Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Sir Link
I'm guessing you saw the word socialism and decided not to read the rest of the post.
Unless wealth is already worthless, there is always an incentive to make more money. If someone making 500,000 were taxed 20 percent, they'd have 400,000 after taxes. If someone making 1 million were taxed 25 percent, they'd have 750,000 after taxes. What was once twice has much is now 1.875 as much, which is still a considerable amount of money.
The issues you'll typically see with a progressive tax is people trying to skew the amount of money they make based on tax proportions IE, if the 20 percent scaled from 500,000 to 999,999 you'd be better off taking 999,999 instead of 1 million. This is combated by vastly reducing the tax brackets.
|
No, I read the rest of the post. Call it what you will, it still resonates with the socialistic concept. Granted, you're not all put down to the exact same level like you would be in an ideal socialistic environment, but it's edging closer.
Yes, you still have more money in the end, but you're also
losing much more money. There's no reason why just because you took the time to make more money, you should be losing more money. There's other solutions rather than just forcibly removing money from people's accounts via taxation. I agree with darthSaKi's concept of having there be a more approachable way to get your foot in the door with economy. And furthermore, a tax system makes no sense in a virtual world where there's no government to make use of it.