That doesn't logical, it sounds like someone inflating a figure to an absurd level to make a gotcha point.
Reducto ad absurdum
Being fully aware that there's a limit to everything, there was no Reducto ad absurdum intended.
On that point, how much is enough?
From what has been reported, by the tie you add up all the taxes and fees, well to do Californians are paying nearly 50% of their income in taxes.
So how much is enough? Put a percentage number on it. How much of a person's income should be confiscated in taxes?
Of course, since that supports your continual blanket assumption that all liberals are wannabe Communists, it's not surprising that you'd resort to such partisan hack tactics.
Citing facts not in evidence.
The truth is, because we pay somewhat more in taxes, we get somewhat more in services, but "somewhat more" is the key word here.
Like any real world logical extension, one might want to be mindful that there is a sweet spot, both in taxation, and in personal wealth, where one "has enough".
Most people would dream of having unlimited wealth but in reality they'd be satisfied to just "have enough" to have a decent life.
Most people would dream of not having to pay any taxes but in reality they're satisfied if they "pay enough" and they know that what they pay is being used wisely.
Who decides what is 'enough' and what is 'more than enough'; those who's income is 'more than enough' being candidates for even greater, punitive, taxation, obviously.
"Enough" is the key word.
It's the key word because it is in between "too little" and "too much".
The assumption is NOT that paying more and more and more taxes makes for a better society.
That would be the assumption in an idiotic argument.
In a logical argument the assumption would be that "paying ENOUGH" in taxes makes for a better society.
Fair. But how much is 'enough' ? Put a number on it. How much of someone's income, earnings, should be confiscated in taxes?
We pay enough in taxes. The fact that some might think we pay too much is accepted as par for the course, but that doesn't mean that EVERYONE
believes we pay too much, it simply means that some would rather not pay any taxes at all.
Sure. There are some who want a free ride, not be charged any taxes at all, and some would rather collect at the communal pot rather than contributing inn some form or another. Then there are those who are essentially buying votes with other people's money by promising ever greater government hand outs without any contribution in the least.
Yeah, and my 25 year old daughter wants a Tesla Model S, too.
Maybe someday...
Wouldn't it be up to her to prioritize her spending, save up for that Tesla Model S? I think it's entirely up to her, and it should be her choice, if that's what she really wants. Be a shame if she can't afford it because of her taxes.
How about confiscating 50% (or more) of Hollywood's income to pay for all those services to others? Of all those in California, they strike me as being the most of those that have 'more than enough'. Yeah, let's see Sacramento pass a 50% income tax on Hollywood. I'm in favor of that proposal.
Oh it's always good to argue that wise and effective spending be something to aspire to but what's also in question is whether or not we we spend enough to get the kinds of services that the majority of California want.
High speed rail to nowhere very popular with the electorate?
How about homeless camps in and surrounding major cities? Where illicit injectable narcotics are greeted with free syringes, while plastic straws carry heavy fines (and its replacements use even more plastic than the straws and stirrers :screwy: seems badly misplaced priorities to me) - Is this popular with the electorate?
How about all the human waste on nearly every street in densely populated cities? Is this popular with the electorate?
While it would be completely rational and natural to expect, and applaud, wise spending by state and local governments, it seems that it has historically escaped California's state and local governments for generations now.
Remember, you always get more of what you subsidize.
The fact that there are so many illegals, so many drug addicted, so many homeless can only mean that these are the things that California's state and local governments have subsidized through their public policy. Hey, far be it for me to tell Californians how to run their state, if that's what they want, if that's what they wish to subsidize with their public funds, by all means, have at it. But I wouldn't support any federal bailouts.
