Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
I like what you wrote, except the police should go after pimps and human traffickers.
|
There's a difference between a pimp and a human trafficker. "Pimp" is just a fancy name for the guy who runs a hooker business. As long as there is no coercion, compulsion, violence, or mistreatment of employees, I have no problem with running a prostitution business, if said business were legal, licensed, taxed, and regulated. Human traffickers specifically refer to those who compel women and minor children into prostitution, and buy and sell them like slaves. Obviously, there is never any excuse for slavery, forced sexual activities, or sex with minor children.
Quote:
|
And I think there should be an income tax rate of 25% up to 5 million to encourage innovation and small entrepreneurs. But the stocks and income over $5 million should be taxed at 60% or so.
|
Here I have to disagree. I have no problem with creating tax breaks, subsidies, reduced-rate loans, and other incentives to encourage innovation and small entrepeneurs. But I think the more you make, the more you ought to pay, and the richest of the rich should be paying in proportion to the disproportionate vastness of their wealth.
Quote:
|
And I think taxes should be higher on the poor as well, but they should get some benefits like healthcare and better communities.
|
I definitely disagree here. I actually think we should make the first $25,000 of income tax-free, rather than the first $8,000; between $25,000 and $35,000 should be paying 5%, $35,000-50,000 @ 12%, $50,000 -$75,000 @ 15%, $75,000 - $100,000 @ 18%, $100,000 - $150,000 @ 22%, $150,000 - 200,000 @ 26%, $200,000 - $250,000 @ 32%, $250,000 - $350,000 @ 40%, $350,000 - $500,000 @ 45%, $500,000 - $750,000 @ 47%, $750,000 - $1M @ 49%, and $1M - $2M @ 50%. And then over that, as I mentioned in my previous post.
Though there is ultimately a sharper rise in these tax rates, they are still comparatively low, if one factors in free healthcare, better infrastructure and working conditions, and free university education. But IMO, it's unreasonable to tax the poor, if for no other reason than they have no money. You don't get blood from a stone. When they asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks, he replied, "Because that's where the money is." The same principle applies to tax: if you want to make money, you tax the people who have money. When we overtax the poor, and they can't pay, not only does it backfire in making poverty worse, but it creates logistical, bureaucratic, and human resources sinkholes, when we have to spend time, money, and personnel on trying to work out payment plans, bankruptcies, foreclosures, appeals, and so forth with poor people in crisis. It simply makes more sense to try and help the poor out of their poverty, so that they can be productive earners, who can then pay a higher tax rate.
Quote:
|
We also need to work to fix the tax mess at the state and local level. There are too many special deals and tax hideaways for mobile people and businesses.
|
Here we are in complete agreement.