This will certainly send my friend Joe into orbit--but in principle I agree.
While our problems are as much (or more so) on our out of control spending which can't continue to be ignored--I do agree that the rate of taxation of higher income people should be increased.
However, I don't support higher business taxes, they are paid by the consumer in any event. However, the loop holes that allow companies to avoid equal taxation need to be plugged.
The argument that by taxing the "rich" is counter productive since it reduces their consumption is bogus--there comes a point where consumption peaks on it's own.
The "rich" don't pay more taxes because they make more noise--and they have friends in high places.
If someone wants to do a realistic analysis of taxation, then evaluate the economic impact
of taxes (in total) on a family of 4 making $75,000---and one making $500,000.
Is there anyone here who would rather be the family making $75,000?
To take that to the next step, why should they not share equal economic impact? Equal opportunity in all aspects isn't a bad idea.
We also share equally (at least in theory) to what this nation provides, why should we not share equally in the "felt impact" of maintaining that?
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity, an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty” ---Sir Winston Churchill
"Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all." ---John W. Gardner
“You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.” ---C. S. Lewis
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Dave Grubb
