jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (17 posts)

What is the optimum amount

  1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
    weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago

    That the government should spend... what percentage of the economy should be government spending?

    What percentage of taxation is perfect and ideal?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You claim to hold those truths, you tell us, oh mighty sage!  You do know everything, I assume?  roll

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
        weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I have my opinion.   I asked yours.   Are you afraid to give it?

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No, not afraid.  Just don't want to waste my time!

          1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
            weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            YOu seem perfectly willing to "waste your time" posting stuff here and trying take potshots at me, personally.   Your answer seem wholly hypocritical, in that light.

    2. Paraglider profile image88
      Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The question is too simple. The only possible answer is 'it depends on circumstances'.

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
        weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Why would that be?  What would change the optimimum percentage government should take and spend?

        1. Paraglider profile image88
          Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Such factors as population density, current infrastructure integrity, external conflicts, and so on.
          Your question seemed to be looking for an answer as simple as 11% or 12%. Such answers are only found in arithmetic books.

          1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
            weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So, what you're saying, is that you need the freedom to demagogue the issue, so that you can always say it's "more".   

            Thanks for clearing that up.

            1. Paraglider profile image88
              Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No, that is not remotely what I'm saying. I'm merely reserving the right to measure before jumping. There's no need to jump twelve feet to clear a small stream. What's difficult there?

              1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You seem to have no idea what you're measuring.

                1. Paraglider profile image88
                  Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Hardly surprising since you didn't even say what country you're talking about. Here, we seem to get by fine with zero income tax and a 5% tax on overseas contracts. But I think that would hardly work in Britain and America. As I said, there's no one size fits all.

  2. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Well, Bill Maher is no economist, but he suggested we go back to the Clinton-era.What was it, 36% top rate? Or was it 39?
    But, of course, you would have to cut military in half....as that's how much it has grown since then!

    Why don't we leave it at 35, but actually COLLECT IT. Get rid of loop-holes, outsourcing, all those little tricks people use not to pay.

    We could do away with a lot of stupid expenditures...like I heard if you're married, you get 158 tax breaks???

    Seriously, does a multi-millionaire REALLY need the tax-payers to subsidize his mortgage?

    35% for Rich, 10% for poor.....and make them PAY IT! How's that sound?

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Why?   What about these rates is so profoundly good?

    2. kirstenblog profile image81
      kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sounds fair enough to me smile
      Nothing wrong with people contributing to their society, it keeps society from crumbling smile
      Being a productive member of society is just a part of being a grown up wink

  3. Moderndayslave profile image59
    Moderndayslaveposted 6 years ago

    Kinda looks like the "ability" to pay and contribute to our country. Do wealthy have problems feeding themselves or putting a roof over their head.I'm sure the "wealthy" person would be getting hammered worse somewhere else or not even have the opportunity to to make that kind of income at all.

  4. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    Paraglider gave the right answer.  "It depends."

    In conditions of high unemployment and falling wages (like we have now) employers are exploiting a labor market that gives them leverage. It's quite appropriate to tax their windfall profits (check how Wall Street is doing) to provide for the needs of those at the bottom.

    On the other hand, if business provides a robust economy with a surplus of middle class jobs, there will be fewer people in dire need, and less demand for taxes, not to mention a larger pool of people PAYING taxes.

    The free-market teabaggers are right in one regard. The government doesn't create jobs. The rate of taxation for the rich and profitable businesses should be proportional to the quality & opportunity they provide. If they are determined to keep all the marbles (see Ryan plan) we the people should tax the carp out of them.

 
working