posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 12:23 AM
a reply to: allsee4eye
How about if no-one gets sick? Then you'd never need it.
... and what sort of twit would suggest that those who can afford it most, shouldn't pay a little more than the rest, some who can't afford it at all.
Where do you think the money, that accumulates in those few lucky bank accounts, came from?
I think all tax should be proportionally based on profit.
If someone gets replaced by a machine and can't find a job, they are making no profit and cannot be taxed but the owner of the machine still makes a
profit and can cover the unemployed's tax, so the government doesn't loose.
The owner of the machine is still profiting (by more than he would if he retained the employee) and the unemployed is not unfairly encumbered to pay
what they can't afford.
If someone is employed in a low paying and small profiting job, they get taxed proportionally less.
It's still capitalist and doesn't dis-incentivise investment and profit, an all round winning compromise.
edit on 23/6/2017 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)