Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tonka737 t1_ix0qkgo wrote

>>Another way of putting this is, "they don't ask as much from small businesses because they know they can't afford it." Like, no shit. It's a fine on a business. It takes economies of scale into account.

Sure, if you ignore the current timeline it can be viewed as "not asking as much from small businesses". A disproportionate fine on a business for what exactly? They are not anymore responsible for keeping their storefront plowed than any other business.

>>I wonder what you think of progressive taxation. Actually, no I don't.

As you have correctly assumed, I don't think ppl should be taxed/penalized based on their levels of success. The government isn't responsible for anybody overachieving and is therefore not entitled to anything more than what any other citizen owes. People already get charged on earnings, sales, luxuries, property, etc. That should suffice to cover what transpires on the land being governed. If you're going to charge somebody more than you will another than that person should/better receive benefits matching/justifying their additional costs. However that's not to say that I'm against very basic social safety nets.

2

IllegibleLedger t1_ix39rrc wrote

Lmao yeah because everyone with wealth is a successful overachiever who earned it all themselves

2

tonka737 t1_ix3e8nb wrote

You're right. I forgot that only ppl who inherit wealth are subject to the progressive tax bracket. In fact, the ppl who inherited their wealth are the majority of the people affected. It also doesn't affect ppl who get a second job/work overtime.

EDOT: Not to mention its none of your business if the target is not an overachiever.

1