Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
The standard rate youâ€™d have to set to achieve the 1.3 trillion revenue required for 2009/10 would be somewhere in the region of a 30%, not 20%. If you wanted to pay down some of the deficit and massive national debt youâ€™d probably need at least double, perhaps even treble that amount.
For the same reason your idea of reducing the tax on the rich is a really really bad idea because any reduction in income tax has to be balanced by an increase for someone else and the percentage amounts of reductions and increases are asymmetrical.
Why? That is where we get to the real problem, and one that will not be changed, I'm afraid. There IS an alternative....the government could spend less. Yes, it would take 30% to handle the massive natinal debt. So why is the national debt so massive? And why are the citizens responsible for it? That's the real issue. How much of the revenue the government receives actually goes to the operation of the country and how much of it is pure waste or misspending? The government has a blank check and, when the check is about to bounce, they simply raise the taxes and bring in a fresh supply. And people discuss who should be taxed more instead of why can't the government work within it's means.
We don't allow that from anyone else. If Johnny says, "Dad, I need more allowance this week because I spent too much on candy", does he get it? If the landlord says, "I had a bad day at the track so your rent goes up 20% this month", do you accept it? Yet the government spends like the proverbial drunken sailor, demands more money in taxes to cover it and all we say is "Which of us should pay it?"
The fact that there is massive waste in government spending is beyond question yet no one protests it in a meaningful way. It is not unsimilar to health care. There is massive waste there, also. Does the government go after it? No, they simply say they want to take it over. If the current health care bill dies a natural death, will the government still go after the waste in the system? I find it unlikely. This is not a political party admonishment. Both Democrats and Republicans share in the incredible wasted government spending.
So we sit and debate on how the citizens should be taxed more and who should pay the most, instead of protesting government waste. Instead, we simply mutter, "Can't fight city hall" and allow them to do what they want while we discuss tax percentages.
Back to my original question, should everyone be treated equally....or should we tax Bill Gates as high as we want, since no matter how much it is, he will still be able to hold on to his golf club membership?