3 ms·

Is your implication that the US is socialist simply for having an income tax? If not, you're going to have to quit the snide remarks and actually explain your o

• AdrianB1 9y ago
  No, it is the way it is set. It is a very long discussion, but the extremely simplified version should be: if there is a cost to run the state, split the cost equally to the voting citizens and ask them to pay. The state is not the owner (full or share) of the citizen to raise a percentage of the income as tax, one vote means one tax (in dollars) - that is equal rights and equal burden. The "rich people can afford to pay" is just the way to communism.
  • shubb 9y ago
    There are a lot of ways of configuring tax, democracy and economy. What you are writing here is an assertion, not an argument. You don't present evidence, or hint at why what you propose would be a good idea. Can you explain what good effects the system you are proposing would have?
    • AdrianB1 9y ago
      The essential good effect: it is fair. Anything else is not, exactly for the reason I described: equal rights and equal burden. Otherwise the state is just a way to implement Marxism: take from the ones who have an give to the ones who need. Robin Hood was a thief.