This site uses cookies. If you continue to browse the site, we shall assume that you accept the use of cookies.
Big Brother and online Hunger games.

Question

Oct 27, 2020 by BB5lover
if you were told there is going to be a marginal income tax on each American in exchange for universe healthcare, free tertiary education and most importantly, making sure each American family has the means to afford housing, food and clothing...

would you be FOR or AGAINST the income tax?

For those of you that don't know Economics very well: A marginal tax rate is one that increases based on how much money you make. For Example:

For salaries $25,000-$50,000 say there is a 7% tax
$50,000-$75,000 (8% tax)
$75,000-$125,000 (10% tax)
with rates increasing upwards for each given salary hike.

Comments

For. I'm not an idiot.
Sent by Memphis_Grizzlies,Oct 27, 2020
I don't think that particular level of taxation would provide enough money for any of those things
Sent by SurvivorFan37,Oct 27, 2020
Unless I'm misunderstanding and you're saying that is a tax increase on top of what is already in place I guess
Sent by SurvivorFan37,Oct 27, 2020
survivorfan37 obviously not on salaries of people from $25,000-$125,000. The money is made once we start talking millions. That alone would pay for all 3 of those things. This question is merely to see how willing people are to give up money to help people that are not themselves.
Sent by BB5lover,Oct 27, 2020
i feel like my tax would be the same amount i would pay for my doctors appointments and co pays etc so yeah
Sent by RoboZoe,Oct 27, 2020
Look at Europe taxes give them all of that and more survivorfan37 . And they still end up paying less than what we have to
Sent by Memphis_Grizzlies,Oct 27, 2020
The issue with free college education. Is the influx of college educated degrees into our current American job system. Jobs requiring degrees are already competitive for what people consider a media salary for an American. Furthermore, the current supply of degrees would almost overwhelming exceed the demand for said qualified people. One can reasonably assume that more people a lot more people would enter college with it being free. Furthermore college degrees for most State colleges are already subsidized by the government in terms of tuition. The next issue is how would this affect college class quality, the ability to take in students. Let’s assume with free college education, there is a steady increase in the amount of people applying to college, would that make schools even more competitive? If so high school performance would be even more relevant, and we already know the public high school system has extreme discrepancies for people in a high risk socio-economic group. This could be problematic. Now we do as a country need to ensure that education is not blocked by money for those who need it. However, with the current economy how it is, I would need those questions to be answered before supporting a tax for those measures. Is the government going to tax citizens more for another failed program, IE the border wall.
Sent by koolness234,Oct 27, 2020
Furthermore if we are going to provide aid for education. It would almost definitely need to be for secondary post high school education. Many schools provide tertiary income or assistance in full for most enrolled in their programs, as your education and then relevant contributions are seen as a long term investment by the university. I would not be in favor of a tax for just tertiary education. As by that statement tertiary education is broad, and could see more abuse of political actors in both parties. I also think the need for help achieving a secondary degree is a much more pertinent crisis then achieving a tertiary degree
Sent by koolness234,Oct 27, 2020
Furthermore the comments afford housing, clothing, substinence. Are broad non descriptive and could in law lead to discrimination and segregation. What about varying housing prices between the suburbs, rural America, New York appartment. The marginal tax rate would also continue to rise as we adjust for inflation and rise in prices of these goods. Who determines what is acceptable living, education, rent, and substinence for those people. Would those criteria change depending on the ruling party, would North Carolinians be taxed for the more expense living conditions of New York or California, also if the marginal tax does indeed need to keep changing, one could argue constitutionally your proposed law is arbitrary and capricious and is out of the scope of the Federal Government to mandate
Sent by koolness234,Oct 27, 2020
So to answer your question, I am not willing to give up any money to the Government to help people unless, you have drastically more information on how this would work. The current government can not even be trusted to dole out aid in a national pandemic, and I doubt in their current operating qualities they would not be able to adequately dole out this money. Thus negatively affecting me and the ones at risk
Sent by koolness234,Oct 27, 2020
Also if the law was to make sure unequivocally every American had these things and was provided this via the law you proposed, and I identify an American that does not have these things, I could abject to the law as the government is not meeting the criteria it set out for these taxes.
Sent by koolness234,Oct 27, 2020

Leave a comment