Politics
Out of context: Reply #19929
- Started
- Last post
- 33,467 Responses
- deathboy1
Jeez a whole page about the entertaining stuff and and nothing about policy. I think one of the biggest interests to me is if a flat rate consumption tax is feasible. By itself I don't see it since its regressive against the poor, but with a negative income tax it seems more plausible. But if you take the power of tax incentives away from the douchebag politicians to offer favors to big business and put all incentives into a person running on the platform of increasing the minimum negative income tax for the majority poor you could create a system bound to be over run by a dictator. the few rich is a good balance to the many poor. If people are actually considering shrinking cronyism it may be a solution but I im still on the fence. Many states including mine operate on 0 income tax but how does that truely work for a gov. It seems the most fair or "equal", seems to cut down on cost of IRS,and power of politcians, but be nice to see more small scale applications
- So no income tax at all but everything becomes more expensive?yuekit
- Has either candidate mentioned anything related to this?monospaced
- This is Gary Johnson's tax plan.yuekit
- I do like the simplicity. There's no doubt it would benefit the rich, debatable whether the poor would be better off.yuekit
- How would it benefit the rich though? they would be taxed more for spending more. It would hurt the poor because a larger portion of their income will have todeathboy
- be taxed for everyday stuff. but if the negative income tax would offset the cost for those, but without it i dont think it woudl work. it woudl also encouragedeathboy
- savings. savings encouraged takes burden off gov to force us to save while running shitty low interest policies that encourage spending or malinvestmentdeathboy
- i dont know about it yet. fun thing to think about while running/riding for medeathboy