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

Because we should look at who benefits from our society and to what extent that is changing and in what direction.
Since the rich are better off than the rest of us PROPORTIONATELY since their taxes (including tax loopholes) were gradually dropped starting in 1979 and since the real wealth gap has steadily increased in their favor, you cannot argue that their benefits from our society have not been more than generous.

If they have benefitted PROPOTIONATELY more than the rest of us, they should be made to pay taxes proportionately more than the rest of us to reflect the fact that our society benefits them a lot more than it does us. What is unfair about that?

 

There's no limiting factor. What's "fair"? What's "proportional"? Evidently, it's whatever you say it is, and that rate can change whenever you see fit, for whatever reason.

In truth there's only two "fair" tax rates on income: Flat, or none.

If it's flat, then everyone feels the hit when taxes are raised, and everyone feels the lift when they're dropped. Everyone has skin in the game.

If there's none, YAY! No more Fed looking into my wallet and asking what I'm spending my money on each year or what people pay me. Why this doesn't constitute a right to privacy, I have no clue, but the itemization of my porn is always embarrassing.

 

I can't give you a good reason, most particularly during an economic downturn such as the one we are experiencing now, but I can give you an excuse: to pay for the Left's socialist agenda and policies.

The practical problem, as we have learned from past and present experience, is that the rich don't have enough money to pay for the Left's failed socio-economic schemes, so the cost of our cratering economy will inevitably be borne by the middle class.

Oh, and here's the other excuse:

Blind idiot hatred.
.

 

Cause it reduces income inequality.

/thread

 

The government ran up the debt, obama ran up more than any other president in history. The government is the leech of humanity. The founders knew that and left europe to escape tyrannical governments, Now we have one here, the founders are turning over in their graves as the constitution is used for toilet paper by liberals.

 

where in the constitution is "social justice" called for? where does it give the govt the authority to mandate how much anyone can earn? You don't want freeedom, you want socialism.

 

He wants serfdom.

 

Where in the constitution does it say fake money can accumulate wealth? And this wealth is being more and more concentrated to the top.
Get rid of fake money and the manipulation of fake money or deal with the social (in)justice caused by such manipulation.

Folks must eat and try to stay warm. If a group takes the means (fake money) away from them, they will resort to any means to stay alive.

 

I find this a very useful and pragmatic way of looking at taxation. Mostly because, if you're not eating Filet of Komodo Dragon every other week, there is no way in hell that the percentage that the rich pay to survive even comes close to what the poor pay (mostly because you can expect the poor to spend almost all of their income on necessities). Although changing that difference would probably take us closer to Truman-era tax brackets...

Right. It costs the same money to police a run-down, tiny hovel as it does to police a gigantic mansion estate, and both are equal targets for thieves.

So... Paris Hilton provides hundreds of times more to society than the average assembly line worker?

Because without government, there is nobody to enforce anyone's rights.

 

They use no more services than I do. Why should they pay more for the SAME services just because they have more money?

If a rich person gets a service anywhere else (let's say McDonalds, for some reason), should he be charged a higher price than I am, even through the product is exactly the same. McDonalds may be a bad example, but any other service in life does NOT take into account my wages. If it DID, there would be a court case about being unfair...


I'm sure someone will cite apples and oranges.


Perhaps people with children [including me] should pay more taxes because we use more resources [education, waste, it goes on] whereas single people use much less.

 

What exactly do you mean by "enforce anyone's rights"? To what specific activities are you referring.

 

What right do you think you have? How did you achieve that right? How do you get to keep it?

 

You said, "Because without government, there is nobody to enforce anyone's rights." I don't understand what exactly you mean by "enforce anyone's rights."

You seem to be saying that there is some activity (or activities) that can only be performed by a government that imposes taxes. I am just asking you for details about exactly what these activities are.

 

One of the purpose of reducing income inequality is building a strong middle class. If rich aren't taxed more, there will only be two classes: super rich and pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) poor. I don't think the constitution is relevant.

 

yes, people need to eat an stay warm. what does that have to do with your claim of the rich getting that way due to "fake money" ?

Where do you get your talking points? Seriously.

 

how much is enough? the bottom 50% pays nothing, the top 2% pays 70%. how much more tax inequality do you want? why should half of the population pay zero income tax?

 

Sorry, I butted in. I didn't say the gov't enforcing thing, so I can't say what Stag meant. But I agree with her/him.
Without gov't enforcing the laws that give us our rights, IMO, you have no rights except for what you can defend all by yourself or some small group.

 

My point is sorta what 3link is saying. If people are hungry and living in the streets, you will have riots on your hands. So allowing the wealth to continue its upward climb and the poor to become a greater and greater amount of the population and even poorer and hungrier, there will be rioting in the streets.

Or a revolution if the people get ticked off enough like they did in the 1700s.

 

Except your statistic is completely wrong.

 

Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2010
Total Net Worth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.5%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.2%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.6%
2004 34.3% 50.3% 15.3%
2007 34.6% 50.5% 15.0%
2010 35.4% 53.5% 11.1%

Financial (Non-Home) Wealth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.7%
2004 42.2% 50.3% 7.5%
2007 42.7% 50.3% 7.0%
2010 42.1% 53.5% 4.7%
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Don't know what the balance is. Why is it almost 50% pay nothing, which is a lie, but for arguments sake as I assume you are referring only to Fed income tax, not including state, city, local, sales, payroll, or a host of many other taxes imposed on every citizen. And part of the 50% are retirees, students, lazy drones, low paid workers with kids, underemployed, unemployed.

But as you can see, for the last 30 yrs the bottom 80% have lost wealth, lower overall living standards, less income, more unemployment. They just don't have the same means to pay as they did 30yrs ago.

 

^ Treasury Department says otherwise.

Your figure is only measuring share of wealth, not its absolute value. C'mon, the size of our economy has tripled since 1980, but our population has only increased by less than a third.

The rich have only marginally increased their share of wealth by 2%, which must mean that everyone is richer, and as the study shows, they are.

 

Skills in this day and age that pay well, simply means that you have the ability to convince people who do the actual work that creates wealth they prosper from, and that that actual work has no value.

 

The key word in his statement was "taxable" income. Buffet wants to continue to pour money into his foundations as charitable write-offs.

 

Your report ends in 07. Before the crash. the 47% everyone throws around usually refers to 09 fed taxes paid. After the crash.

Yes, the size of the economy has tripled. Does that mean all wealth has tripled equally? How much has inflation gone up in 30 years, I would say it doubled at a minimum.

My chart showed the 1% stayed pretty much the same, but the next 19% seen their wealth increase. Share of wealth is what is important, not absolute value. A $$$$ today is not the equivalent of a $$$$$ 30yrs ago.

 

They benefit more from roads and infrastructure than regular citizens do. Most wealthy people get there wealth from stocks in companies, so if the infrastructure system can get their products to customers cheaply, they can make more profit. They also have a much larger percentage of property and wealth to protect by the military than average citizens. They also benefit a lot more from deductions than average income groups do.