An interesting straw-man argument you've come up with there, Bubbie. Please point out where I have stated that I am in favor of your paying more in taxes. I have no idea how much money you make. Perhaps I would think so, if I had more information, but to date I have made no reference whatsoever to your personal tax liability. And while you state that "less (taxation) is (always) better," you have still not divorced yourself from the idea that there is SOME level at which taxation is proper. Again, we differ only in the matter of degree.
Now I'm an "elitist." lol
That's okay. Yes, I do believe that the best and brightest should have more say in how the country is run than should the worst and dimmest. Or to put it more plainly, I think that people who know nothing about a subject should not be able to vote on that subject. This would include Congress: No member of the House or Senate should be allowed to vote on any law which they had not thoroughly, and personally, read and reviewed. And yes, you CAN quote me on that.
At this point in America, I am in favor of a highly-progressive tax structure for the simple reason that it leaves money in the hands of those who can, and WILL, put it back into the economy. A person with a personal income of $100 million takes a significant amount of money OUT of the economy, leaving the bulk of that income to generate more income in interest and "investments" which do little to spur TRUE economic growth. In fact, such constant searching for "the highest return" has, over the past decade, resulted in the collapse of thousands upon thousands of publicly-traded companies, the sub-prime housing bubble bursting, and the current outrageous and unsustainable prices of crude oil, fuel and food.
On the other hand, a person with a person income of $100,000 will return the vast majority of that money directly back into the economy. Therefore I would advocate a much higher tax rate for the higher income person than for the lower. Indeed, at less than $50,000 per person, per year, I would advocate no income tax whatsoever. All taxes, however, must be adjusted (even eliminated when possible) according to the current state of the economy.
The funny thing of it is that prior to Reagan, and adjusted for inflation, this is very much what the progressive income tax looked like. A maximum rate near 90% and a minimum rate of zero. We do still have the "zero" rate, but middle-income people now pay a higher percentage of their wages in taxes than they did then, adjusted for inflation, while the highest-income people pay significantly less than they did then -- with a maximum rate of a mere 15% for "money earning money." That is, for money which has been REMOVED from the economy. And for decades prior to Reagan's cutting of the maximum rate (and increase of the minimum), our economy was very strong indeed. Naturally, the progressive income tax rates were only one contributing factor to that strength -- but contribute they did.
Does government waste money? Absolutely and without a doubt. Given the authority to do so, I would strip the Federal Government down to a mere shadow of its current bloat, drastically reduce its budget, and fund it largely with tariffs on imports. Where that done, it might even get us back to the point where the vast majority of people in this country would have no personal income tax liability at all -- and that would suit me just fine.
Truck Fuel Protest Planned
Discussion in 'Truckers Strike Forum' started by Cybergal, Apr 28, 2008.
Page 6 of 6
-
-
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
Page 6 of 6