{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/28/2016 12:54:42 AM
1
There would be but for the "rich" they would still spend money like they always do.
My problem with income taxes are the Barron's like buffet and Soros "pay" themselves next to nothing while the actual holdings that they have, in the billions, are tax exempt.
English
-
Totally get what you are saying. But then you wind up with only rich people being a part of the demand economy which would hurt....everything. What you're talking about is a problem with the tax code itself. Where a multi billionaire can write off everything so their actual tax rate is much less than the average.
-
You've swayed me on the "spending" tax. I get what you are saying. While it made sense to my brain I guess it would discourage anyone making less than $100K from "really" spending money. Forget about those under $20K. They wouldn't spend a dime. Okay I get it. Thank you. You actually changed my mind on that. Regarding the tax code. That right there is the issue. A flat tax would solve the "bulk" but the heavy lifting is all of the corporate and other tax codes that allow for massive deductions from multinational corporations and millionaire/billionaires. How to solve it though, no idea. Because I firmly am against the death tax. So all these kids who receive millions from daddy I don't think should be penalized because daddy theoretically already paid taxes on all of his earned money.
-
Cool man, I wasn't even trying to sway you. Sometimes it seems there's a simple answer but generally it's a bit more complicated. ;)
