On Income Tax: (This will not be a popular post...) Now, bear in mind, I am not employed full-time presently. Don't mislabel me because you think you know my income - my opinion here would be the same regardless of how much I make, or made.
Why do we have "tax brackets" at all? Why is it that so many people (particularly in the working class) consider it "fair" to tax those with higher incomes more viciously? In what universe is that "fair"? Google the definition of "fairness." The people making more money, earned that more money. It's not easy to get there, or everyone would be there. Why penalize citizens for success?
You know what's fair? Have the same tax rate for *everyone*. It's simple mathematics, X% of a lower number is less money than X% of a bigger number. Those with lower incomes will still pay less $$$ than those with higher incomes. It's silly to think the only way we can balance our government's finances is through progressive taxing.
It's simply counter-intuitive to penalize success. It takes all the motivation out of achieving greatness.
Now I'm not saying we jack up everyone's taxes. I'm just saying, we shouldn't jack up any one group's taxes just because "they'll live." In fact, increasing taxes in-general is a haphazard, band-aid solution to the problem. What's the point in raking in more money when government spending is in complete disarray and full of corruption?
It bothers me to see lower and middle class citizens preaching fairness, and then getting drafted into supporting higher taxation of the upper-middle and upper class out of fear that their own taxes might get raised instead. It's a form of selfishness that goes unrecognized and unchallenged. The thought that "Hey take more of that guy's money so I can keep more for myself..." Doesn't seem very fair to me.
Anybody who speaks out against that philosophy, though, gets attacked as being soulless or greedy. How could you possibly disagree with "Take from the rich, and give to the poor"? - Hell, it's a childhood tale for crying out loud. But it's so fundamentally wrong. At it's core, that philosophy challenges the natural order of the animal kingdom. Survival of the fittest.
And at the highest level, this policy has failed us. The (albeit, veiled) notion that it's the United States' responsibility to give aid to the world; everywhere it is needed. This policy has done nothing but aid in our financial downfall. It doesn't work as a foreign policy, so how can it work as a domestic one? Why should the more affluent be expected to support the less affluent?
Those who know me and my politics know I'm Democratic. Mostly liberal. So this PSA spits in the face of my own party. But I do not support blind partisanship, something more Americans need to understand and follow. Not everything the Democratic party does is right. Just like not everything the GOP does is right.
That said, just because one may disagree with a couple policies of a party, or candidate, does not mean that candidate's entire platform is invalidated. For me, I tend to vote for whomever has the most drops in the positive bucket. Or, in recent politics, I vote for the "least lose" candidate.
Remember, rational thought is how to get our nation back on track. Not stubborn, righteous partisanship. And if you agree with nothing else in this post, I hope you can at least acknowledge (and help proliferate) that part of it.
