Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Societies that value efficiency would probably prefer to pay the higher taxes.
Societies that value efficiency, do prefer to pay the higher taxes. The Nordic nations come to mind.
I prefer the roads fixed and plowed in winter, to arguing with my neighbors over every detail, while nothing gets done. Certainly we can root out waste without having to traverse the Baja to get to our jobs.
I don't care how inefficient the guy is who cleans the restroom, I just want it done!
Interesting that you say that, because here's the breakdown...
Two liberal think tanks analyzed US local, state, and federal tax rates and came up with the following, to their surprise...
Here's the average effective TOTAL (local, state, and federal) tax rate, by income group.
Data sources for chart: Tax Policy Center and Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
...Perhaps the chart, above, explains what's holding back our economic growth. Those with the most to invest in the expansion of the US economy are having that money siphoned off by Fed Gov.
I agree. and I do think that 30% might be the max, not just for the economy but for any individual. I also think that those on the lower end, either cant pay that 30% as a higher percentage of their income is spent on necessities... although they do need "skin in the game"
ive looked really closely at the points you make about regressive income taxation. I think there is some merit there, but what I would just love is for those with the capacity to do it, really get to studying this in depth.
No....blame the government's lack of ability to budget responsibly.
Two-thirds of our federal government spending is either for defense, or for social security and Medicare, Medicaid etc. A flat 10 percent income tax with nothing else means extremely steep cuts to both. Would you be willing to pay the price for that?
by "right" im not talking about what is moral or fair. and I am not 100% certain that is the actual number. but its in the ballpark
The point here is that if government takes 0 dollars, there is no government and everything falls apart.
if Government takes 100% of everything there is nothing but government and everything falls apart.
however, between those point, there is a percentage that government must take that does 2 things.
1. generates THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF revenue THAT IS NECESSARY for government to operate on
2. does not discourage private sector innovation and economic expansion.
That is the number. period. its not about what is fair, its not about what people want government to do for them, its not about what politicians promise.
its about the amount of money taken from the economy that generates max revenue, while doing the least damage to the private sector economy.
What I don't understand is why THIS isn't the discussion point. nothing else really matters
actually that doesn't matter. the number is magic all by itself. you take only what does not hurt the economy but does generate the max revenue.
Now part of that requires that government action has real positive impact to society.
by really searching for that magic spot, where revenue is maxed without doing harm to the private sector then you have all that is necessary. period.
As someone who works for a living and pays taxes, I really don't see how relying on nearly 1/3 of my income to still run a huge debt at both the state and federal levels is about right by any means.
The government has, over time, taken over financial obligations that should devolve to private citizens. By that I mean all the money that people should spend on themselves for services, in the long run. Simplest example is Social Security/Medicare. While people are working they should be wise enough to set aside money for their possible, nay, inevitable, illnesses and retirement.
But since it is the nature of man, and grasshopper, to spend all you have and enjoy the Summer, governments around the world have, over time, stepped in to force that savings on us. The ants are in charge and they decided how much to save. (Winter is coming!)
Turns out they did not set it up right. Due to inflation and longer life for seniors now they have to borrow the money and thus service on the public debt has grown. That's just one government program.
Google reports:
"On January 26, 2016, debt held by the public was $13.62 trillion
or about 75% of the previous 12 months of GDP. Intragovernmental holdings
stood at $5.34 trillion, giving a combined total gross national debt of
$18.96 trillion or about 104% of the previous 12 months of GDP."
Some how the interest on that has to get paid.
Sorry, all of that previous BS can be condensed down to: "It's for your own good."
Ain't so.
Never happened.
Not real.
Myth.
Unsupported.
False.
Fake.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
