Comment Re:Democrats vs. Republicans (Score 1) 840
Should it be the policy of the government to enforce "fairness" by penalizing those who are lucky/workharder/whatever and have more then the average?
I say no.
If you are worried about the person who makes $20,000 paying 33% and not having enough to live on then set the tax law up so that below a certain poverty line they don't pay any income tax. Make the cut off sensible ($23k or something like that) and then charge eveyone else whatever percentage is needed to balance the budget. No deductions for anything. I think that your will find both the rich and the poor on the same side of the argument when it turns out that that spiffy new bomber added .2% to everyones tax rate all by itself.
I can agree with that... it is really a matter of semantics, using the "sensible" cut-off of $23k and say a 40% rate above that (instead of the 30% i had before) and my previous example:
Person A: $30000 - After tax: $27200 - After living expenses: $10400
vs
Person B: $60000 - After tax: $45200 - After living expenses: $28400
Which is really twice as "fair" as it was before.
I'd actually be suprised if there were democrats who didn't like the idea of no taxes on your first $xxx and a flat tax rate afterwards, as it would greatly reduce the tax burden on the poor.
Then everyone should be happy... right?
I can agree with that... it is really a matter of semantics, using the "sensible" cut-off of $23k and say a 40% rate above that (instead of the 30% i had before) and my previous example:
Person A: $30000 - After tax: $27200 - After living expenses: $10400
vs
Person B: $60000 - After tax: $45200 - After living expenses: $28400
Which is really twice as "fair" as it was before.
I'd actually be suprised if there were democrats who didn't like the idea of no taxes on your first $xxx and a flat tax rate afterwards, as it would greatly reduce the tax burden on the poor.
Then everyone should be happy... right?
