At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
A couple hundred years ago, a group of people who were fed up with a 3% tax by their government decided enough was enough and The United States of America was born.
Fast forward to today.
If we fought over 3% then, why are we standing by now, with a tax rate of about 30%?
Add to that, I've worked hard my entire life, I've obeyed most laws, and I have paid MORE than my fair share of taxes.
Why then, does this government feel it has the right to take HALF OF EVERYTHING I HAVE, away from my family when I die?
How is it that this could happen? How is it that everyone just says, OK, I guess thats alright, go ahead and take HALF of my lives work, heck, the government needs it more that my family does, right?
What can we do, as average everyday working Americans, to correct this unjust, and I feel, illegal stealing by our own Government? Does anyone have any suggestions?
This has bothered me for a very long time, I don't know why, today of all days, it seems to be smacking me up the side my head so hard?
I agree we need to pay SOME taxes BUT the more taxes paid the worse our services seem to suffer. Then the waste is horrendous! Like in my county they decided they want to build a public transportation bus way under the river to the stadium (probably a quarter of a mile long). Most people walk it on a nice day take one of many buses over the bridge on a bad one. Did they decide according to if the tax payers wanted it? NOPE!
They started it saying it would cost 7 million. They have had a big hole in the street for a few months and now they claim it is going to cost an additional 7 million more than they originally figured on. Very few people use the one going in the opposite direction that goes over the river so why would they figure anybody wants this one is beyond me.
then look at it from an economical point of view, more money in the economy (because of reduced tax) means more demand, because people have more disposable income, which means a rise in prices, due to lack of supply and everything costs more and we end up with less in the long run per $ spent.
somehow I have a hard time grasping why people having more of their money is a bad thing. What you want is the government to be the big nanny controlling the economy and the people they are supposed to be servants to.
Sapph ;all that money so people can go and watch one of the most mediocre teams in baseball history ? lol This is a section of the river that you could throw a baseball across and yet they want to spend $435 million on the tunnel ? Do they put up goldplated signs that read "your tax dollars at work " ? This sounds alot like the big dig in Boston.
People having more money is the worst thing in the world for the economy, you'll thrust the country into a depression. Inflation would be through the roof, instead of at a steady 1-3%
People's life savings would be worthless, no-one would save. The housing market would crash, no-one could afford to move. Prices rise, the value of the $ drops.
Money in the economy is dangerous. Very Dangerous and the Govt do a bloody good job of controlling it.
then look at it from an economical point of view, more money in the economy (because of reduced tax) means more demand, because people have more disposable income, which means a rise in prices, due to lack of supply and everything costs more and we end up with less in the long run per $ spent.
Hello Here:
The first part is right. But I dunno why you don't think the manufactures wouldn't ramp up production right away to meet the new demand.
As a matter of fact, that's exactly what they'd do. That would mean more jobs, more wealth, more of all the good stuff for everybody.
The first part is right. But I dunno why you don't think the manufactures wouldn't ramp up production right away to meet the new demand.
As a matter of fact, that's exactly what they'd do. That would mean more jobs, more wealth, more of all the good stuff for everybody.
excon
An increase in output means an increase in Costs of Production. As the Marginal Revenue from each unit of production decreases the Marginal Costs increase and businesses wont operate in subnormal profit in the long run as AVR (average variable costs) aren't covered.
Its a very complex model of the economy, but i suggest you study it and you'll understand that money is dangerous and companies have there limits and people have there marginal utility, but unlimited wants.
Get over it, If you don't wanna pay your taxes. Go live in the bush where you don't use any public services. Oh and if you get killed, it doesn't matter cause you haven't pad for the police force to investigate it.
Use your brain, "a couple of hundred years ago" you didn't 1% of the public services now available. you do the math, tax today is cheap compared to back then. Thats why there was uproar.
Additionally i would suggest you take a course in economics, you'll learn about inflation etc. Then you'll know why the govt takes so much money, otherwise everything would spiral out of control.
Louis.
The issue is services and goods and products. Do you want the government to do this or the free market / private sector? Who do you think is more efficient?
Here is an example:
Medicare part d and the VA. These programs were to help their constituents with the cost of prescription medicine.
I personally know at the VA that for a month's supply for a generic medicine that you have to cut in half [ metoprolol for example ] if you don't meet service connection or income guidelines, you pay $8. You can get that same medicine for $4 per month at your local Walmart pharmacy. Also, because other pharmacies have to compete, they offer similar / competitive pricing. And it does not cost the taxpayor a dime. It only costs the consumer of that particular good / service.
How much does Medicare part D cost you and I, the taxpayor?
"The newly enacted Medicare prescription drug benefit could cost more than $700 billion over the next 10 years and will only add to the program’s financial woes."
And the sad thing is Medicare D still has the "donut hole."
What I find amazing is that people want the government to do things for them - like Universal Healthcare - yet they have glaring examples of government waste, inefficiency, incompetence.
- Katrina
- the management of Iraq
- public education
to name a few.
All this is at the cost of the taxpayor. Are you really getting your money's worth out of the government? Or are you going to fall for their promises over and over again, as they take more and more of your income away?
The issue was not the rate of taxation but the fact that the colonists had no representation. WE elect these clowns and as sovereigns of the nation the responsibility is on our shoulders.We can easily change things within the framework of our system.
An increase in output means an increase in Costs of Production. As the Marginal Revenue from each unit of production decreases the Marginal Costs increase and businesses wont operate in subnormal profit in the long run as AVR (average variable costs) aren't covered.
Its a very complex model of the economy, but i suggest you study it and you'll understand that money is dangerous and companies have there limits and people have there marginal utility, but unlimited wants.
Linear Mode
