Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Manx
I don't consider higher taxes on the rich as "paying for me". I consider it to be their paying for the priviledges they have gained in society.
I also do not know how much the rich should be taxed. I do know that they should be taxed at a higher rate than someone making less money.
As for the figures - I do not believe that eliminating the majority of the infrastructure we currently use to enable our tax system, will we gain enough savings to lower everyone's taxes - but even if that were true, I certainly oppose lowering the taxes of the upper class to something lower than the middle and lower classes.
|
1) What about the advantages we get from the rich? Who starts companies? Who invests in new technologies? Private enterprise always does a better job than gov't funded enterprises. Also, don't forget about the rule of first consumers, we all benefit, every day from that one.
2) With this system the lower classes pay nothing, so there is nothing to bitch about there (unless you are a redistributionis, which I suspect you are). The middle-class tax burden goes down, who cares how it compares to other income brackets, it went down. How can anyone complain about that fact?
I suspect that the root of these oppostions fall heavily into the socialistic realm, which I will never enter, let alone consider.
So far, from what I have seen, the advantages of such a system measurably outweigh the disadvantages. And they blow any possible advantages of our current system out of the water.
However, if you are coming from the belief system that I suspect that you are, no tax reform will be acceptable to you unless the "rich" pay marginally more in taxes than they are doing now.
I don't throw my support behind a system using those ideals. My checklist is much more specific and devoid of ideals. It's more of a "works or doesn't work" kinda thing.