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:
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.
|
Here's the problem with that measurement. It doesn't capture the fact that incomes and business opportunity influenced by the federal government (basically everything to varying degrees) have a huge impact on the wage people earn in America.
There are quite a few people -- right now -- that used to pay more tax than they recieve from transfers, that now do not because of international trade agreements.
You recognize the danger that people can vote to tax income that isn't theirs and use that money for things that benefit themselves. But seem completely ignorant of the fact that people can (often behind the scenes in congressional committees) use the government to make sure they are the ones with more income in the first place, or that others have less.