|
|
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Probably...? :/
You're gonna need a distribution function to go along with that probability to sway me.
Let's just say that I am highly confident that the unemployment rate and median income would be dramatically improved if the state wasn't squandering so much of our resources. I don't know the exact probability, but it's safe to say that there would be many fewer people in your predicament.
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I don't know how this relates to the current discussion, or that anyone disagrees with that point.
Am I missing something?
Most people in support of this tax would disagree. They enact this employer-side taxation, along with other taxes like the social security tax (another 6%) and the corporate tax because they believe the money just comes out of the profits. It takes this kind of "money from nothing" belief to support a majority of taxation and economic policy.
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
People should do this if they want the service, right? But people don't do this. That's the reality. If private agencies and/or charities can provide the same or comparable service, then by all means... let them. However, if they don't, then having a short-term safety net for everyone is OK with me. Obv. I want it to be not corrupt, if possible, please.
Yes, you think everyone should be made to overpay for a service whether they want it or not. You believe they are incapable of making the correct call. I guess I'm a little more optimistic about people.
|
Reply With Quote