Nude_IHB
New member
<p>This argument can't be settled without first defining the reason for taxation. As awgee pointed out, on one side you have the view that taxation is a means to pay for those things we as a country choose to provide to our citizens. As no_vaseline summed up in minimalist fashion, the other view is that taxation is used to "create" an environment where our citizens can prosper. And so begins the 'chicken-or-egg' argument; does government create wealth or does private industry?</p>
<p>Taxes pay for roads, rails, airports, cops, regulators, inspectors, etc. But that is a relatively new development. Transcontinental railroads were privately funded at first, as were most forms of mass transit, and toll roads were invented by people with an eye on long-term investment. It wasn't until after WWII that it became a federal imperative that we have wide standardized highways (for moving nukes and troops), national air traffic control, and stable rail traffic. Which means that prior to that, the private sector was completely capable of providing the infrastructure it needed to conduct business and government was simply there to settle disputes and protect the rights of the parties involved. As far as I am concerned, the idea that private industry would suddenly collapse without out the aid of, and benefit from, public support is a complete load of hogwash being promulgated by people who want to redistribute wealth based on some subjective notion of what is best for everyone.</p>
<p>Is it unfair for someone making $25k to pay $2500 in taxes when someone who makes $2.5m pays $250,000? Only if you think that $2.5m is 'too much' for one person to be making. While some who hold this view may fool themselves into thinking they are being altruistic and have only the greater good in mind, the truth is that they advocate action that would be robbery and extortion if perpetrated by an individual. I think they are rationalizing their own jealousy, couching their desires in populist rhetoric.</p>
<p>I'm not against taxes. They pool money into large amounts so that it can be spent in ways that benifit the population as a whole. National defense is an obvious example, but so is the USDA, the FDA, and the SEC. If the country has need for someting that everyone will use, then everyone should pay for it. But I am not for taxes that exist merely to enrich the federal govenment or to enable wealth redistribution as a means to gather and wield political power. The purpose of taxes is to pay for things collectively that we use individually. While I wouldn't mind having Steve Jobs' money, I can't condone the government taking it from him via taxes so that I can have a slice of his pie.</p>
<p>Here's my economic stimulus plan: Return all government spending to 2005 levels, set a flat tax of 15% on ANY increase in wealth for both businesses and people, pay off the debt with any excess (if there is no excess, reduce the budget equally across the board until there is a surplus), then continue to run a surplus until you have one year's budget + 10% set aside, then reset the tax rate to match what you spent last year.</p>
<p>Taxes pay for roads, rails, airports, cops, regulators, inspectors, etc. But that is a relatively new development. Transcontinental railroads were privately funded at first, as were most forms of mass transit, and toll roads were invented by people with an eye on long-term investment. It wasn't until after WWII that it became a federal imperative that we have wide standardized highways (for moving nukes and troops), national air traffic control, and stable rail traffic. Which means that prior to that, the private sector was completely capable of providing the infrastructure it needed to conduct business and government was simply there to settle disputes and protect the rights of the parties involved. As far as I am concerned, the idea that private industry would suddenly collapse without out the aid of, and benefit from, public support is a complete load of hogwash being promulgated by people who want to redistribute wealth based on some subjective notion of what is best for everyone.</p>
<p>Is it unfair for someone making $25k to pay $2500 in taxes when someone who makes $2.5m pays $250,000? Only if you think that $2.5m is 'too much' for one person to be making. While some who hold this view may fool themselves into thinking they are being altruistic and have only the greater good in mind, the truth is that they advocate action that would be robbery and extortion if perpetrated by an individual. I think they are rationalizing their own jealousy, couching their desires in populist rhetoric.</p>
<p>I'm not against taxes. They pool money into large amounts so that it can be spent in ways that benifit the population as a whole. National defense is an obvious example, but so is the USDA, the FDA, and the SEC. If the country has need for someting that everyone will use, then everyone should pay for it. But I am not for taxes that exist merely to enrich the federal govenment or to enable wealth redistribution as a means to gather and wield political power. The purpose of taxes is to pay for things collectively that we use individually. While I wouldn't mind having Steve Jobs' money, I can't condone the government taking it from him via taxes so that I can have a slice of his pie.</p>
<p>Here's my economic stimulus plan: Return all government spending to 2005 levels, set a flat tax of 15% on ANY increase in wealth for both businesses and people, pay off the debt with any excess (if there is no excess, reduce the budget equally across the board until there is a surplus), then continue to run a surplus until you have one year's budget + 10% set aside, then reset the tax rate to match what you spent last year.</p>
