Higher Taxes on the Rich Tied with Increased Happiness

[dunks_galore]

It's also funny to me how no one is commenting on the article itself. I guess if you don't disagree with the conclusion, no reason to read something which might trouble your world view.

[Informed Info]

Originally Posted by alphamale

and then some.

Exactly.

[Informed Info]

Originally Posted by dunks_galore

It's also funny to me how no one is commenting on the article itself. I guess if you don't disagree with the conclusion, no reason to read something which might trouble your world view.

The problem with the article is there was no mention of a nation that had a flat tax and how "unhappy" or "happier than pigs in crap" those residents of said nation were.

It's a liberal BS attempt at wanting to tax the "rich" higher to make everyone else happier...without taking any consideration in to cost of living, etc. for those "rich" who the libs want to "pay more" .....when the liberal definition of "rich" in the US is $250K.

$250K might get you some easy lifestyle and a lot of expendable income if you live in a part of the country where the cost of living is low...not so much in metropolitan areas where the cost of living is high and especially not so much when those who make that "kind of money" are doing "everything right" to ensure that they can save for their own retirement, fund their kids college educations, pay for their own heat/electric, pay for their own food, clothing, cars, not ever wanting to rely on others...let alone pay for those who don't bother.

Nothing unfair about wanting to keep what is yours because you sacrifice and EARN it.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by dunks_galore

Can anyone point out the obvious reason this flat tax is not fair at all?

I can make a stab at it...because it treats everyone equally and doesn't disproportanately punish higher wage earners?

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by marcopolo

...The unequal treatment under the law inherent in "economic development" initiatives by state and local government that arises from bribing companies to locate or expand facilities with grants and tax breaks has led us to a very sad state of affairs. Citizens and other companies are taxed to pay for "incentives" (bribes) to a select few. If these were outlawed across the nation, every plant that needed to be built would still get built. States and localities would be forced to compete on the basis of their education systems, the health of the workforce, the transportation infrastructure, the desirability of living there, etc. Under the current system of auctioning off bribes, all these good things are stressed by budget pressures.

It can't be ended by states refusing to play the game because everybody else is playing the game. Conservatives cannot get it done, because business likes the current system, and business influences conservative ideas. It will take liberals or libertarians to get this done.

....

I like your proposal above. That keeps high-tax states line New York or California from shifting their tax burden from new businesses or those that otherwise might locate there, onto onto existing businesses. This keeps the difference in businesss and living costs level within the state, and better allows companies to weigh the benefits of low-tax vs high tax states. It also means that businesses fleeing high tax states can better decide where to move without getting the states into a bidding war.