Yes, across the board.
Yes, for infrastructure.
Yes, for education. (K-12)
Yes, for job creation.
Yes, for social programs.
Yes, for medical care.
Yes, for the environment.
Yes, but... not for some particular programs (please elaborate).
No. None. Not for anything at all.
Undecided. Convince me either way.
Success is hardly punished in this country. Those at the top of the income ladder command a higher percentage of America's income than in any other developed country. Furthermore, your success is rewarded because even with the additional taxes you pay on additional income, you still come out ahead.Success shouldn't be punished so that the government can piss away more money. Taxes are simply another form of servitude.
It's very difficult to look at our tax code and conclude that the successful are punished. They earn more money (even after taxes), they can spend their money on whatever they want to spend it on, they can start businesses or charities with very few restrictions. And in fact if they feel like they are being "punished" there is nothing stopping them from simply producing less in the future. The fact that many people at the very top of our income ladders choose NOT to do this indicates to me that they don't feel punished, and it's not about the money for them. What drives a CEO or a movie star or a professional athlete to work long hours, year after year? Certainly not lack of money; I think they just enjoy what they are doing. If they felt like they were being "punished" then maybe they would stop. But in most cases they don't.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
No, they are intended, along with the discussion in the thread itself, to gauge somewhat overall opinion and foster discussion. Nothing more, nothing less. If one possible answer was omitted, people are free to add it in the discussion, which they have. It should be obvious at this point that debt payment is an important factor to many people. Nothing wrong with that. Hence, the poll and the thread have served their purpose.
Many here have mentioned tax paying status as a criteria, but a few have also mentioned property owning status. This begs the question...
Why is owning property still considered so important?
Yes, "back in the day", the fact that property owners were pretty much (but not exclusively) the sole financial supporters of government aside, it was also property owners who provided stability to society. I would argue that, while that is still the case to a degree, it is not near the same factor that it once was. Today, there are many varying factors that would compel a person or couple to not own property. Things like a constantly mobile lifestyle due to their career(s), them being better at saving for retirement through investing rather than home ownership, and many other possibilities.
Point being that a non-property owner could just as easily still be a productive member of society in today's world as a property owner.