Quote:
Originally Posted by Raev
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Let's be real here: the poor and even quite some of the middle class are already in net negative tax territory when you add in the social net benefits. Romney may have lost the election, but he wasn't wrong when he said that having over 50% of voters be net tax recipients is a recipe for disaster, and it's been well known for quite some time:
|
The nature of the free market is to concentrate more and more wealth among those who already have the most capital. It's far easier to earn $100k when you have $10 million than it is when you only have $100k. It's only right to concentrate taxes there as well, to counteract that force, less we descend into aristocracy / gilded age robber barony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raev
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
In your opinion, would 0% up to $50K, 15% after that, no deductions, and you can't vote if you don't pay at least 5% of your income in taxes? Remember, if the remaining taxpayers vote for candidates that cut benefits, there will be more net tax payers voting.
|
That sounds great to me.