proven that raising taxes too high can actually hurt the economy and lower federal income tax collections. If you don't have as much, you can't spend as much, right?
Nationalized health care may not be a good idea. I'm still on the fence with it, but I think any attempt at it should be cautious and very well thought out. youngsc: you're right about corporate intervention corrupting politics, and corporations are a large part of why nationalized health care has not been adopted here, but that doesn't mean nationalized health care will work.
Before we do anything huge, we need to break the grip of the corporate lobby.
Comment