Political Crossfire Forums

Some piles of wealth are so absurdly large, 90% could be removed, and they would remain absurdly large.

why would it be an infringement? jsut because thats what states do? if there is no income taxes for people under 100k, then people have more money, and so more money to spend on things. i would think retailers would be the ones most opposed to VAT, since they can't say something is 4.99 and then be all "oh yeah and there's 35 cents of tax on that" but rather have to say things are 5.34 to begin with. so yeah, a VAT would raise prices but there could also be a sales tax on top of that. so 5.35 (with VAT) plus the state's cut, which is now possibly not acting VAT-ty but sales taxy and so taxes all of it at 7%... raising even more for the state than before

or states could just get in on the VAT

i don't make over 100K and i have to spend a day figuring it all out. i use software that walks me through it but it should just be a page at most. my point here is that there is too many loopholes. it should be clean and simple. lower the tax, close the loopholes, end winchester's employment

Yes, but in order to afford some of the things being proposed by certain candidates (nationalized healthcare, public secondary education), everyone is going to have to pay more in taxes, not just the rich. In the UK, anyone that makes over £31,785 without a personal allowance is taxed at a minimum 40% (increase to 45% if the make £150,000 or more). In Denmark, rated the happiest nation in the world, those making over 55K pay 60.2% of their income in taxes.

Of course they should pay more. Or just spend their money on charity. They don't have too much to spend there money on anyway. At least they will help some less lucky people in that case.

The answer to the OP's question is....NO!

The problem is we continue to talk about an "income" tax. That is the rub. There ought not be a tax on income or a tax on private real property.