res- we should tax whatever it takes to keep people from being poor.
Let's analyze the underlying assumption of this post and take it to it's logical conclusion....
Taxes keep people from being poor. Conversly, low taxes create poverty. Therefore, more and more taxes should be raised in order to keep more and more people from being poor. Further, if we taxed 100% of our income we could possibly end poverty??
Where on earth is the evidence for this assumption? Did the Soviet Union which taxed 100% have no poverty? Did Bulgaria? Does North Korea, or Cuba?
Do higher taxes really lead to less poverty?
Or, is it true instead that a certain level of taxation is needed for social policy initiatives, but at some point it becomes a negative factor in preventing poverty?
I would argue the latter. Then the question becomes at what level. What level of taxation is right, and necessary?
George Bush has gone on the record and stated no one should pay more than 33% of his/her income in federal taxes. Morally, it's simply wrong. The government should be able to act efficiently enough and ensure 33% is enough. Especially, when you consider that's just the starting point of taxes levelled on individuals and families. State and local taxes can often raise the tax-rate well above 45%.
I ask you ZenWarrior, and anyone else who doesn't agree with Bush's tax cut. What level of taxation is high enough. What level should we stop at and not go above?
Because, on the one hand, you aren't willing to define what you mean by *rich*, and on the other hand, you aren't willing to say what level of taxation is high enough. So, we are left with the assumption that you believe *no* tax rate is too high. And complete socialism is possible under your belief system. |
