How do you justify taxing the rich?

and take their money and property. Watch entitlement spending go to zero almost overnight.

Funny how no one mentions this, yet it would propel society forward much more quickly.

Political Philosophy wrote:

The New UncleB wrote:

How can you think we live in a democracy when the richest 500 families have a larger net worth than the poorest 150 million people?

You dolt. It is precisely because we DO live in a democracy that wealth has become concentrated. Democracy is a system of mob role that does not respect individual rights. Having little respect for economic freedom, and being utterly ignorant about the science of economics, the masse have unknowingly voted into existence a monetary system that allows the politically connected corporate elite to profit from inflation. That is the souce of wealth concentration. Retarded cattle like yourself will continue bemoaning the accumulation of wealth while at the same time supporting the political apparatus that causes it. You deserve the political outcomes you are getting.

You support the oppression of the many by the wealthy few. Fine. But that is not what America is supposed to be. Why don't you take your 17th century, ruling class mind-set elsewhere. An effin slave who cheers on his owner -- Christ.

It always amuses me that these threads go back and forth between the ditches and never seem to land in the middle of the road. One can support a progressive system of taxation and still think that the current system (with nearly half of earners off the tax rolls, and over 60% of revenue raised from the top 10%) is counterproductive. Alternatively, one can even think that current rates are fine, or even theoretically too low, and still think that raising rates at this time would be economically damaging. Neither one of those beliefs implies that we want to live in the equivalent of Somalia.

The reverse is equally true. Thinking that rates should be 39% instead of 35%, or even thinking that there ought to be a "millionaire bracket" of 50% or more does not mean that you're in full Karl Marx mode.

As for the "growing gap" between rich and poor, or "income inequality," this is silly. Of course the gap grows--the rich get richer (and so do the middle class), but people making zero or near-zero, generally by virtue of not working, continue to make zero. Even a full-time minimum-wage worker who's too dumb to ever earn a raise would have seen his income more than double in my working lifetime (from $3.35 to $7.25 per hour). The problem is not the rich in this equation, it's the poor. We don't need less rich people, we need less poor people. And the gap isn't an issue. If the bottom of the pyramid was made of people earning $50-100k, it wouldn't matter a bit what the top made.

Sadly, I don't have a clue how to "fix" the situation of the persistent underclass. Unless we were to bring back either 1930s-style workfare, or Dickensian poorhouses, I don't know how to make people embrace work, education, productivity, thrift, etc.

The New UncleB wrote:

How can you think we live in a democracy when the richest 500 families have a larger net worth than the poorest 150 million people?

You guys are starting from ther premise that people somehow deserve to make tens and hundreds and millions pof dollars while people who actually work hard and often at two or three jobs make $6 per hour. You also conveniently neglect the fact that the truly rich gain their wealth via capital gains -- which are not taxed at all until they are realized and then the tax rate is a measly 15%, significantly less than the tax rate applied to a middle class income.

In short, uou are the dupes of those who benefit from our system at the expense of the vast majority. You have the contented slave mentality, maybe your master will give you a smile.

Hmm...I'm all for taxing the rich more heavily, but only illegals in this country make $6 an hour. Minimum wage is $7.25 an hour in 2010.

HRE wrote:

You can't make something that exists not exist just by saying it doesn't exist.

"Society" does not exist in the same way that an aircraft carrier, elephant, or corporation exists. "Society" does not have personhood or personal characteristics. A major problem arises when liberals, as they frequently do, attempt to personify "society" to justify their mindless political beliefs by making statements such as

"society has treated you well"

"society has decided this or that"

"society is racist/sexist/xenophobic"

"society is better off when..."

etc.

Society cannot be racist because, lacking a brain, "it" is incapable of having an opinions on race. Take away the ability to personify "society" and the left runs out of bullets real fast.

The persistent underclass is much less persistent, though certainly not nonexistent, in countries where there is less of a gap between the highest wage earners and the lowest and where there are many more social services available.

Of course we need fewer poor people. But if wealthy people are gobbling up wealth at a faster rate than it's being generated then people with lower and middle incomes will have less wealth available. Having fewer poor people is not unrelated to the number of rich people we have.

The minimum wage was $1.25 an hour when I was in high school so it's essentially sextupled in my lifetime. That has no bearing at all on how wealthy or poor someone making minimum wage is now. When I was in high school you could buy a house in a decent neighborhood for 15-30k, a gallon of gas for 30 cents, a pair of running shoes for $7.95 (if you could find a place selling them.)

Yes, we're a long way from being Somalia or Dickens' Britain. But we're closer to it than we were forty years ago.

Political Philosophy wrote:

HRE wrote:

You can't make something that exists not exist just by saying it doesn't exist.

"Society" does not exist in the same way that an aircraft carrier, elephant, or corporation exists. "Society" does not have personhood or personal characteristics. A major problem arises when liberals, as they frequently do, attempt to personify "society" to justify their mindless political beliefs by making statements such as

"society has treated you well"

"society has decided this or that"

"society is racist/sexist/xenophobic"

"society is better off when..."

etc.

Society cannot be racist because, lacking a brain, "it" is incapable of having an opinions on race. Take away the ability to personify "society" and the left runs out of bullets real fast.

What an utterly vacuous argument this is--straight from the old Ayn Rand playbook, or a 13 year old's understanding of Nietzsche. Pathetic, and incredibly wrong-headed.

Society is a word that describes those people that you see living in a region. Running does not exist in the same way an aircrsft carrier exists, nor does government. But you still need words to describe those things.

A bank may not have a brain but people who work in it do and the bank can be characterized as racist or sexist if it's reluctant to make loans to minorities or women. A neighborhood doesn't have a brain but if a black family living there has crosses burned on their lawns the neighborhood will be characterized as racist even if some people living there are appalled by the treatment of that family.

These debates are ultimately futile. You can see no justification for not taxing the rich (though you still haven't clarified if you're against progressive taxation or simply taxing them at all) and I can't see how you CANNOT justify taxing wealthier people more heavily than everyone else is. Nothing either of us writes will change the other's mind.

So here's really how you justify taxing the rich more heavily; the law allows it. It also allows for NOT taxing the rich more heavily than everyone else is. And it theoretically provides a process by which people who are bothered by whatever system is in place can try to change that system.

Good art wrote:

Given the "rich" require the infrastructure of government, rule of law, military, etc. we can only assume the "rich" would consider funding this enterprise not only a privilege, but also a necessity.

The few people who understand the above statement truly see the big picture. Without the middle class, there is no "wealthy" class, only fewer and fewer wealthy individuals with less and less new wealth being created. If one fails, the other will fail as well. It's just a matter of time. The poor will always exist.

My justification for taxing the rich is the same for taxing any individual. If you live in civilized society, you should be taxed equally to your fellow man. By equally, I mean on a percentage basis. I don't care how much you "use" the streets, police, etc., you pay an equal share of taxes. Whether the individual pays taxes on income, consumption, etc. is the rub.

I'll tell you one thing that chaps my ass--the f***ing capital gains tax is a joke. Executives take 152K a year in taxable "salary", and get the rest of their massive pay package in the form of ready-to-vest stock options that have been backdated to kingdom come...tell me with a straight face that those f***ers aren't gaming the system.

Some pigs are more equal than others.

common wrote:

I'll tell you one thing that chaps my ass--the f***ing capital gains tax is a joke. Executives take 152K a year in taxable "salary", and get the rest of their massive pay package in the form of ready-to-vest stock options that have been backdated to kingdom come...tell me with a straight face that those f***ers aren't gaming the system.

Everyone with their eyes open knows that our current system is grossly skewed in favor of those with money and power. That's what makes any whining about increased taxes on the rich so pathetic--the upper crust has always had the deck stacked in its favor, but in recent decades its been even MORE so, and "conservatives" would like to enlarge that privilege and make it absolutely, irrevocably permanent.

Well, as someone already said, the uberwealthy don't generally serve in the military, so you aren't considering that.Those who are more fortunate (or even those who through their own hard work and sweat and tears) ought to pay a greater percentage of their income back to society than those who don't make as much. That's my philosophical stance. I'm not rich, but I should (and do) pay more taxes as a percentage of my income than someone who supports a family of 4 on $25,000 a year. I believe that should move up the chain. It's not soaking them either, and they can pay it. Hell, I make a modest income and have a family of 4 to pay for on what I alone make, and even I could pay more taxes than I do, and I wouldn't be bothered in the least if my taxes rose. That said, I don't believe that rising taxes is the sole or even main answer to our nation's debt problem. Ultimately growth is the answer, but I don't think that the small increases in taxes for the rich that are being talked about would hinder that growth in any way.

Flagpole wrote:

Lots of REALLY rich people (Buffett and Gates for example) don't mind being taxed, and in fact both of them have said numerous times that they should have to pay more.

Anyone who WANTS to (or believes that they should have to) pay more taxes can effectively do so, by making donations to whatever cause they would like their taxes to go to.

Those who don't, SHOULDN'T have to.

It's called freedom. I know, it's crazy.

The idea that because some number of people believe in something (regardless of how big the number is) means that everybody should be forced to participate is asinine.

A majority of the people in this country believe in giving through religious charity (78% identify as Christians, as per Wiki); should we, therefore, make it law that everybody practice giving through the christian church?

I also don't see any justification for why the wealthy should pay a larger percentage for public services. Can you prove that they use a larger percentage of public services? If not, you're just pushing redistribution, which is a philosophical belief that you might share, but is NOT consistent with maximization of freedom.

Stop pushing your morals onto others, regardless of how "right" you think they are.

Every successful society in history has had some form of wealth redistribution. The people who have extra resources have some of them redistributed to those who have less.

The basic reason to do this is that if you completely cut off all assistance to the destitute, eventually they'll kill you and take it. In that way, you benefit from paying taxes for social services that you don't directly use. You benefit from having everyone, rich and poor, provided with some level of police, fire, and ambulatory care and education.

Political Philosophy wrote:

The New UncleB wrote:

How can you think we live in a democracy when the richest 500 families have a larger net worth than the poorest 150 million people?

You dolt. It is precisely because we DO live in a democracy that wealth has become concentrated. Democracy is a system of mob role that does not respect individual rights. Having little respect for economic freedom, and being utterly ignorant about the science of economics, the masse have unknowingly voted into existence a monetary system that allows the politically connected corporate elite to profit from inflation. That is the souce of wealth concentration. Retarded cattle like yourself will continue bemoaning the accumulation of wealth while at the same time supporting the political apparatus that causes it. You deserve the political outcomes you are getting.

So, in your post you admit that the "politically connected corporate elite" influence and profit from political decision-making. I agree that this is the case, but, if anything, this should make one more willing to see top- earners taxed at a higher rate, not less.

Like I said in an earlier post, democracy doesn't work very efficiently when the majority of the citizenry is poorly educated and unable to make rational decisions. However, supporting lower tax rates for the wealthy, while cutting programs that will result in increased income disparity, such as increasing reliance on private schooling, is a recipe for increasing the number of poor, uninformed voters in the country. Democracy certainly has its problems, but they're less severe in countries where the education of the "average" citizen is higher: think Finland, Canada, Norway.

Alternatively, you could change the voting process to only allow people with IQs (or some other measure of intelligence) in the top 10% to vote, and only if they could also demonstrate knowledge about politics. If you did this, politicians would answer to the intellectual elite rather than your typical Bible-thumping dimwits who will vote for whatever the lobbyists or their churches tell them to vote for. For better or for worse, such a reform could never pass through Congress as it would have to garner the support of said dimwits first.

Political Philosophy wrote:

This is communist filth. The government not only paid for the education of Company X's employees, but also for the employees of its competitors who work to take away its market share. You assign an arbitrary and totally inaccurate valuation of the benefit a company derives from the institution of public education and insist that the company now owes the government a debt for the service it didn't contract for, and didn't even derive a net benefit from.

If a company makes a profit, there is a net benefit. If that profit is based on labor that requires education, then the company has received a benefit from goverment and those who disproportionately profit (shareholders, executives) should bear a disproportionate share of the cost.

Viktor wrote:...if you completely cut off all assistance to the destitute, eventually they'll kill you and take it.

Viktor gets it.

1) I'm not pushing my morals onto you. I just told you my opinion on it...never said the opposite was stupid or anything like that.2) I don't think wealthy people use a larger percentage of public services. I just think they should pay more for them...my philosophical view. Just as I pay more than a poor person who is on food stamps (so he/she uses more services than I do), a person who makes lots more than I do should pay more.3) Maximization of freedom is not my goal. Maximization of freedom would be NO government at all and every man for himself. THAT would be bad and would contribute to a LOWER standard of living for most people; certainly for me. Somewhere there is a balance, and as it currently sits, I believe the wealthy aren't paying as much as they should.4) Of course we shouldn't make a law that says people should give through a church...that would be silly, and it isn't the same at all as a government collecting taxes. The US government has the right to collect taxes and to enact laws changing how this is done. Debate can occur on how much to collect, and right now, the wealthy aren't paying as much as they should. It's not about making everyone equal. I WANT wealthy people to be here...if for no other reason than to give others a goal to strive for. I WANT my education and hard to work to account for something, so I want to and should make more money than someone who works at McDonald's. BUT, with money comes responsibility, and I believe that that should include paying more taxes.

to Optional: Are you trolling or serious?

I bet there are a lot of interesting posts on this thread, but here is what I think:

We are on a dangerous and unsustainable path where wealth is too concentrated at the top. When this is the case, those with the wealth have basically unlimited power. We think we live in a free, open, just society, but in reality, we now live in a society where the rich get whatever they want by funding the campaigns of slimy politicians who don't care about anything but their next election. And campaigns have become extraordinarily expensive.

I don't want the government to collect and redistribute wealth because they are terrible at that (along with almost everything they do). But I do want to find some way to deter people from hording wealth beyond all reasonable limits. Instead, we should somehow give the rich a strong incentive to re-invest that wealth in ways that will hopefully create jobs. This really is a win-win situation, since the wealthy will live in a society where more people can support the businesses the rich own and the masses will stay passive enough to let the rich enjoy their three homes each and big boats.

On the other hand, if we continue on the path we're on (which we are going to do like it or not), we will see the working poor become the majority in the US, and they will become increasingly angry. We will have a debt crisis first and local and state levels, but eventually at the federal level. When governments start defaulting on debt, shit is going to hit the fan, and the large lower to "middle" class will already be ready to ignite. Then the rich had better watch out. Not only will their investments have gone mostly to shit, but they will be marked men and women.

I'm a generally conservative person in my early 30s with a graduate degree in engineering and a good, high-paying job. I'm not a hippie anarchist. I hope at least some of you other politically independent and relatively intelligent readers are thinking about what is going on. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be massive, painful changes in our country within my lifetime.