It depends on what the people get in return. If health care is included taxes should go up to a point, but would be a savings on the current plan by cutting out the middle man--unless the government includes the middle man on pay off--which neo-cons love to do. If there is a major investment in public transportation and connecting cities as well as having self-contained units then there would be an increase in taxes but many would benefit.

Ok so lets say health care is included, but only for those who make less than an annual salary (or earnings in whatever way) of 1 million.

And we don't import excess commodities, or rather, luxuries. We take what we need and export at a fair price, in respect to maintaining the commodities necessary for public demand, not talking about luxuries though... like perfume for example.

Depends what we want the government to do and how much it costs, right?

Yes... but to the extent that we wouldn't change anything from the way it is today, but keeping in mind healthcare is social.

However much tax is required to pay the bills - that's how much is enough.

If what we're doing is wanted by the people, then the money has to come from somewhere. So how can you pick a percent when the real issue is how we can pay for what we want?

Alright, so in respect to the public demand as it is in the US lets say.

I think our gross (pre-tax) income is sort of a phony number, since most of us only see 60-75% of that. Of the remainder, I am not sure the country would tolerate much beyond a 5-10% increase.

I think it depends of too many factors, and I dont live in Usa to give a bet im afraid

And even if I lived, I probally wouldnt know about government provided services and how much they cost to give a decent bet.

I think the key to successful taxation would be to link it to lifestyle, less tax on things that promote a healthy & low impact lifestyle & more on unhealthy & high impact items.
I am lucky to live in the UK which has an extensive welfare state & such things as healthcare are considered a right & all have access, however the strain of this is evident in our economy & it may not last.
Recently I watched a film/documentry about volunteers from the 9/11 disaster not recieving heathcare for respiratory illnesses that they got as a result (I think it was called "sicko"), it was awful & affirmed my love for this country.
All I can really say is question what is deemed righteous & judge the outcome.
TTFN:shocked:

However, this kind of governing is essentially discriminatory against people living their lives the way they want to. I no longer smoke, but when I was a smoker I knew full-well that it wasn't healthy. I still chose to smoke. Why? Because it helped my self esteem. I personally felt more powerful by smoking when I smoked than when I wasn't smoking. Should I have been taxed because I was enhancing my self esteem? Rubbish.

I will always maintain that there shouldn't ever be a need for a nation to create laws to protect people from their own stupidity.

I personally feel that the only rational method of taxation is to base it strictly upon income. The more you benefit from the existence of the society you dwell in, the more you owe that society, and therefore, the more money you should be required to return to it.