“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.” - Adam Smith
Apparently Adam Smith, inventor of Capitalism, thinks that the rich should pay more taxes, and advocated for a progressive tax system.
If the next president wants to give people free education like promised, then there needs to be more tax dollars. Those tax dollars need to come from somewhere. There is no more money to take from people except in the top 1% where they have millions to throw around. Why not put that money to good use?
Although wealthy Americans would not have been successful without the economic opportunities that America offers, impoverished people have access to those same economic opportunities, that's why nearly 90% of America's millionaires are first generation, often ascending from poverty.
So essentially, people get financially punished for succeeding in this country, while those who don't choose to take advantage of economic opportunities (for whatever reason) are are rewarded with endless strings of tax credits and welfare programs.
Now there are exceptions to every rule... There are unfortunately children who have to pay for the dumb financial decisions of their ancestors and will have to fight for success, and children who will never have to lift a finger because of the wise financial decisions of their ancestors, but these are exceptions...Certainly not the rule.
A flat tax is not a perfect solution, but it is better than what we do now. Just have everyone pay a flat rate, with no tax exemptions, or credits, or deductions. Those who argue that it's not fair often don't acknowledge how it's becoming increasingly more common for so many people to enjoy the benefits of taxes (public roads, libraries, emergency medical and response services, military protection, etc.) when they pay zero taxes, and in most cases, are often receiving tax money instead of paying it.
A flat tax insures that everyone pays according to their means, but the important part of that phrase is "everyone pays."
Dkdk kdkd k dkdkdkd kdk dkkdkdkdkdkk k k k k k k k k k k h h h h h h hg f g g hh j k l h y k h ui n g ju m g u j j m l, . . . . . . .
Not everyone wants the government in their lives, but if you don't then maybe you should move up into the hills or to Alaska where there is less police and public infrastructure. Or maybe just carry a gun and make your own drugs etc. But those who rely on the system less should get tax deductions or just be in a different tax bracket no matter how much they make.
If you tax people unevenly at different income levels, you are treating them unfairly. You might as well have different laws for different income levels as well. The idea that a person owes the government more purely because he has more is false. It is just price gouging (the rich are able to pay, so they should). A person that makes more money doesn't use the government's services more than those who make less, so why should they pay more? It is effectively a fee on success.