Aripyanfar wrote:
I don't want tax cuts for the wealthy as far as rates go. But I wouldn't mind a CAP being put on the amount of tax paid by any individual in any one tax-year. A LARGE cap. But a cap none-the-less. A number at which we say: Thank you very much for contributing to your country, we don't need any more money from you this year.
Maybe $5 million. Or $10 million. Or $50 million. Treasury would be best at setting the amount, as they'd know what the country can afford, and what the super-rich are actually really paying as it is. I think the best feature of a tax cap would be that the super-rich might find it easier just to pay that capped amount, and not feel like they have to squirrel all they money away in tax avoidance schemes so that they don't lose all their hard earned money.
Put that swastika down, Ari.
Quote:
No, it doesn't vary from person to person. Its one pool of revenue, X number of revenue generators and Y amount of revenue consumers. Which generators the consumers are are consuming from makes no difference.
Wrong. If one consumes more than one gives, one is a net drain. The way you phrased the question is asking one to analyse a specific component of the social machine (one person's tax and how much they cost the state). Now, if we're talking about the amount one needs to be taxed to give more than the amount drained per person (an average) that would get you the answer you're looking for.
P.S. No, I don't know what it is. If you calculated it without taking the real value of work done within a company then I'd imagine the majority would pay less than the average cost in tax dollars of an American.