As taxes at the federal level have been reduced, so too has the things which the feds pay for shrunk; with every passing year more of the financial burden of paying for services has been shifted to the states -- and state taxes, unlike income taxes, tend to be regressive rather than progressive.
When you look at the overall tax picture in America, our system is only minimally progressive, and very close to a flat tax.
I think that this is wrong, and that it's absolutely ridiculous that a person who needs every penny just to survive should not be taxed at the same rate as what someone else pays on their second million in income (although many millionaires pay a lower tax percentage than the average person, truth be told). But that's me.
Oxford released a study a couple of months back which said that we are at risk of losing 47% of all jobs to automation over the next twenty years. Would you suggest that these people (who will also then no longer pay taxes) be denied health care -- to say nothing of basic food and shelter?
Unless we can come up with a better solution, then we will have no choice but to shift to some form of socialism, or a socialism/free market hybrid. Under such a scenario, a handful of people holding most of the assets will simply not continue. When enough people get desperate enough, things will change rapidly. The rich have one fundamental problem which they can't escape; there just aren't that many of them. Their relative wealth is an artifact of a system which we all buy into. As soon as the social contract collapses, so too does their advantage.
You're mind is stuck in a Nineteen Fifties mindset (both you and boomersooner, actually). Neither of you is smart enough to prosper or even survive in the world of today. That's the simple truth. You couldn't cut it.
Return to Odd
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Reply to message