Why should the rich pay more taxes?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

Have you ever found yourself trying to defend the idea that they should, but fumbling for the talking points? I think this is a great resource:

For more than a century it's been generally recognized that the best taxes (admittedly this is an expression reminiscent of "the most pleasant death" or "the funniest Family Circus cartoon&quot are progressive-- that is, proportionate to income.

Lately, however, it's become fashionable to question this. Various Republican leaders have trotted out the idea of a flat tax, meaning a fixed percentage of income tax levied on everyone. And in their hearts they may be anxious to emulate Maggie Thatcher's poll tax-- a single amount that everyone must pay.

Isn't that more fair? Shouldn't everyone pay the same amount?

In a word-- no. It's not more fair; it's appallingly unfair. Why? The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government.

Consider defense, for example, which makes up 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it.

http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htm

And here, John McCain defends redistribution:

Finally, good ole Stephen Colbert decimates the Ownership Society/Trickle Down ruse. See the video and discussion at the Daily Kos here.

[Live and Learn]

1. Exactly. He who benefits the most should pay the most.

The 1% should remember that the economy really is based on a social contract and that we can revoke that contract at any time. I like to imagine us declaring greenbacks worthless and returning to shells or stones as us currency.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

3. Keep that under your hat. If word gets out they'll strip the beaches and quarries in a flash.

When president Obama tried to make your point, they took his words out of context and we got the whole "We did too build that" tantrum from the right. But I don't think he should give up on it. I think all of us need to push that point every chance we get.

We need to redefine patriotism from chanting USA, USA, to living in a way the benefits the nation as a whole. I can't find the words to express how vital I believe it is to separate nationalism from patriotism and encourage widespread patriotism. We need to take back the American flag from the right wing fascists.

[TracyP]

37. fgfhghgf

um, I don't get it. He who benefits the most does pay the most.

[Gregorian]

2. It's not a pay for what you use society.

I was thinking about why I should pay the amount of taxes I do considering I have no children, I barely ever drive. I use almost nothing. If I ask why I should pay for schools when I have no children, it suddenly makes a lot of sense why I should be paying. So we can have schools! And then it donned on me that it's not about what you use.

I see two ways of looking at it.:

-We're in this together. I'm helping out other people with my taxes. Not just myself.
-I never know just when I'm going to need help myself. Maybe I'll have to start using the roads for some reason. Maybe I'll get injured or sick, and need other things that taxes from other people provide.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

4. I can totally relate. We have no children and not a lot of income, so the school taxes hit us hard.

Last edited Sun Nov 11, 2012, 06:17 PM - Edit history (1)

But, as, you say, we have to remember that not only does it benefit others, it benefits us to have educated citizens. The rise of the right correlated strongly with the homeschooling and the demonetization of teachers. Ignorance hurts us all.

I was going to fix my typo, "demonetization" was supposed to be "demonization," but both are true.

[meow2u3]

16. You're absolutely right

I don't have any kids, either. Even if we ourselves have no children, the school taxes we pay benefit all children, in the form of education that will allow them to get jobs when they grow up.

Personally, I'd rather have my tax dollars go on educating kids than locking up prisoners, most of them there because of ignorance and poverty.

[Grown2Hate]

18. Another argument I love to use against that ("I don't have any kids, why am I paying for schools!?")

is, "Were YOU ever a kid? Did YOU go to school?". And then you see the wheels turning a bit.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

32. Great point. Lots of people who didn't have kids paid taxes to help fund the schools

I attended. Not sure if I'm paying it forward or back, but either way, I owe it fair and square and so I pay it.

[theKed]

26. It's worth thinking of it

like an insurance policy, too. You don't go out and shop for car insurance once your car's wrapped around a lamppost. You pay into it so that when you do, it's there for you. You may not have kids now, but when you do... (and, yes, I am equating having kids with a catastrophic accident. I think that's fair )

I'm happy to pay for "knockin' up the missus" insurance.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

33. I was a public school teacher and did enough parenting in that position that I don't think I've got

any parenting left in me! But yes, you're right about the insurance angle.

[theKed]

35. I don't mean to construe

teaching as surrogate parenting. Rather, that it's just a cost that comes up only after you have children.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

36. Teaching does involve a certain degree of surrogate parenting. The degree often having

an inverse relationship to the socioeconomic class of the school district.

[socialindependocrat]

5. Remember that for the past 30 years wealth has been redistributed upwards.

The wealthy business owners and CEOs used to pay their workers to keep up with inflatiuon

Then they decided that they just needed to pay the stockholders dividends
so they would keep investing.

and they could keep more of the money from their businesses
(because they have the power and control) so there was very little trickle left.

Yearly bonuses and increases for the middle class did not keep up with inflation so
we worked year after year for less and less money

Until we got to the point where we figured we may no be able to retire and we would
eventually, die at our desks and never retire -SO, we started to save more money
so we could retire and we didn't buy goods to support the businesses of the wealthy.

Here is the key:
Now, the wealthy have accumulated money over the past 30 years that they have invested
and from which, they collect income and will continue to do so.

What we are asking is that the wealthy business owners and CEOs start increasing wages
so that the middle class will be able to buy goods and support the businesses of the wealthy.
Some of the wealthy see the wisdom to this and say - Hey, we've had it good for quite a while.
Now we should start paying a little bit more (Right Mr. Buffet?) so our businesses don't fail and
we keep being RICH!

But, it seems that the nevou riche want more, more, more and the Repukes, who are paid/bought
by the rich and wealthy and who have signed a "pledge" with Grover won't dare to besmearch
their reputations by breaking their "pledge" even though they can lie thru their teeth during
elections and suggesting that the Dems are stealing from them when the Repukes and Lyin' Ryan
say straight out that they will take $713M out of Medicare so they can give it to the wealthy.
Duh! O.K. boss. Whatever you say.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

7. Interesting. The bit about people who can saving more because of their short wages is an aspect I'd

not heard or thought about before in exactly those terms.

I say plain old greed is the reason for the top refusing to pay their workers fairly, but, as my mom, who ran a very small business, reminds me--a business cannot survive without customers and there can be no customers if very few people have discretionary income.

So, it's short-sighted on the part of the CEOs to be as greedy as they've become. Unfortunately, many have socked away so much that even if their business fails, they'll do fine for years and years to come.

Prestige and snobbery is another aspect to this, as satirized in a piece posted by someone here earlier today: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-message-from-us-rich-plutocrats-to-all-you-little-people-2012-11#ixzz2BpSQnOzg

[socialindependocrat]

12. Yes, for some reason these people are driven

I don't know about you but if I had $20M I'd sell the business and have fun

Even just have someone else run the business and just collect money
and act as consultant every once in a while.

Clarification regarding the "saving for retirement"-
You hear a lot of people in their 50s saying that they doubt if they'll ever retire.
Most people, late in their careers do have money to spend and are not in debt
but they know they have to put more into their IRAs and investments in order
to be able to retire - even if it has to be delayed - they still want some down time
before they expire. Especially, when you're pushing 10-15 hour days because you
want to remain competitive and you don't want to lose your job.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

17. I would have cashed out at 10 million and traveled the world and done a million other things there's

little time normally.

My parents lost a lot of their retirement income during the crash a few years back. At 75, my dad continues to work, partly because he identifies with his career role, but partly because they don't want to come up short. They're doing OK financially, but they say that they have no idea how long they will live, so can't know how if the money they have will last that long.

[socialindependocrat]

24. This is the very dangerous thing about 401Ks

When businesses switched to 401K people will have a finite amount on which to retire

If you save $500K and retire, some people will live on $50K/year
That gives you 10 years. You have to guess at how long your money needs to last

Even worse:
There are people who will live on $100K/year and then go to the government and say
we are out of money what are you going to do for us.

I am writing to various people to alert them to the potential problem and see what they say.
I think it's like health care - they won't let people die but we can't support them either
especially after they blow thru their retirement money

If your dad likes his job - that's great
but there are a lot of people (IT people) who are being abused on the job
(meaning long hours and they are reclassifying their jobs to "exempt" so
they don't have to pay them overtime. These people are getting burned out
and they are afraid to retire. Look at the stress, heart problems, blood pressure
and stroke. It's going to get very scary...

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

28. My dad has diabetes and had a quadruple bypass about 5 years ago, at which time they said he could

pretty much count on another heart attack in, oh, about five years. My parents are on Medicare and a supplement program that costs a good chunk of change each month. And still a lot is not paid for. He's not employed full time. He works for FEMA on a per job basis. He's a civil engineer, so it's not bad work, but it's no cash cow. Even though he does like the job and does have that thing men of his generation have of identifying strongly with their career role, I don't think he'd be planning to continue working if he didn't feel he had to .

I can't imagine how awful it must be for people who lost their entire retirement fund through Bain-type theft. Why is a promise a promise when it comes to paying Wall Street sharks their exorbitant salaries and bonuses, but not when it comes to promise that workers would have a retirement fund.

Greed and immorality. And, here we are back to where we started, a huge chunk of the wealth of this nation stolen by the 1%. Tax the hell out of the m*therf*ckers and redistribute the wealth back where it belongs.

[Warpy]

6. Because that's where the money is

(Thank you, Willie Sutton)

For the last 32 years, they've had a tax code rigged in their favor and against the 99%. It's high time for a clawback. They didn't earn that money. They stole it.

Pointing out they use more services and rely more heavily on things like the military is only the excuse.

The basic, moral reason is that it's not their money. It's ours. It's time to STEAL IT BACK.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

9. I'm with you on this, you bank-robber quoting socialist, you. Every time, and it is increasingly

frequent now, that I hear the taxation=theft meme of the right, I become apoplectic. Then, when I finally calm down, I am reminded of how important it is for progressives to become tireless propagandists for our message. The other side has used the evil genius of Frank Luntz, top notch advertising/propaganda experts, and a shitload of money to insinuate into the populace the idea that liberal ideas are "from the pit of Hell."

They don't just do it in an election year. They do it constantly,y through all means and media. I read and article a few years ago that I've not been able to locate again online, that talked about how wealthy donors on the left are not inclined to donate to organizations to disseminate this type of broad-based, general, under the radar "liberalism is good" message. Someone needs to convince them otherwise.

Despite the recent wins, we see how spectacularly well the right has managed to demonize the very word "liberal." We need to fight fire with fire.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. What about other countries?

how do they tax the rich?

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/25/world/la-f

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/28/nick-clegg-emergency-tax-britains-weathiestg-europe-wealthy-tax-20121026

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/09/20/does_the_us_tax_its_billionaires_less_than_other_rich_countries

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

10. First link=page not found. Can you repost? Will try the others now.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

21. Try these

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/28/nick-clegg-emergency-tax-britains-weathiest

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/25/world/la-fg-europe-wealthy-tax-20121026

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

25. Thanks. Here's a really salient excerpt I'd like to highlight from that guardian.co link:

"If we want to remain cohesive and prosperous as a society, people of very considerable personal wealth have got to make a bit of an extra contribution," Clegg told the Guardian. "In addition to our standing policy on things like the mansion tax, is there a time-limited contribution you can ask in some way or another from people of considerable wealth so they feel they are making a contribution to the national effort? What we are embarked on is in some senses a longer economic war rather than a short economic battle."

Clegg indicates that the new tax would fall on wealth, rather than income, because there are no plans to change the new 45p top rate of income tax. "The action is making sure that very high asset wealth is reflected in the tax system in the way that it isn't now, making sure that we continue to crack down very hard on tax avoidance, making sure that tax breaks don't go disproportionately to people at the very top."

Our president needs to continue to speak in similar terms about American Wealth. It's kind of cool, too, when you can say you're taxing "wealth," a thing, as opposed to "the Wealthy," who are people. It's all the same to me, but I"m talking, as I am in the OP in general not about the value of the idea, which I think is solid, but of marketing to those who've become confused as to what patriotism really is.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

30. it does need to be made clear

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

11. Second link is broken as well.

[Prometheus_unbound]

13. .

Why be so apologetic about taxes?

It is our duty to perform a set of public services, including education, health-care, and support for those who can't support themselves. These things require money.
Rich people get taxed because that's where the money is. So please hand it over.
Yes, it IS a violation of property rights. A robbery, if you will. And it's perfectly justified.
The limit to taxes is not ethical, but practical. If they are easy to enforce and not too great a burden on the economy, go ahead.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

14. I don't feel the least bit apologetic. And no, taxation isn't robbery. You may find you're shopping

the wrong aisle here.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

19. Taxation is more like dues

Think of it as the dues you pay to belong to a civil society, one that provides roads and fire departments and other services; and a supply of educated employes and so on.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

23. Right. If you have the money but just don't want to pay your dues, get out of the club.

[meow2u3]

15. I posted another, more practical reason the rich should pay more

It's good for the overall economy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1792730

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

27. Thanks, that's an angle I'd never considered.

[begin_within]

20. Because they own a much bigger stake of the country.

[sorechasm]

22. They take more advantage from a successful country...

The 99% supports the 1% with many, many more advantages than other way around. Otherwise why don't they move to one of those Ayn Rand 'Utopia's that lack government services and low taxes. Because there is constant unrest, malnourished masses itching to overthrow, instability, unreliable utilities, etc. All of which are much, much more expensive to pay for individually than collectively.

Governments are generally more efficient with the use of tax money for certain services (roads, schools, military, etc.) than any individual could ever be.

The 1% knows this. They've been bluffing since Reagonomics began. They'll grumble to pay into Obamanomics, but they will pay nonetheless.

[renate]

44. I doubt that most of them have thought it through to that extent, but I agree

Especially the part about the malnourished masses itching to overthrow. Mitt and his friends don't want that.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

29. Yep. The first link I posted spells that out in detail. I feel like starting an email chain with

the ideas from that site and insist that everyone "send it to everyone in their adresss books!!!!!!!!!!" But I'd have to sensationalize it somehow, since most of the stuff that gets spread far and wide is over-the-top exaggeration and outright lies..

[Nerdette]

31. Makes perfect sense!

The rich should pay more taxes, because they have more money with which to pay them. It doesn't make sense for the less wealthy to pay them, because we're already having a hard enough time as it is.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

34. Right, but the point of my post was to provide "talking points" and background for Dems to use when

discussing the issue with people for whom, "because they have it," isn't enough. The hardcore teabaggers probably never will escape the FoxNoise bubble, but there are still people out there who can be brought over to our side, and we need as many of them as we can get!

[TracyP]

38. I am one of those people trying to figure it out.

So far I haven't heard any evidence to convince me that taxing the rich is the right thing or would even make a difference. The main problem I have here is what is being considered rich. $250k is hardly!, and if it is then that shows just how bad things have gotten. These are not the Warren Buffet types and there aren't enough Warren Buffets(unfortunately) any way. A couple making 250k after all the bills are paid can barely put money away for their retirement just like everybody else.

[hunter]

39. Um, must be a nice bubble you live in.

No, $250K is not "rich" but it's probably a pretty good place for the tax rate to start getting steeper.

The wealthy are getting wealthier and everyone else is falling behind in spite of productivity gains.

If we don't want a very small percentage of people in the USA to end up owning and controlling nearly everything (the political system included) then we must institute a steeply progressive tax rate.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

41. Aside from the fact that I'd guess most of us would say an annual income of 250K does indeed make

one "rich," I think you make good points.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

43. Number 1: did you read my link? Can you argue against any of those points?

Number 2: If you're making 250 grand and can barely put money away for retirement--tough shit. Spend less.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

40. because they have too many dressage horses

if one makes millions then one can give some away.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

42. Can one ever really have too many dressage horses?

Speaking of which, must see Colbert tv on dressage! Don't miss part 2, too.

[Norrin Radd]

45. Another talking point/visual aid:

:large

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

46. Nice. Good graphics are always a boon. I've seen some others that would be good here, but failed to

save them. I need to start bookmarking/favoriting/saving them!

[leftynyc]

47. They don't pay more

That's the point. With all the loopholes in our tax law, the wealthy wind up paying a much lower percentage of the income in taxes than the average citizen. That's what is not fair. If I'm paying 28% on a salary less than 100K, why should someone like Mitt pay 13%? I'd be perfectly fine if they kept the tax rates where they are as long as they closed every single loophole in the tax code. And raise capital gains to 30% - which really shouldn't be an afterthought - it's where the really big bucks are.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

48. They *should* pay more. That's my point. However the hell we can get it from them, I'm for it.

Preferably through non-violent means.

The greedy fuckers need to generously support the nation they claim to worship and adore which provides them with so much. And just wearing the occasional flag pin on their bespoke suit lapels and slapping a yellow ribbon magnet on the bumper of their Hummer is not enough.

[world wide wally]

49. It's a simple as this. If you are broke and in a bind like our country is now, who do you ask for...

money? Your rich uncle or the pizza delivery guy?