• AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    The graphic is about State taxes, not federal. It’s lacking in information though and hard to draw conclusions from. It’s probably intentionally created to cause anger.

    In response to your statements though, the idea is that you can comfortably part with a higher percentage of your money. I’m also in a high tax bracket and I’m not really opposed to a graduated tax rate. Someone’s gotta pay for our military, our roads, social services, police, etc. All of that stuff isn’t going to get funded by people with low income. Social programs can help people lift themselves out of poverty and give them a chance to make something of themselves. They also help protect our nation’s children.

    That said, I think the big corporations should shoulder a lot larger portion of that burden than they do. I’m also not keen on the competence and lack of efficiency/effectiveness of our government in a lot of areas.

    They say eat the rich, you say eat the lazy, I say don’t eat anyone. I’d love to see our country more unified.

    • GreenCheese882@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      By this logic why not just tax high income earners to the point that they make the same as low income earners? After all, they have more money they can part with as you state. Just offering to blindly pay more tax because uncle Sam needs more missiles is a really stupid argument. It leads to gross over spending and negligence. I worked for a government agency for many years and every year they would buy millions of dollars of stuff that never made if off the pallet just because they needed to spend their budget so they got it next year. Not with my money, no thanks.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        There’s two facets to consider. -Is government spending well managed, and if not, what to do to improve it? You may have some fair points there

        -To the extent government spending is reasonably required, how to handle paying for it? On this, you overextend their point about who can afford. Someone making $30k/year and trying to get by can’t really spare any money. Someone making $500k/year would still have crap tons of money even paying $200k/year in taxes. No one is proposing that making more should make it so you take home less than the low income person, or even close to the low income person, just that the proportion that can go to government comfortably increases.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        It leads to gross over spending and negligence

        I don’t disagree with you there. I made that very same point. And that’s the answer to your question, as well as part of your previous statement. We’re still mostly a capitalist society, so you get to reap the rewards of your income. But we have socialist programs too, so those who can bear more of the weight do so.