3 ms·
I'm by no means against taxes, I completely agree they're rightfully used to fund roads/police/fire/etc. My primary argument is that the richest government in t
by jb775 6y ago
I'm by no means against taxes, I completely agree they're rightfully used to fund roads/police/fire/etc. My primary argument is that the richest government in the history of the world has more important things to prioritize than making the IRS more ruthless against the middle class. And I'm saying that if they end up collecting more tax money, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a net positive for society as a whole. Most of those tax benefits are reaped by big business, so in other words those benefits are reaped by the owners of those big businesses.
The low vs high tax debate is kind of a moot argument anyways since the US govt can pretty much print money as needed...which ends up being an indirect tax on the general public via inflation.
- vinay427 6y ago> And I'm saying that if they end up collecting more tax money, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a net positive for society as a whole. Most of those tax benefits are reaped by big business, so in other words those benefits are reaped by the owners of those big businesses. This seems to indicate that it is a net positive for everyone else. If they don't collect tax money from those owners, all of the benefits of that money goes to those owners and none of it goes to anyone else. > The low vs high tax debate is kind of a moot argument anyways since the US govt can pretty much print money as needed...which ends up being an indirect tax on the general public via inflation. So... it's not a moot point? One group, through taxation policies, is asked to pay a larger share of what would have been an indirect tax on the general public.