Give me a good reason why the rich should pay more taxes

Tall people are not asked to reach for higher shelves than short people because society hates the tall. We ask the tall to reach for higher shelves because they can do it without too much trouble. It's the same with taxes. We ask rich people to pay higher tax rates than poor people because they can do it without causing them an unreasonable amount of stress.
Nobody would ask you to give 35% of your income to the government because nobody wants you to live in a shack and eat ramen noodles for dinner. If your were rich it'd be a different story.

Cracked.com actually explains this pretty well: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

 

You are absolutely correct.

 

That's the most mature thing I've ever heard anyone say on this forum.

 

Thank you sir. I find this meme that taxes are meant to "punish the rich" to be quite silly. Taxes are for paying for stuff. That's all.

 

That is correct, and we have been doing that with a progressive income tax for many years. Even if we took 100% of the income of the top 2%, it would not pay the debt or make the deficit go away--------raising taxes on anyone is not the answer------cutting spending is the only way out.

Raising taxes on the very rich may make us feel good and comfort our envy and jealousy a little, but it will not solve the problem. But it does help obama advance his class warfare rhetoric and his divide and conquer mentality.

 

Sure it would. As has been demonstrated to you several times before.

Sure it would. As has been demonstrated to you several times before.

 

No. The progressive income tax does not ask the tall people to reach the things on the high shelves for the rest of us. All it does is put weights on the heads of those who are growing fastest, to stop them from growing tall enough to reach the things that the people who are already tall want to keep for themselves.

You know that has been proved false.

It will solve the problem as long as you understand that the very rich are defined by their assets, not their income.

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” -- Warren Buffett, who knows the truth better than you, and is also honest enough to tell it.

 

Well...Warren Buffett also said we should dump Obamacare and start it all over. <<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>


[video=youtube;KmDflUJ6OzE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmDflUJ6OzE[/video]

 

I would settle for the rich being made to pay the taxes they already owe by abolishing the loopholes they use to get out of them.

 

That would be best, but I don't know if starting all over is politically feasible. Why wouldn't it be better to learn from the countries that get far better health care outcomes for far less money?

 

One cannot delegate a power one does not have, and I don't have any legitimate power to forcibly appropriate the property of my neighbor. Therefore there is nothing for me to delegate.

 

Then you progressive liberals have to make it "politically feasible". Just as Warren Buffett said, Obamacare is NOT good for the country. And this comes from a very honest and integrity man.

Yes. Why?

 

Because it is not 'some' power, it is all power and it lets the folk abusing the power to define the 'greater good'...It is power without restraint or morality.

 

So being 5'2", you are stating that if I demand a tall person to reach for something on a higher shelve and they refuse then it is my right to take by force some of his height for my own.

 

Why, when we are not the ones making it infeasible?

 

Actually, the main point of living in society is to exercise collectively powers that one does not possess individually, such as resolving disputes between others.

 

It is now. Listen to an honest and integrity man Warren Buffett. He said Obamacare is bad for the country.

How about raise tax on the rich and dump Obamacare?

 

Perhaps, but that doesn't address my point. If I personally don't have the right to forcibly appropriate the property of my neighbor, how can I possibly delegate such a power to someone else. I cannot delegate a power that I don't originally possess.

 

The argument for more taxes is the most ridiculous issue of the year. Give politicians more money and they will simply spend it. They always have. They will not use it to reduce borrowing or pay debt. They never have. Completely ridiculous to give them more money.

 

You conveniently omit that might has made right in our historical record; it is merely and only one reason, why Man invented States and statism.

If you agree that private justice should be suppressed in favor of public justice, then how can you claim any civil person in our republic doesn't have a natural right to cede some private justice for some public and social justice?

 

It is one reason for a separation of powers. Why should local government have the same priorities as State governments or the general government of the Union?

 

Not always, in the 1990s they raised taxes and cut spending and by 2000 there was a surplus to pay down the national debt. Then the republicans took over and went back to tax cuts and borrowing.

There is hope, but it does not lie with voting for them.

 

The only reason there was "surplus" was due to the dot com bubble. Bush actually inherited a mild recession from Clinton. Also, most of Clinton's "surplus" came from basically gutting the military.

 

Not when tax revenues are at historic lows.

That's their job. And you are apparently ignorant of the fact that under our debt money system, when households and firms don't want to take on additional debt, government has to do it or there will be a deflationary collapse.

Clearly false, as they used massively increased revenues following WW I and WW II to reduce borrowing and pay down debt. Your claims turn out to be outright fabrications.

Tax revenue is not "given to" politicians, that's just stupid, dishonest rhetoric. Politicians don't just pocket taxes. Duh. They administer tax money on the public's behalf, and are accountable to voters for how it is spent on the public's behalf.

 

"Historic" as in what, 5 years ago?

True, but you're talking about politicians of four generations ago, the current crop won't even bother to pass a budget.

They're accountable to whatever majority, or even plurality that put them into office. Since a good half of Americans don't vote, we'd have to say it's a plurality.