6 ms·

It appears I am in the minority. I do not support raising taxes on anyone. I support cutting spending and removing most government programs. Raising taxes has

It appears I am in the minority. I do not support raising taxes on anyone. I support cutting spending and removing most government programs. Raising taxes has always had the impact of removing disposable income which impacts businesses and eventually impacts the individual. [1] I would rather see all government expenses become fully transparent, in addition to showing all money spent on lobbying down to the cent. Every government project should have public documents that detail a full project break-down and what money what spent specifically on what. [1] - https://www.infoplease.com/homework-help/social-studies/fiscal-policy-and-economic-growth-governments-unique-situation https://www.infoplease.com/homework-help/social-studies/fisc...

jjtheblunt 8y ago
You're not at all in the minority: the (interesting) US president was elected in large part because enough people were sick of ever-expanding federal government that they got to the polls and voted.
- millstone 8y ago
  What a strange take. The 2016 campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the size of the government. Trump's campaign promises included $550 billion federal investment in infrastructure, deporting all illegal immigrants, and providing health insurance for everybody, paid for by the government.
- davidcbc 8y ago
  Even if this was the reason everyone voted for Trump (a dubious claim at best), that still wouldn't make it the majority opinion because the majority of voters didn't vote for him.
dudul 8y ago
Doing one doesn't prevent from doing the other. I'm also in the minority but my view on this has changed a lot in the past few years. I don't understand why there isn't a "maximum income" regulation actually. If you make $20M/year, do you really need more?
- LinuxBender 8y ago
  Why should someone be punished for making more money? I see this as a big hammer that could hurt innovation.
  - dudul 8y ago
    When somebody makes $20M/year, do they really do it for the money at this point? Is it really what keeps them going? If so, I would argue that these people are mentally ill. Do we have any study or proof demonstrating that if we applied a 100% tax rate above $20M/year people would just stop working? And I don't see that as a punishment. The money not spend on crazy CEO incomes can be used to pay other workers better, or invest in innovation since that's what you brought up.
    - RhysU 8y ago
      > Do we have any study or proof demonstrating that if we applied a 100% tax rate above $20M/year people would just stop working? I would likely stop working. Pay me $20M + $1 and let's check...
  - millstone 8y ago
    On the contrary. Without the lure of an 8 figure income, a person might choose to go into research science, engineering, medicine, teaching, etc. instead of becoming a hedge fund manager.
  - tivert 8y ago
    > Why should someone be punished for making more money? Taxes are not a punishment, though they may be a disincentive. Taxes are also not a payment in exchange for services.
    - grimjack00 8y ago
      Taxes may not be meant to be a punishment, but they are certainly presented as such in certain cases. "Those one-percenters make too much; make them pay their fair share!" "Smoking is bad; raise taxes on tobacco products"

jjtheblunt 8y ago

You're not at all in the minority: the (interesting) US president was elected in large part because enough people were sick of ever-expanding federal government that they got to the polls and voted.

millstone 8y ago
What a strange take. The 2016 campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the size of the government. Trump's campaign promises included $550 billion federal investment in infrastructure, deporting all illegal immigrants, and providing health insurance for everybody, paid for by the government.
davidcbc 8y ago
Even if this was the reason everyone voted for Trump (a dubious claim at best), that still wouldn't make it the majority opinion because the majority of voters didn't vote for him.

dudul 8y ago

Doing one doesn't prevent from doing the other. I'm also in the minority but my view on this has changed a lot in the past few years. I don't understand why there isn't a "maximum income" regulation actually. If you make $20M/year, do you really need more?

LinuxBender 8y ago
Why should someone be punished for making more money? I see this as a big hammer that could hurt innovation.
- dudul 8y ago
  When somebody makes $20M/year, do they really do it for the money at this point? Is it really what keeps them going? If so, I would argue that these people are mentally ill. Do we have any study or proof demonstrating that if we applied a 100% tax rate above $20M/year people would just stop working? And I don't see that as a punishment. The money not spend on crazy CEO incomes can be used to pay other workers better, or invest in innovation since that's what you brought up.
  - RhysU 8y ago
    > Do we have any study or proof demonstrating that if we applied a 100% tax rate above $20M/year people would just stop working? I would likely stop working. Pay me $20M + $1 and let's check...
- millstone 8y ago
  On the contrary. Without the lure of an 8 figure income, a person might choose to go into research science, engineering, medicine, teaching, etc. instead of becoming a hedge fund manager.
- tivert 8y ago
  > Why should someone be punished for making more money? Taxes are not a punishment, though they may be a disincentive. Taxes are also not a payment in exchange for services.
  - grimjack00 8y ago
    Taxes may not be meant to be a punishment, but they are certainly presented as such in certain cases. "Those one-percenters make too much; make them pay their fair share!" "Smoking is bad; raise taxes on tobacco products"