3 ms·
Because US economic history shows this is a very bad idea? Unless, of course, you think more government spending is better than more private economic activity.
by hga 11y ago
Because US economic history shows this is a very bad idea?
Unless, of course, you think more government spending is better than more private economic activity. As an extreme on what this sort of thing can lead to, see the 1937 capital strike (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_strike). At the other end, see the economic growth from JFK's and Reagan's tax rate cuts.
As for fair share, 1/3 is not enough? Its not like they're getting proportionate protection from the "marauding masses" for the money they're paying; in fact, the powers that be seem to have no problems with SEIU etc. direct action against their homes. Self-help is where that's at, which might have something to do with the unprecedented US civilian purchases of guns and ammo, continuing to this day (and with Hillary! now calling for mass confiscations...).
- Hannan 11y ago>>As for fair share, 1/3 is not enough? 1/3 would probably be enough, but they're paying ~1/5.
- philh 11y agolittletimmy said the 1%, and this article says they're paying 1/3.
- briandh 11y agoFrom the article: "The top 1 percent on average already pay roughly a third of their incomes to the federal government, according to a Treasury Department analysis that takes into account the entire menu of taxes — including income tax, payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security, estate and gift taxes, excise and custom duties as well as investors’ share of corporate taxes."
- hga 11y agoAnd I found that fraction credible since it's been generally true after the 1986 tax reform (the following Clinton and Bush II tax changes didn't do all that much, especially compared to the Reagan changes).
- Hannan 11y agoThat's my mistake, I was assuming just federal income tax, thanks for the correction.