Underhill
Well-Known Member
You're right, just like $15 is subjective, why not $20? Why not $100? Why not a million dollars as you suggested? Why not tax the rich %95?
You can't answer it because it's a subjective notion. The goal posts are different for everyone, pending the person's debts, number of dependencies, location, cost of living and on... I've made my points but if you disagree, then that's fine.
Like I said to an earlier poster, I would have to repeat myself so best not to continue. You're not obligated to agree with me. Just have a good night.
It can be subjective. But there is a set poverty level (which nobody in their right mind thinks is too high, no matter where you live). So setting the minimum wage so working people are near the top of that level is not unreasonable.
As for taxing the rich, we did it before and it worked. In the 70's the top rate was much higher. This notion that raising taxes inhibits growth is just wrong, and economics is telling us so.
"But an equally compelling reason relies on a new understanding of the economics of taxation. For 30 years, any proposal to raise taxes had to overcome an unshakable belief that higher taxes inevitably led to less growth. The belief survived the Clinton administration, when taxes rose and the economy surged. It survived George W. Bush’s administration, when taxes were cut yet growth sagged.
But now, a growing body of research suggests not only that the government could raise much more revenue by sharply raising the top tax rates paid by the richest Americans, but it could do so without slowing economic growth. Top tax rates could go as high as 80 percent or more."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/business/economy/the-case-for-raising-top-tax-rates.html?_r=0