3 ms·
You missing your own point here. The 'needs' of the government aren't determined by the rich but rather the imbeciles elected by the masses. If you want change
by willnonya 5y ago
You missing your own point here. The 'needs' of the government aren't determined by the rich but rather the imbeciles elected by the masses. If you want change the people have to demand it but instead they simply advocate for more of the status quo.
Simplifying the tax code is a valid idea. Targeting the 'rich' and ramping up tax fraud witch hunts, not so much.
Historically if you want to collect more taxes you lower tax rates and get an increase in compliance. A flat rate is the fairest approach, setting an income threshold or a negative income tax to offset taxes for the poorest citizens provides the progressive aspect.
- klyrs 5y ago> The 'needs' of the government aren't determined by the rich but rather the imbeciles elected by the masses Your understanding of the elections in the US is hopelessly naive, especially after Citizens United opened the floodgates for unlimited, anonymous donations to political campaigns. Politicians do the bidding of the people who give them the most money. Elections are typically between two candidates who wear colors of different gangs, but have been paid off by the same companies. Voting forces a choice between candidates; donating and lobbying allows the rich to get their policies in place regardless of who wins.