Also, calling it "wealth envy" is way out of line. It's not envy - it's the expectation that those who get the most out of the system also put the most back into it. If government budgets stay the same, taxes are a zero-sum game (well, at a very superficial level, anyway): if the rich pay less, that means the poor have to pay more if we want to keep government spending the same.
Basically, I think you'd be looking at a figure much higher than 30% (with things like food being either untaxed or taxed at a lower rate), and a higher value on the debit card. That would work within the parameters of what you have presented and be less regressive.
I was going to comment on the "wealth envy" comment and I'm glad you did here. It's complete bullshit. I totally want to be rich one day, and I don't begrudge those who are. I start to get irritated when they try to avoid paying taxes because, somehow, all of their wealth was somehow a product of their own miraculous intelligence without any outside support by society and the workforce.
Except the rich are paying higher percentages of their income for no good reason, other than "meh, they got more anyway."
Also, calling it "wealth envy" is way out of line. It's not envy - it's the expectation that those who get the most out of the system also put the most back into it. If government budgets stay the same, taxes are a zero-sum game (well, at a very superficial level, anyway): if the rich pay less, that means the poor have to pay more if we want to keep government spending the same.
Basically, I think you'd be looking at a figure much higher than 30% (with things like food being either untaxed or taxed at a lower rate), and a higher value on the debit card. That would work within the parameters of what you have presented and be less regressive.
I was going to comment on the "wealth envy" comment and I'm glad you did here. It's complete bullshit. I totally want to be rich one day, and I don't begrudge those who are. I start to get irritated when they try to avoid paying taxes because, somehow, all of their wealth was somehow a product of their own miraculous intelligence without any outside support by society and the workforce.
Except the rich are paying higher percentages of their income for no good reason, other than "meh, they got more anyway."
Except poorer people spend far higher amounts of their incomes on things they need to survive, like food. To say nothing of the fact that the CEO of UPS benefits far more monetarily from good roads than any of the individual employees.
Also, calling it "wealth envy" is way out of line. It's not envy - it's the expectation that those who get the most out of the system also put the most back into it.
People earn money by producing goods / services that are valuable to others. The mere having of legitimately obtained wealth means you have already "put a lot into the system."
The only real exception is illegally / immorally obtained cash.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Though I'd still say that the top tax rate should get capped at 50%, personally. Also, we should have more brackets since $250k may be a lot more than $100k it's nothing compared to $1m, let alone $1b.
Yis. Though I'd have zero problem with a 100% tax rate above $1billion in income. If you are making that much money, you are exploiting the system. In the same sense as this math-major dude I used to play Exalted with designed his RPG character explicitly to exploit the play system's holes, and deservedly got his actions "capped" by the DM.
Wait, I'm confused ... controlled by who? The government or the spenders?
The spenders. Bad Christmases like the last two are going to be a lot worse if the government suffers anytime people are afraid to buy Tickle Me Elmos, or simply buy them from an online vendor in Canada.
*snip*
Well that's sort of what I was getting at with my parenthetical statement. I suppose I should have been clearer. You're still going to need a massive bureaucracy to make a consumption tax actually work, so transitioning from the IRS to this new bureaucracy is itself going to be an issue.
You're right here. I've got an idea for this new agency, they could handle government income generated inside the United States. So they'd handle, you know, revenue. Internally. They'd be like a service. For handling revenue. Internally.
Also, calling it "wealth envy" is way out of line. It's not envy - it's the expectation that those who get the most out of the system also put the most back into it. If government budgets stay the same, taxes are a zero-sum game (well, at a very superficial level, anyway): if the rich pay less, that means the poor have to pay more if we want to keep government spending the same.
Basically, I think you'd be looking at a figure much higher than 30% (with things like food being either untaxed or taxed at a lower rate), and a higher value on the debit card. That would work within the parameters of what you have presented and be less regressive.
I was going to comment on the "wealth envy" comment and I'm glad you did here. It's complete bullshit. I totally want to be rich one day, and I don't begrudge those who are. I start to get irritated when they try to avoid paying taxes because, somehow, all of their wealth was somehow a product of their own miraculous intelligence without any outside support by society and the workforce.
Except the rich are paying higher percentages of their income for no good reason, other than "meh, they got more anyway."
"They can better afford it" (what you are trying to say) is much different than "they got more anyway."
Besides that, your point is still retarded. Like I said, there is an expectation that those who get the most money out of the system also put the most back in (by percentage), and it's not unreasonable. Why the hell do you think the government has been pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into financial institutions for the last year? It's not to help the impoverished.
People earn money by producing goods / services that are valuable to others. The mere having of legitimately obtained wealth means you have already "put a lot into the system."
Well, if you put on blinders to taxes and government actions, and only consider how a free market capitalism junkie would look at it, yeah.
The mere having of legitimately obtained wealth means you have already "put a lot into the system."
The fuck it does. People provide poor services all the time, essentially wasting another party's money.
Yes, because people who provide low-quality goods and services get tons of repeat customers and make so much money by sucking at what they do.
Oh wait no, that never happens.
It's relevant, Doc, because you're pretending that the wealthy somehow owe society for their wealth, whereas in certain cases the having of wealth is a strong indicator that they have provided a lot of benefit for a lot of people.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
People earn money by producing goods / services that are valuable to others.
And the production and distribution of goods—as well as the protection against theft after getting money from such activity—requires a large amount of public and legal infrastructure. Which costs money. Which someone has to pay for.
The mere having of legitimately obtained wealth means you have already "put a lot into the system."
The fuck it does. People provide poor services all the time, essentially wasting another party's money.
No way dude, Paris Hilton works hard for her money.
so hard for her money
she works haaard for her money
so you better treat her riiiiight
Actually, she kind of has. She keeps getting loads of cash to be in TV commercials, shitty movies, and produce shitty albums. I wouldn't be surprised if she wasn't really living on daddy's checkbook anymore.
Taxes provide for stability through government. Those who have more benefit more from a stable government. If the dollar becomes meaningless tomorrow, the billionaires on Wall Street lose billions. Hobo Bob loses the 32 cents he had wedged into his sneaker.
*edit* Doc, don't poop in my cereal, a world where Paris Hilton is a worthwhile addition to the economy is a world I cannot bear.
Yes, because people who provide low-quality goods are services get tons of repeat customers and make so much money by sucking at what they do.
Oh wait no, that never happens.
Actually it happens all the time when there is a lack of stiff or fair competition due to various factors outside of actual services and products provided.
Yes, because people who provide low-quality goods are services get tons of repeat customers and make so much money by sucking at what they do.
Oh wait no, that never happens.
Actually it happens all the time when there is a lack of stiff or fair competition due to various factors outside of actual services and products provided.
It's relevant, Doc, because you're pretending that the wealthy somehow owe society for their wealth, whereas in certain cases the having of wealth is a strong indicator that they have provided a lot of benefit for a lot of people.
Do poor people owe society for being poor?
Edit:
really, how much they have caused others to benefit is irrelevant. It's about the worth of a stable government/economy. Jim Welfare probably doesn't give a shit if AIG goes under, for example.
Yes, because people who provide low-quality goods are services get tons of repeat customers and make so much money by sucking at what they do.
Oh wait no, that never happens.
Actually it happens all the time when there is a lack of stiff or fair competition due to various factors outside of actual services and products provided.
*cough*
no-bid-contracts-in-iraq
*cough*
I'm sorry, are you seriously bringing up government inefficiency and corruption in an attempt to show that I ought to happily pay high taxes? Really?
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Yes, because people who provide low-quality goods are services get tons of repeat customers and make so much money by sucking at what they do.
Oh wait no, that never happens.
Actually it happens all the time when there is a lack of stiff or fair competition due to various factors outside of actual services and products provided.
*cough*
no-bid-contracts-in-iraq
*cough*
I'm sorry, are you seriously bringing up government inefficiency and corruption in an attempt to show that I ought to happily pay high taxes? Really?
You said that there weren't examples of companies failing and still making money hand over fist and I provided one.
Are you suggesting that's not the case?
Edit: and I never said you had to be happy about it. I just think you're probably an idiot if you don't realize why people with higher incomes are taxed at higher rates than people with lower incomes:
- They can better afford it
- They benefit much more from a stable government/well-run economy
Any wealthy company or individual who doesn't meet kedinik's so-far undefined "you are a worthwhile addition to our economy" test is going to be corrupt. AIG? Corrupt. GM? Corrupt. Halliburton? Corrupt. Generic Rich Asshole #37 born a multi-millionaire never worked an actual job in their life? Corrupt.
Once you've whittled away any possible real-world example of his philosophy failing, you are left with a handful of examples that prove it succeeded. These will be the examples that count, the rest will be disregarded for some reason or another.
It's like a new take on an old fallacy, No-True-Randian.
Maybe I misunderstand the word "progressive" in this context, but why should I pay more taxes just because I can afford to?
The marginal value is less of an impact ...and because you can afford to.
Alternately:
The money has to come from somewhere. If it comes from group A, the members of group A will be taxed into ruin, at which point they will no longer be able to pay taxes anyway. If it comes from group B, they will just whine a lot. Guess which one is preferable?
I really don't get why "because they can afford to" isn't a good enough answer. It's like:
Person A: "I need to build a house. Which tree should I use for wood, the tiny one or this big-ass redwood over here?"
Person B: "Well, the tiny one contains enough wood for, like, a shelving unit. A small shelving unit. So use the redwood."
Person A: "That's a stupid reason, though. Why should I use the big one just because it's the only one that has enough wood?"
Person B: "I'm going to shoot you in the face now."
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The mere having of legitimately obtained wealth means you have already "put a lot into the system."
The fuck it does. People provide poor services all the time, essentially wasting another party's money.
Yes, because people who provide low-quality goods and services get tons of repeat customers and make so much money by sucking at what they do.
Oh wait no, that never happens.
And do please, explain to me how my example on the last page doesn't constitute someone whose wealth is largely dependent upon government subsidized infrastructure, which is paid primarily through taxing the people that profit most from it via progressive tax brackets?
The interstate highway system benefits me in that it helps me get to class and work as well as improving freight handling to keep costs down at local stores. That's it. That's the only way in which I benefit from it. The interstate highway system benefits the management at UPS for every truck in their fleet that they have on the road that particular day. They get 50,000x the benefits which I enjoy due to exploiting the national infrastructure. Why shouldn't they be asked to pay more for it? Particularly since their trucks impart far more maintenance costs than my sedan ever could. Upwards of 10,000x per truck, actually.
Seriously, if someone can point me to an example of a large, modern society supported by a non-progressive taxation system, I will wrestle a fucking bear.
We use progressive taxes because those are the ones that don't make our society asplode.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
There are definitely cases of corrupt / immoral / criminal people who find ways to more-or-less steal money and provide poor service in return.
The most common and easy example of this is any company that receives a low-or-no-competition contract from the government, which provides a strong argument against higher taxes and spending in and of itself. Of course there are exceptions, but generally companies excel when they are exceptionally beneficial to society.
I'm talking about private-sector companies that do not suckle at the government teet and that earn their money solely by providing lots of valuable services and products to a lot of people. This describes the vast majority of successful companies, and to say that the owners and managers of such a company somehow "owe it to society" is a thinly-veiled excuse to rob people who have already contributed a great deal to making your life better.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Ked, you know that a lot of companies use things like price wars and cheating their employees and using overwhelming power to force supplier compliance and tricking the customer with shittier versions of products in the superior product's packaging, and so on and so forth, right?
Private companies are chock full of vile assholery.
I'm talking about private-sector companies that do not suckle at the government teet and that earn their money solely by providing lots of valuable services and products to a lot of people.
These would be hypothetical companies that do not use any kind of goverment supported or subsidised infrastructure, then.
You know, the ones that don't use public roads for transport. And educate their own employees from scratch. And don't use any kind of telecommunications infrastructure for which they did not lay the cable.
There are definitely cases of corrupt / immoral / criminal people who find ways to more-or-less steal money and provide poor service in return.
The most common and easy example of this is any company that receives a low-or-no-competition contract from the government, which provides a strong argument against higher taxes and spending in and of itself. Of course there are exceptions, but generally companies excel when they are exceptionally beneficial to society.
I'm talking about private-sector companies that do not suckle at the government teet and that earn their money solely by providing lots of valuable services and products to a lot of people. This describes the vast majority of successful companies, and to say that the owners and managers of such a company somehow "owe it to society" is a thinly-veiled excuse to rob people who have already contributed a great deal to making your life better.
UPS. They and similar companies benefit more from the government's taxation funded services, that are truly universal and in no way targeted towards solely benefiting UPS, than most anybody else. Why should they pay the same amount in order to support that network as a random schmuck like me? Particularly given that their profits come at increased maintenance cost to those very infrastructure networks.
I'm talking about private-sector companies that do not suckle at the government teet and that earn their money solely by providing lots of valuable services and products to a lot of people.
These would be hypothetical companies that do not use any kind of goverment supported or subsidised infrastructure, then.
You know, the ones that don't use public roads for transport. And educate their own employees from scratch. And don't use any kind of telecommunications infrastructure for which they did not lay the cable.
Hi strawman, nice to meet you.
I'm cool with low taxes that support vital public goods.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
I'm talking about private-sector companies that do not suckle at the government teet and that earn their money solely by providing lots of valuable services and products to a lot of people.
These would be hypothetical companies that do not use any kind of goverment supported or subsidised infrastructure, then.
You know, the ones that don't use public roads for transport. And educate their own employees from scratch. And don't use any kind of telecommunications infrastructure for which they did not lay the cable.
Hi strawman, nice to meet you.
I'm cool with low taxes that support vital public goods.
The issue is whether the people that benefit most from those goods should be taxed proportionately more than those that benefit solely on an individual basis, which you seem to be saying is somehow unfair.
Ked, you know that a lot of companies use things like price wars and cheating their employees and using overwhelming power to force supplier compliance and tricking the customer with shittier versions of products in the superior product's packaging, and so on and so forth, right?
Private companies are chock full of vile assholery.
I'm just saying that having more money does not mean you benefit more from such things.
Usually (but not always), it means you are better at using those things to benefit others with your work.
A man who founds and builds and effectively manages, say, a shipping company brings a lot more benefit to the economy at large than any of his truck drivers do.
Incenjuar, most of your examples are illegal or are just so generalized and unsupported that I can't think what exactly you mean: ex, "cheating their employees".
I guarantee that companies who regularly mistreat their employees will not retain talented workers and will not compete very well or make a lot of money, and this is all assuming they don't end up sued by workman's comp to begin with.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Some adjustments need to be made if Congress decides to vote on it:
1. Exceptions should be established (if not already) for essential items such as grocery foods, pharmaceuticals, healthcare services, and basic clothing (sweaters, jeans, t-shirts, etc.). Basically, anything that doesn't already get hit by a state sales tax.
2. The consumption tax rate should not rise over 20%.
If these adjustments were made (assuming they weren't already), the bill would stand a better chance of getting passed and more people would feel comfortable about it.
Someone who is upper management at UPS gets a hell of a lot of $$ from having a comprehensive multi-modal transportation infrastructure that is extremely subsidized by the Federal Government (80-90%) considering that nearly his entire paycheck is dependent on the ability of their trucks to use it effectively in order to deliver parcels. For instance.
Let's assume UPS owes nearly all of its success to government subsidies and support.
Let's also assume the manager is fairly competent.
I think it's silly to distinguish an executive from the workers as "benefiting more" from the success of the company. Yes, he earns more in terms of raw dollars, but he likely spent decades of his life actively acquiring the training and experience to be an effective manager, whereas most of the UPS workers are young, just starting their careers (relative to him), and can't possibly be expected to provide as much value for the company as he can.
He is paid more because without people like him, all the lower-level workers would be out of a job when the company failed. He helps the company much, much more than any individual, low-skill laborer who has not spent a lot of time learning a useful skill and does not help the company or the economy at large nearly as much.
So yes, he earns more money, but at the same time he is insuring the job security of every low-level worker at that company; it makes no sense to me to claim that he owes "society" when he provides a great deal of value to every worker at his company and all of the people served by the company.
For one, the cemeteries of the world are filled with indispensable men.
For two, he earns more in terms of raw dollars by exploiting the labour and publicly provided resources available to him. It makes no sense to me to claim that he doesn't owe 'society' any level of financial support for the various institutions and investments that enabled his very rise in the first place. Particularly when compared to someone who does not enjoy the same level of benefit from the exploitation over others/shared resources. Someone who benefits 1,000X due to [governmental service] should not be charged the same as someone who benefits 10x from [governmental service] thanks to that massive disparity. You shouldn't necessarily charge person A 100 times the amount of Person B, but there needs to be some level of progressive increase in cost.
I'm just saying that having more money does not mean you benefit more from such things.
Usually (but not always), it means you are better at using those things to benefit others with your work.
A man who founds and builds and effectively manages, say, a shipping company brings a lot more benefit to the economy at large than any of his truck drivers do.
Some services are essential to make living in the United States better than living in a different country. These services include the non-fucking-over of poor people. If poor people are fucked over, the country is not as valuable to live in.
If we did not have a progressive system, the rich people would eventually leave the country because it would fucking suck.
I'm just saying that having more money does not mean you benefit more from such things.
Usually (but not always), it means you are better at using those things to benefit others with your work.
A man who founds and builds and effectively manages, say, a shipping company brings a lot more benefit to the economy at large than any of his truck drivers do.
It would be impossible to build such a company without Government supported infrastructure. Or at least, it would be a financial burden at least on a par with the level of taxation levied building your own roads, providing your own security, enforcing your own contracts, etc.
Posts
Except the rich are paying higher percentages of their income for no good reason, other than "meh, they got more anyway."
People earn money by producing goods / services that are valuable to others. The mere having of legitimately obtained wealth means you have already "put a lot into the system."
The only real exception is illegally / immorally obtained cash.
The spenders. Bad Christmases like the last two are going to be a lot worse if the government suffers anytime people are afraid to buy Tickle Me Elmos, or simply buy them from an online vendor in Canada.
You're right here. I've got an idea for this new agency, they could handle government income generated inside the United States. So they'd handle, you know, revenue. Internally. They'd be like a service. For handling revenue. Internally.
Any ideas for names?
"They can better afford it" (what you are trying to say) is much different than "they got more anyway."
Besides that, your point is still retarded. Like I said, there is an expectation that those who get the most money out of the system also put the most back in (by percentage), and it's not unreasonable. Why the hell do you think the government has been pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into financial institutions for the last year? It's not to help the impoverished.
No way dude, Paris Hilton works hard for her money.
she works haaard for her money
so you better treat her riiiiight
Well, if you put on blinders to taxes and government actions, and only consider how a free market capitalism junkie would look at it, yeah.
But I don't see how it's relevant to this thread.
Yes, because people who provide low-quality goods and services get tons of repeat customers and make so much money by sucking at what they do.
Oh wait no, that never happens.
It's relevant, Doc, because you're pretending that the wealthy somehow owe society for their wealth, whereas in certain cases the having of wealth is a strong indicator that they have provided a lot of benefit for a lot of people.
Actually, she kind of has. She keeps getting loads of cash to be in TV commercials, shitty movies, and produce shitty albums. I wouldn't be surprised if she wasn't really living on daddy's checkbook anymore.
*edit* Doc, don't poop in my cereal, a world where Paris Hilton is a worthwhile addition to the economy is a world I cannot bear.
Actually it happens all the time when there is a lack of stiff or fair competition due to various factors outside of actual services and products provided.
*cough*
no-bid-contracts-in-iraq
*cough*
Don't worry, people like Paris Hilton knows exactly what they're doing.
Do poor people owe society for being poor?
Edit:
really, how much they have caused others to benefit is irrelevant. It's about the worth of a stable government/economy. Jim Welfare probably doesn't give a shit if AIG goes under, for example.
I'm sorry, are you seriously bringing up government inefficiency and corruption in an attempt to show that I ought to happily pay high taxes? Really?
You said that there weren't examples of companies failing and still making money hand over fist and I provided one.
Are you suggesting that's not the case?
Edit: and I never said you had to be happy about it. I just think you're probably an idiot if you don't realize why people with higher incomes are taxed at higher rates than people with lower incomes:
- They can better afford it
- They benefit much more from a stable government/well-run economy
Any wealthy company or individual who doesn't meet kedinik's so-far undefined "you are a worthwhile addition to our economy" test is going to be corrupt. AIG? Corrupt. GM? Corrupt. Halliburton? Corrupt. Generic Rich Asshole #37 born a multi-millionaire never worked an actual job in their life? Corrupt.
Once you've whittled away any possible real-world example of his philosophy failing, you are left with a handful of examples that prove it succeeded. These will be the examples that count, the rest will be disregarded for some reason or another.
It's like a new take on an old fallacy, No-True-Randian.
The more money you have, the less each extra dollar matters to you.
If you have no money for food, you value 1000 a lot.
If you're flying around in a private jet, you spend 1000 on a gag gift cuz 1000 doesn't mean shit to you.
Or hey, we could look at our last president's repeated publicly recorded failure at running multiple businesses.
Alternately:
The money has to come from somewhere. If it comes from group A, the members of group A will be taxed into ruin, at which point they will no longer be able to pay taxes anyway. If it comes from group B, they will just whine a lot. Guess which one is preferable?
I really don't get why "because they can afford to" isn't a good enough answer. It's like:
Person A: "I need to build a house. Which tree should I use for wood, the tiny one or this big-ass redwood over here?"
Person B: "Well, the tiny one contains enough wood for, like, a shelving unit. A small shelving unit. So use the redwood."
Person A: "That's a stupid reason, though. Why should I use the big one just because it's the only one that has enough wood?"
Person B: "I'm going to shoot you in the face now."
And do please, explain to me how my example on the last page doesn't constitute someone whose wealth is largely dependent upon government subsidized infrastructure, which is paid primarily through taxing the people that profit most from it via progressive tax brackets?
The interstate highway system benefits me in that it helps me get to class and work as well as improving freight handling to keep costs down at local stores. That's it. That's the only way in which I benefit from it. The interstate highway system benefits the management at UPS for every truck in their fleet that they have on the road that particular day. They get 50,000x the benefits which I enjoy due to exploiting the national infrastructure. Why shouldn't they be asked to pay more for it? Particularly since their trucks impart far more maintenance costs than my sedan ever could. Upwards of 10,000x per truck, actually.
We use progressive taxes because those are the ones that don't make our society asplode.
The most common and easy example of this is any company that receives a low-or-no-competition contract from the government, which provides a strong argument against higher taxes and spending in and of itself. Of course there are exceptions, but generally companies excel when they are exceptionally beneficial to society.
I'm talking about private-sector companies that do not suckle at the government teet and that earn their money solely by providing lots of valuable services and products to a lot of people. This describes the vast majority of successful companies, and to say that the owners and managers of such a company somehow "owe it to society" is a thinly-veiled excuse to rob people who have already contributed a great deal to making your life better.
Private companies are chock full of vile assholery.
These would be hypothetical companies that do not use any kind of goverment supported or subsidised infrastructure, then.
You know, the ones that don't use public roads for transport. And educate their own employees from scratch. And don't use any kind of telecommunications infrastructure for which they did not lay the cable.
UPS. They and similar companies benefit more from the government's taxation funded services, that are truly universal and in no way targeted towards solely benefiting UPS, than most anybody else. Why should they pay the same amount in order to support that network as a random schmuck like me? Particularly given that their profits come at increased maintenance cost to those very infrastructure networks.
Hi strawman, nice to meet you.
I'm cool with low taxes that support vital public goods.
Does not compute.
The issue is whether the people that benefit most from those goods should be taxed proportionately more than those that benefit solely on an individual basis, which you seem to be saying is somehow unfair.
Yes, but those ones don't count.
Usually (but not always), it means you are better at using those things to benefit others with your work.
A man who founds and builds and effectively manages, say, a shipping company brings a lot more benefit to the economy at large than any of his truck drivers do.
Incenjuar, most of your examples are illegal or are just so generalized and unsupported that I can't think what exactly you mean: ex, "cheating their employees".
I guarantee that companies who regularly mistreat their employees will not retain talented workers and will not compete very well or make a lot of money, and this is all assuming they don't end up sued by workman's comp to begin with.
1. Exceptions should be established (if not already) for essential items such as grocery foods, pharmaceuticals, healthcare services, and basic clothing (sweaters, jeans, t-shirts, etc.). Basically, anything that doesn't already get hit by a state sales tax.
2. The consumption tax rate should not rise over 20%.
If these adjustments were made (assuming they weren't already), the bill would stand a better chance of getting passed and more people would feel comfortable about it.
For one, the cemeteries of the world are filled with indispensable men.
For two, he earns more in terms of raw dollars by exploiting the labour and publicly provided resources available to him. It makes no sense to me to claim that he doesn't owe 'society' any level of financial support for the various institutions and investments that enabled his very rise in the first place. Particularly when compared to someone who does not enjoy the same level of benefit from the exploitation over others/shared resources. Someone who benefits 1,000X due to [governmental service] should not be charged the same as someone who benefits 10x from [governmental service] thanks to that massive disparity. You shouldn't necessarily charge person A 100 times the amount of Person B, but there needs to be some level of progressive increase in cost.
Some services are essential to make living in the United States better than living in a different country. These services include the non-fucking-over of poor people. If poor people are fucked over, the country is not as valuable to live in.
If we did not have a progressive system, the rich people would eventually leave the country because it would fucking suck.
It would be impossible to build such a company without Government supported infrastructure. Or at least, it would be a financial burden at least on a par with the level of taxation levied building your own roads, providing your own security, enforcing your own contracts, etc.