What Would You Do?

OK, but we already have a progressive tax system. So where do you draw the line? How much is enough for one person to pay?

 

There is no magic number where taxes cross the line between "fair" and "unfair" or "enough" and "not enough."

The amount of taxes that need to be taken from each level of income is variable, depending on the changing needs of society.

 

So at some point, we can take 80 percent of a person's money, if that's what it's deemed that society needs?

90 percent?

100 percent?

Slippery, slippery slope.

The government is like a crackhead. It will ALWAYS need more money.

 

so you want people that make more money to pay more in taxes? hmmm, that sounds like the current system.

What income bracket should pay 50% of their income? People making over 150k? 200k?

see, I get more upset about the people that don't pay any taxes, IMO, they're the problem...not the folks paying into the system.

I would like a system similar to the current one but with one major difference. People would be less in taxes from ages 18-35, and more later on. This would allow young people to build equity, have more money to purchase a house, etc.

 

Why? The kids haven't earned the money. It's essentially a gift.

 

But SOMEBODY earned it. SOMEBODY already paid taxes on it. And SOMEBODY should be allowed to now do what they want with it, without it being taxed further. What the hell did the government do that should entitle them to another slice of the same pie?

My great-grandmother lived on a little cattle ranch for as long as I knew her. It wasn't much, but it had been in the family for generations. When she died, it was going to cost her heirs (ie, my mother and her brothers and sisters) more than it was worth in order to accept it as an inheritance.

They had to sell it, just because of the taxes.

To me, that is not right. Part of the American dream is to be able to leave something to your kids ... not to have to government essentially take it from you.

The end of the estate tax was the only part of John McCain's economic "plan" that made a modicum of sense.

 

There's a reason why slippery slope arguments are considered fallacious.

But yes, if there was a point where people were building such vast riches that the only way to maintain the society that let them build those riches was a 90% tax rate, that'd be perfectly fine.

But I don't see any situation where that would be viable. It'd basically involve a return to a feudal economy.

 

That doesn't seem mathematically possible.

 

if we taxed the "rich" at 90% it would ruin the economy, not help it.

 

So the government has no culpability on any of this? It can continue to build its bridges to nowhere, because there will always be rich people to soak for more taxes?

It's funny ... on a different thread, you say individuals who spent more than they earned need to buck up and cut corners and slash budgets. The government apparently, is free to spend whatever it wants, because it can always just hike up the tax rate.

Shouldn't your principals of responsibility apply across the board?

 

Which is why we don't do it. You asked if it would be okay, and I said yes, if there were some messed up economy in which it would be a good idea.

The only hypothetical economy where that would even work would be a perverted reinvention of the feudal system.

 

Well, I'm here to tell you it happened.