How do you justify taxing the rich?

Oh boy, 2 people out of more than 300 million in the US favor higher taxes...good point.

Exactly. The health of a society is measured by the overall, or "average", status of the members of that society. It is not good at all for a greater and greater % of national wealth to be going to the top 1 or 2 percent of the population.

There are many "rich" folks out there that understand this perfectly, and accept that those that are most comfortable really should contribute to the well-being of the culture on a "progressive" basis.

It blows my mind that legions of right-wingers refuse to even contemplate going back to the tax rates of the 1990s, the Clinton era. And, really, just how "horrible" were those rates and the overall health of the society in the 1990s compared to the last decade?

The "no tax" or "always cut taxes" crowd is simply pushing the nation even faster into bankruptcy or ownership by China. Take your pick.

More than just them do. Besides, I'm not saying the majority of them want to be taxed more, just that lots of them would. Americans waste so much money yet they get all bothered if they have to pay $43 more a year in taxes. It's just a hot button issue that most don't really put any thought into.

The guy is a troll.

Anyway, give tax breaks to the rich and they'll spend it on foreign luxury goods and foreign travel.

Give it to good old American workers and they'll spend it at Wal*Ma....I mean American cars, travel, food, vacations.

We don't have progressive taxation today. We have a very flat tax system (pretty much everyone but the very poor and the very rich both of who pay less) of 40%. Back in 1950 or so things like the Laffer curve made sense. Cutting a tax rate from 90% to 70% stimulated growth. Cutting from 40 to 35% doesn't.

Political Philosophy wrote:

asdfasdfas wrote:

How about the simple justification that the rich should pay the same percentage in taxes as the rest of the population?

That's not progessive taxation. Different argument.

We need the money. Let's get things right then lower their taxes.

One argument in support of progressive nature of the tax system is the marginally utility of money. One dollar added to one million dollars is worth much less than one dollar added to one hundred dollars. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to take the position that the former should be taxed more heavily than the latter, since the money doesn't matter as much.

Another possible argument is that the rich benefit disproportionately from the society in which they live and thus should pay more to maintain it (the rich travel more on roads, have more goods to protect, require educated people to work in their businesses, etc).

Now, this does assume that you believe that taxation is justified in general. It also assumes that taxing people different amounts is justified. If you don't believe either of these then asking for a justification of progressive taxation is a bit of a waste of time.

None of those reasons, which are in fact the opposite of what you propose: they are the reasons that wealthy people and their apologists foolishly and fallaciously ascribe to progressives and liberals for supporting a progressive tax system.

Read the Social Contract. Think about what kind of a country you want to live in - and what it costs to support that country ... from infrastructure to education to defense to health to old age to drinkable water and safe food and hundreds/thousands of other things you take for granted every day. Stop pretending these things pay for themselves. Stop pretending they can be paid for without progressive taxation. Stop pretending that non-governmental organizations or businesses could do the job better (they had a chance and didn't).

Mostly, wake up. Taxation hasn't changed who's rich and who's poor. That divide keeps growing every year, every decade, every generation. Just how poor do you think the poor should be? How rich the rich?

We were never meant to be a country of Kings, Queens, and nobility. We are something much better. Much more fair. And much more dynamic.

So take your name-calling and your pathetic patronizing bunk and shove it.

ryan foreman wrote:

The bottom line is that the vast majority of people who make over a $1 million/year don't provide the value to society that merits that income.

Forman, go back to your 2nd tier liberal arts college you attended and paid full tuition for.

How can you say that when 50% of the population doesnt pay taxes, that they should raise the taxes on those making the money. So all of the lazy idiots get to vote to raise my money? Makes sense.

And, the vast majority of those making 1 Million or more are creating jobs and income for the rest of the nation.

The rich should pay more in taxes because they are greater beneficiaries of government and users of government than the poor or regular wage earner.

If you are rich, chances are you either own a business or are an executive at a corporation. Your employees all needed an education. Your company did not have to provide that education. Instead, the government did. While each employee gets paid enough to pay his bills as a result of their education, the rich guy gets to reap far more of the profits generated by that education. Same goes for interstate highways, rail, air traffic, customs, USPTO, courts, military, corps of engineers, US mineral management service, dep't of energy, agriculture, and so on. Rich people reap more benefit from these government services and should be required to pay a proportionate share of the tax burden.

And the two government programs that are the bulk of the so-called "redistribution" are medicare/-aid and social security. Both have a flat tax that is capped at just over 108k. So there is very little redistribution going on here.

In reality, social programs are, and have always been, business subsidies. Walmart doesn't pay a living wage because food stamps and section 8 housing assistance can fill the gap. Without these government programs, workers would demand higher wages and organize unions. With these government programs, workers are able to scrape by and need not bear the burdens of organizing and fighting for better wages.

The new deal wasn't an exercise of liberalism. FDR was a blue blood. The new deal was a way to save capitalism from a socialist worker's takeover by throwing enough of a bone to the working class to keep them from challenging the capitalist's grip on wealth.

Political Philosophy wrote:

If all else fails, look for a spelling or grammar mistake to shift the focus of the argument. Anything to weasle your way out of the debate.

"weasle?"

And chances are good SoCal Pete can also school you at 5000m.

Political Philosophy wrote:

That's not progessive taxation. Different argument.

"Say one thing, refuse to identifiy the meaning of the statement you made, then blank out and hysterically evade the subject matter when someone points out the contradiction."

You made three spelling errors in that post.

Also, how do you justify being an apologist for the rich as a dirt poor serf? Simple stupidity? Ignorance? Stockholm Syndrome? I feel sorry for you lot of thirsty fools who will carry water for the rich, then praise them as they drink their fill and pour the rest on the dirt at your feet. You're more of a problem than they are.

Everyone divides the world into rich and poor, whereas I divide it into productive and unproductive.

A productive rich guy who produces goods and services that society needs, and who employs others at fair wages, should be taxed at a very low rate. Think of an owner of several local supermarkets.

An unproductive rich guy who does nothing except stockpile money should be taxed at higher rates. He isn't harming people, but he isn't helping either.

Guys like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates should pay no federal taxes, as their companies already pay plenty, and they have done far more than their share in terms of benefiting society.

The world right now takes a very liberal view towards taxation, and I think the next shift of the winds will be toward a much more sensible plan.

Consider Vlad the Impaler. I don't condone his methods, but it represents the other extreme of where we are now:

(copied and pasted)

Vlad got upset at the increase of cripples, beggars, poor and vagrants upon his land. He was very obsessive regarding that all worked and contributed equally. So he offered up a great feast in a great hall in Tirgoviste, saying that no one should go hungry in his land.

The people who were made up of those unfortunate souls that were poor and crippled ate and drank late into the night when suddenly Vlad made an appearance. He asked them "What else do you desire? Do you want to be without cares and lacking nothing in this world?". The crowd were fooled by his question and rose up and answered that they did indeed. Vlad then ordered the hall boarded up and set on fire. No one escaped. Vlad explained his actions saying he did it "in order that they represent no further burden to other men so that no one will be poor in my realm".

The tax system is designed in no way to accommodate fairness, and it shouldn't. It's not fair that being born in America grants you more rights and opportunities than someone who is born in Uganda or Tajikistan, but we're not yet at the point where artificially drawn boarders have no effect on economics. At this very moment, a progressive tax system is the most economically efficient way to ensure the government has enough resources to provide some semblance of social mobility through health care, pensions, and education while still enabling innovation and expansion of national output. Someday, this will not be the case and we will achieve your liberal utopia, but the developing world has to play a lot of catchup.

Great post, Pete. You too, Precious Roy.

This is the argument from envy, which falls under the "demonization of the rich" category I mentioned in my original post. You should not resent the fact that some people are born into better circumstances than others. You should focus on your own life, do your best with the cards your were dealth and not worry about whether someone else has it better. You certainly shouldn't make uninformed assumptions about the cause of a person's success, such as that it was merely the result of having been born into a certain kind of family. While a rational person pursues self-improvement, your perspective is primarily concerned with kicking others down.

old tymer wrote:

Exactly. The health of a society is measured by the overall, or "average", status of the members of that society.

This is a prime example of collectivist religion, or the treatment of "society" as a super-organism greater than its individual members. First, who established this definitive measure of "societal health" the poster speaks of, and who does the measuring? The implication is that humanity as a whole does both. Second, why would anyone be concerned about "societal health" as opposed to his own health? The implication is that human life is a collective event rather than an individual one. This person has lapsed into a pure collectivist mentality which ascribes personal, god-like characteristics to society as a whole and uses the societal super-organisms's experience as the frame of reference by which to judge the quality to human life. Might as well say "all hail the great Collective Consciousness of Society and bow before Its divine Will."

I don't resent or envy people who have wealth or inherent advantages - I'm simply acknowledging that it gives an advantage. It doesn't bother me at all that people obtain wealth. I'd suggest you read what I wrote: that a person's wealth is a product of both hard work and inherent social standing. How is that kicking anyone down?

How much of your wealth is due to the life you were born into? For some a lot for others not as much but to deny it completely is I simply ridiculous. I recognize advantage for what it is since I come from the upper middle class but I don't wring my hands thinking about the circumstances I was born into and whether that was fair or not. I know that it has been easier to obtain my economic status because of my background along with a lot of hard work than simply a lot of hard work and not having the background I did. Am I going to "kick down" my children and not give them the advantages I had? Of course not. I don't demonize myself for having what I have but I recognize that wealth breeds further wealth and it needs to distributed at some level unless we want what what other posters have mentioned already: revolutionary Russia or a 3rd world society.

I must have touched quite the hot button to get such an irrational response. Learn to analyze comments better.