By: Heywood

Heywood — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:10:19 +0000

James-
If you look at taxes as an investment in your own country, which is what they historically have been (in the case of roads, schools, hospitals, etc. — war is the exception), it’s not that crazy to think that those with more money should help facilitate improvements in a country like the US.
Don’t get me wrong, I dislike taxes as much as the next guy when it comes to paying them, but I understand that we need tax revenue: we’re facing a huge deficit, and our own infrastructure ain’t that great.
You can argue that it’s unfair those with more income pay more in terms of dollars and even a higher percent, but this is logical–it’s far less of a burden on rich people to pay taxes than it is for poor people to do so. The irony of people opposing taxation is that when we can improve infrastructure and public goods, everyone (including the rich) benefits– in terms of better roads, and hospitals, for example, but also in terms of property values when public schooling improves.
So you can be frustrated that 50% of tax revenue comes from those who control 90% of the wealth in this country, but my question to you is, logically, shouldn’t those who control 90% of the wealth contribute 90% of the tax? Contributing just 50% of tax revenue annually, then, seems like a pretty good deal for the wealthy.

By: james

james — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:22:59 +0000

The top 1% of the US also pays over 50% of income tax. that’s allot in my book. take the top 1% out of the math and how much tax do you think our politicians would stick the bottom 90% with?..soak that in for a sec.Politicians = what ever means to separate you from your money

By: Allison

Allison — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:10:42 +0000

I just read her book “Nickel and Dimed” for a class! She’s the bomb yo.

Comments on: Stat-o-matic

By: Heywood

By: james

By: Allison