|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
That the government should spend... what percentage of the economy should be government spending?
What percentage of taxation is perfect and ideal?
You claim to hold those truths, you tell us, oh mighty sage! You do know everything, I assume?
I have my opinion. I asked yours. Are you afraid to give it?
No, not afraid. Just don't want to waste my time!
The question is too simple. The only possible answer is 'it depends on circumstances'.
Why would that be? What would change the optimimum percentage government should take and spend?
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.
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.
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?
You seem to have no idea what you're measuring.
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.
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?
Why? What about these rates is so profoundly good?
Sounds fair enough to me
Nothing wrong with people contributing to their society, it keeps society from crumbling
Being a productive member of society is just a part of being a grown up
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.
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.
by Kathryn L Hill4 years ago
Fortunate: "favored by or involving good luck or fortune; lucky." There is a certain amount of luck involved in survival. In life, we seem to be dealt a deck of cards. Some are more fortunate than others. They...
by safiq ali patel5 years ago
From January 1st 2013 Taxes in the United States of America go upwards. People in the United States of America will pay higher taxes from this day. What is your opinion of these Tax Rises?
by Reality Bytes6 years ago
This question was asked during the last debate. No one answered it.What percentage of a workers income should the worker be allowed to keep? What is a fair share?50%, 60% what do you think?The question...
by Levi Legion2 years ago
Christians: What are one or two laws you would pass in the US if you had the power?Pretty simple question. If you had the authority to pass a law by yourself, what are one or two laws you would enact? Feel free to...
by Gerg6 years ago
Is a society dependent on altruism sustainable?To what extent should government intervene to ensure there is a balance between opportunity for individual success and providing systems of care and support for those who...
by Peeples6 years ago
Why does the government get to determine who is allowed to marry?Since all of the reasons why two gay people shouldn't marry are Religion related shouldn't the government not be allowed in that process?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.