2007-11-28 05:28:34 · 11 answers · asked by Yahoo Answer Angel 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
i hope it never actually gets to that point, but the path to hell is paved with good intentions. it seems like a nice move for the elites to vote for tax increases to give to the underpriviledged, but its costing the middle class more than any other class. being 'middle class' myself, i know once it is no longer profitable for me to go to work, i will stay home. (maybe i'll finally get to spend some quality time with my family. i probably wont be able to qualify for any social programs then, but why pay for others to stay home and keep myself broke, when i can stay home and be broke with my family, lol.)
2007-11-28 05:38:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It's a two-pronged problem. First you take so much of peoples income away from them in taxes that you reduce the incentive to work, then you give so much in welfare to those who don't work that they have no incentive to work either.
Then, to add to the problem, the high tax rates leads to a boom in the 'off-the-books' economy, so a large part of the income that people who DO work is earning isn't getting taxed at all.
This spiral has been what's led to the collapse of many of the worlds great nations over time. Even Rome finally fell to the barbarians because their tax structure was so messed up that a large part of their army was unable to take the field because the soldiers hadn't been paid, and had gone home - even though Rome was stil the richest Empire on earth.
Richard
2007-11-28 13:41:40 · answer #2 · answered by rickinnocal 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
If you look at other foreign countries (i.e. France) who have higher taxes and more social programs than the U.S. they have an unemployment rate much higher than ours. Most of these people don't work because of the high taxes and social programs that provide for them if they don't work. So yes it can happen, but I don't know about EVERYONE refusing to work.
2007-11-28 13:33:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
I don't know but I saw a documentary about people in africa who were sitting under a tree and teh guy asked them why they aren't in the fields growing crops and they said why should we spend several months sweating and struggling to grow crops when at harvest the gov comes in and takes 90 percent of it?
we will just live off the aid.
RRRR
2007-11-28 14:44:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No "We the People" will just throw more tea off the boats or containers today to get the wages to pay the taxes.
2007-11-28 13:32:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No- The USSR was pretty oppressive, to the point that their government failed, but Nationwide Strikes wasn't one of the problems that they faced.
2007-11-28 13:33:12 · answer #6 · answered by Beardog 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
How about spending money we don't have to pay for a war we should never have started to begin with?
2007-11-28 13:50:29 · answer #7 · answered by jack of all trades 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. It is called welfare.
How about if we stop penalizing people for being productive?
2007-11-28 13:32:55 · answer #8 · answered by Fireball 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
actually, i wouldn't mind that, i'd could totally use some time off.
2007-11-28 15:26:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
you bet ye, we are getting there fast.
2007-11-28 16:12:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋