Forum Post: The point of diminishing returns
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 30, 2012, 11 p.m. EST by alterorabolish1
(569)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
We should think about taxation in terms of Equality, that's with a capital E. No exemptions!
We would do harm to ourselves is we taxed ourselves too much. How do we agree on whether we tax too much or not.? There needs to be a debate on equal taxation and how to achieve it.
Dr. Jonas Salk was ridiculed for not patenting the polio vaccine, and never became a wealthy man because of it. We can't count on everyone being like that nor should we demand it, but I hope Dr. Salk had a happy life.
We can find consensus on whether it's a good idea to fund research on cancer, as well as agree that we will feed the hungry and care for the sick. We agree that it makes sense to have a fire department, police, teachers. Everyone will need to chip in to pay for these things, and if "All men are created equal" is the goal, everyone will pay an equal share.
There is a point where to much taxation hinders the human cause. That also means that Equality is achieved when we tax efficiently at the optimal rate. The taxation should strive for maximum revenues without stifling the American dream of financial success.
Here is one definition of the word "Conspire" ::: "to act or work together toward the same result or goal."
This one being the most simple definition, and also the one that does not imply the nature of the goal. Most definitions do include the notion that the goal is "criminal" in nature. But since the word "criminal" can be subjective and not "all emcompassing" to the meaning, it is then acceptable to use the word "conspire" or "conspiracy" when describing any situation involving at least two people who act in concert toward a common objective.
In terms of the subjective nature of the word "criminal", for example, some might believe that it is a "criminal act" to suppress "Free Speech".
"Oh, and Read the Rules, damnit!" (an inside joke)
Well, lets look at it from two perspectives.
If a working person made an income and was taxed 100% would he not look for other ways to provide for himsel knowing full well that all of what he made in income went to the tax man.
On the other hand, if a working person made an income and wasn't taxed at all, would he not look for more ways to increase his income because all of what he made he kept.
So, I ask you where is the balance - 10% 20% 40% 50%.
Now understand that my reference to working person means "everyone" not just the few.
Also this does not take into account that all businesses (not working persons who run the business) will pay 35% across the board on all earnings regardless of where they come from.
So, where would you draw the line in taxes for the individual working person when it comes to taxes?
You're right that it can't be 0% nor 100%. It has to in between and it has been studied. All individuals should be rewarded and taxed for their results in an equal a way as possible.