3 ms·

I am not arguing for no taxes. I am saying that an effective tax rate above 50% is theft. Taxing more successful people at multiplicatively higher %'s is lunacy

I am not arguing for no taxes. I am saying that an effective tax rate above 50% is theft. Taxing more successful people at multiplicatively higher %'s is lunacy. They already are paying way more than lower income folks at the same rate. If your argument is that more successful people consume more resources and thus owe the government a greater debt, then i would argue we should be taxing consumption more. Not income.

unprepare 11y ago
> i would argue we should be taxing consumption more Consumption tax disproportionately affects the poorest citizens. It is a non-workable solution. Consumption is what drives the economy, disincentives to consumption would hurt the economy as a whole (causing the wealthy to lose money via investments). Further, a citizen has no hope to pay off the debt that it owes the government for the things i listed previously. There is no tax rate at which you would effectively pay back the government for its investments in society. The yearly budget of the US Department of Transportation alone, is 77 billion - that's just to keep federal roads drivable. If you think theres some tax level at which you have paid for the initial investment and upkeep of the federal highway system, by all means share it here, i would love to know what number you think is 'fair' since its 'your money' even though they aren't 'your roads' You have an extremely entitled view of what "fair" is.