Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Ron Paul Is Secretly Taking Over The GOP And It's Driving People Insane
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="inactive" data-source="post: 1788467" data-attributes="member: 7488"><p>If you truly believe in Adam Smith, invisible hand style economics, then you cannot fully say everyone can choose to train and educate themselves to work a job that pays more. That's part of the paradox of Libertarian economic policies. There will be a market for low income workers and the invisible hand moves people to fill those jobs. To say people would choose to suffer working them and choose to pay a larger percentage of their income as a consumption tax is naive.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>I won't argue that the middle and lower classes pay the lion's share of taxes (which would fall into the conservative talk radio straw man trap), but I will argue that the "middle class" pay a larger percentage of their income as taxes, as they earn straight wages instead of capital gains. They certainly would if we had a flat consumption tax as well. Remember we're not discussing just raw dollars here, we're talking rates. I wonder what that 71% of total taxes would be as a percentage of the top 10% of earner's income? I wonder if it is higher than a couple with two children earning 100k per year? I don't know for sure, but I bet the top earner taxes as percentage of income would be less than the family of 4.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="inactive, post: 1788467, member: 7488"] If you truly believe in Adam Smith, invisible hand style economics, then you cannot fully say everyone can choose to train and educate themselves to work a job that pays more. That's part of the paradox of Libertarian economic policies. There will be a market for low income workers and the invisible hand moves people to fill those jobs. To say people would choose to suffer working them and choose to pay a larger percentage of their income as a consumption tax is naive. I won't argue that the middle and lower classes pay the lion's share of taxes (which would fall into the conservative talk radio straw man trap), but I will argue that the "middle class" pay a larger percentage of their income as taxes, as they earn straight wages instead of capital gains. They certainly would if we had a flat consumption tax as well. Remember we're not discussing just raw dollars here, we're talking rates. I wonder what that 71% of total taxes would be as a percentage of the top 10% of earner's income? I wonder if it is higher than a couple with two children earning 100k per year? I don't know for sure, but I bet the top earner taxes as percentage of income would be less than the family of 4. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Ron Paul Is Secretly Taking Over The GOP And It's Driving People Insane
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom