|
>>
|
9f3729.jpg
Honey Sugar
9f3729
>>28269
I think we might have had a bit of a misunderstanding on both ends, if I'm reading this right. I thought you were working off the "deregulating businesses will bring back jobs" argument, a common theme amongst the more extremist right-wing politicals and something I have personal beef with for being a very poor idea. That was a shitty assumption to make, sorry about that. I go on about not making snap judgements but it's a hard habit to train yourself out of.
Conversely, it seems you think I was arguing in favor of the very tax breaks I've been condemning. Stuff like the tax break you get for marriage, for example: That one is only really a big help to people who are already fairly wealthy with a lot of assets. It's things like that I am very much against, I would rather see meaningful tax breaks to people under the lower-middle class bracket. Even reducing the wage taxes on them by a quarter would do wonders for their purchasing power and the economy.
Other things I do want to see kept around, if modified: the idea of using Tax Breaks to encourage good corporate behaviour has, at best, been somewhat ineffective in my eyes. Creating a tax break for job creation, for example, just seems to result in a lot of cheap and shitty minimum wage jobs and reduces how much pull-in we get from those companies in tax revenue, further affecting our deficit and public works funding.
Instead, I'd like to see that become a legal requirement for companies breaching above a certain operational capacity. Perhaps they can maneuver around profit margin-based laws through clever accounting, but limiting the spread of these companies would serve a dual purpose: it would leave the door open for newer companies to sprout up (encouraging competition and diversity) an
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
|