What SHOULD the tax burden be?

[A18]

I vote 11-20%.

[Richard]

< 5%.  This excludes duties, levies, and special interest taxes (such as tax on gas for roads).

[David S]

5% for the feds and 10% for the states.

[A18]

The military costs a lot. I don't know if 5% would be enough for the fed.

[7,052,770]

60%+ for sure!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Should be around 20% split 50/50 between State/Federal with a bit extra until the national debt can get paid off.  Any lower will require cutting government programs first in order to be fiscally prudent.  The last four years have shown that cutting taxes first doesn't cause spending to be cut later.

[Gabu]

It should be 100% because the government can totally spend our money better than we can.

[A18]

It should be 100% because the government can totally spend our money better than we can.

Canadians...

[Gabu]

It should be 100% because the government can totally spend our money better than we can.

Canadians...

That's it, I'm bumping it up to 110%.  Now you have to take out a loan each year just to pay your taxes.

[7,052,770]

It should be 100% because the government can totally spend our money better than we can.

Canadians...

That's it, I'm bumping it up to 110%.  Now you have to take out a loan each year just to pay your taxes.

well if Canada's going to 110%, we have to bring ours up to 125% to beat them!

[minionofmidas]

As much as is necessary. Duh.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Average American? Low.
Corperations and Rich People? High.
Huge Corperations and the "SuperRich"? Even higher.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Somewhere below the point where raising taxes decreases tax revenues. That point is probably about 96%, anyways.

[7,052,770]

why not just give all of the money to Harry and have him distribute supplies to people he likes?

[A18]

Average American? Low.
Corperations and Rich People? High.
Huge Corperations and the "SuperRich"? Even higher.

We have an income tax, so it's impossible to tax rich people.

Taxes on huge corporations drive up prices.

[Lunar]

Median or Average?  A lot of people conceptualize the "average American" different from the average of Americans.

Is this assuming a Utopia where we don't have natural disasters and wars?  Obviously at the moment it should be higher, but in another way, really shouldn't.

[they don't love you like i love you]

58% or so. I'd have to do all the numbers to see what a good number would be, but that seems like a good guess.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

58% or so. I'd have to do all the numbers to see what a good number would be, but that seems like a good guess.

I'm sure that the actual burden is quite a bit lower then that.
58% would probably close the deficit, and allow a lot of new spending.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Well I'd like to socialize a bunch of industries and have them provided for free so that'd cost more, but since you'd have to spend less it wouldn't be a major problem.

Of course I could probably get it below 50% if military spending was cut as much as I'd like to. As well as research since I would ban production of all nuclear and biological weapons.

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower 4/16/53

[David S]

BRTD
I'm hoping you're joking, but based on your other posts I'm guessing that you are not. What does it take to convince you that socialism is a failure? The most socialistic societies that ever existed, the USSR and China, did a miserable job of providing for their people. Frequently they were not even able to provide enough food. Yes they achieved a greater level of economic equality, but only by making everyone dirt poor. We have poor people in America, but most people are doing quite well by the standards of the rest of the world. What is it about socialism that you find so appealing?

[they don't love you like i love you]

I want basic needs provided for all and the income gaps between the classes closed. My economics professor last semester fairly agrees with me, he was also a big fan of many Marxist ideas.

Note that the examples you listed had massive military spending, and I want to gut the hell out of it.

[David S]

I want basic needs provided for all and the income gaps between the classes closed. My economics professor last semester fairly agrees with me, he was also a big fan of many Marxist ideas.

Note that the examples you listed had massive military spending, and I want to gut the hell out of it.

Yeah the communist countries were big on military spending, but then they never spent as much as we do now and yet our capitalist economy is so robust that it can handle that and still provide a good living for all of us. Its a noble goal to want all people to have their basic needs met, but our system does that. When I think of poverty I think of pictures of starving people in Africa. I think of children whose tiny arms are nothing but skin and bone, children so we weak they can barely hold their heads up. But that type of poverty is extemely rare if it even exists at all in the U.S. Poor people in America are far more likely to be overweight than underweight. We have some homelessness in America, but  its far from common. Most Americans have a comfortable place to live and food on the table. Most Americans enjoy luxuries the communists could never have. In communist countries you are destined to be poor. In America you could be poor but more likely you will be middle class and maybe even wealthy. In America you can improve your own condition, and many have done exactly that.

Socialism may sound good in principle, but it does not work in practice. It has produced one disaster after another. Capitalism on the other hand, sounds like a terrible system based on greed, and yet it has produced in this country the highest standard of living, not just for the wealthy, but the vast majority as well.