Originally Posted by 6cubed
Everyone should be taxed less...
I honestly believe that "rich" people will spend/allocate their capital/resources better than a bureaucratic government would. Taxes of say 15% are warranted to allow government provide the basics that citizens entrusted it to do. Any excess taxes are really a slap to the face of people; government is saying that we can allocate this capital better then you can.
A lot of rich people are rich for a reason... they know how to allocate capital. The main threat of rich people is that they will invest overseas and not in the domestic economy. Even if the invest in China the result is cheaper prices for the consumer. It's the rich people that stimulate the economy and create... not government. Government is good at being inefficient, spending on dumb but politically popular projects (usually pork), supporting crony capitalism, etc.
For anyone to pay 40% in taxes is ridiculous. To have x% of the population to pay 0 taxes is even more absurd... the very same people who have access to a free education, food stamps, sometimes affirmative action, and now free healthcare, is bullsh1t. Okay I'm a jerk but to subsidize the losers of society is futile. Sure some of these circumstances is the result of bad luck but the U.S. provides enough opportunities for individuals to become middle class if you one tries hard enough.
I would support Warren Buffett to pay 0 taxes because he would spend his "tax budren" more wisely then government would. Here's what the US govt is good at... getting in debt for spending on stupid things (and blaming rich people on a lack of tax revenues):
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
a couple of questions -
1. would you agree that some people need to be subsidized? people with disbilities? mental health problems? people who have faced serious trauma? people fleeing abuse? immigrants seeking refuge?
2. if yes, what makes you think that rich people would put any money towards that? how do you ensure that your social safety net has enough funds to cover the massive amount of need from these types of areas if it is entirely up to teh good will of people to donate?
3. even if you think that a nominal 15% would cover all of these things (in addition to the military, basic infrastructure, etc), why is it that you think things like free education, free healthcare and food stamps are for 'losers' only? do you assume that there is a level playing field to begin with? do you assume that a person, for example, that is born into abject poverty and abuse is able to simply pull themselves up and compete with everyone alse at the same level of opportunity? or do you assume that each generation should take on the failure of their parents to adequately provide and thus automatically be considered a loser from the moment they are born?