Why do you think the rich should pay more?

[WCGreen]

What is your justification?

To me it boils down to this; the Unites States is a very wide open country that allows for the free exchange of ideas and the ability for almost anyone to take a stab at the American Dream. (Myth, I know, but hear me out.)

The flip side of this is that once you made it, you are pretty safe and you can take steps within our system of laws and regulations, to protect your wealth and also to protect your property. (Most law suits in this country are not filed by injury prone ambulance chasers but by patent attorneys trying to protect their clients' Wealth.)

So my rational is that the system is gamed to protect those who have made it. Simply put; they should pay more.

Now the flip side of that, the dark side, if you will, is that if things go in the shitter, and they could very well given the smoldering feelings of angst festering out there in the in-between land, they, meaning the wealthy, have the most to lose. Therefor, they should pay more.

Plus the fact that those in the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic scale tend to spend all that they earn so putting more money in the hands of this strata is best for those at the top as they tend to own everything anyway.

My thinking is that if they continue to not pay their fair share then the chances of their safe refuge here in the good old US of A could very well be put in jeopardy.

So what is your justification.

[stray cat]

1. Why do people deserve other peoples money? Will you pay for my vacation?

How many DUers would gladly give 50% of their income to help Haitians?

[WinkyDink]

19. If I were a BILLIONAIRE, I'd give more than that. Don't project your own avarice on others.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

42. Unlike you, I don't want to live in a "Mad Max" world.

You think you'll get to be a Marauder and there won't be a Mel Gibson to give you your comeuppance.

[Bill McBlueState]

48. i think it's good advice

for all of us to keep an eye out for Mel Gibson.

Scary dude.

[bullwinkle428]

45. Wow, you never would have survived during the Eisenhower era.

91% top marginal tax rate and all.

[Igel]

52. The same way I can get downtown in 20 minutes.

Even with the 60 mph top speed limit and all.

Somebody once--wrongly, I strongly suspect--pointed out that often the US and Mexican legal system work out the same. In the US, you get busted and shown leniency at trial; in Mexico, you get no leniency at trial but there are ways to secure leniency before trial, through bribes and family connections.

Similarly, you can have a 91% top marginal tax rate and lots of ways employed to reduce tax liability or you can have a much lower tax rate and find that people employ far fewer ways to reduce tax liability.

Take my family. We're not taxed at the top rate. We don't fall into the AMT bracket, either. Yet we pay far less in income taxes than you'd think given the marginal tax rates. We have personal deduction, child credit, last year had education credit. You can't just cite marginal tax rates without understanding the context that they're applied in.

This means it's usually okay to talk about current marginal tax rates because we know the context. We have a good idea about how much in income tax each decile of the population pays, what the deductions are, who benefits and who loses from the federal use of tax code to manipulate private behavior, what the income distribution is like at the present. Very few of us have a good working knowlege of any of this for the 1950s--even those who were in their 30s at the time and did have a good working knowledge have probably mostly forgotten.

[TalkingDog]

56. It's not "your" money unless you earned it with your own labor.

[socialist_n_TN]

74. BINGO! The rich should pay more because .........

most of their money was NOT earned by their own labor.

[blindpig]

85. Say it again. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

68. we do not live in isolated bubbles

'your money' is, first of all, an invention of government that has value if and only if there is a functioning government, a robust economy, and a stabile social system within which 'your money' can be put to use.

You pay your taxes not to pay for my vacation, but so that we can all live in a world in which vacations are possible.

Did you lose your way?

[Bluenorthwest]

70. A Democrat I know has actually been living there

and spending more money than I have ever made. So actual time as well as more money than I can imagine, really. He is a liberal, of course, a Kunicich sort of Democrat.

[EstimatedProphet]

77. Is that really what you think taxes are, shithead?

Taxes are to pay for what society provides citizens through government. Rich people use a hell of a lot more of government. They should therefore pay for it. Welfare queens like you want to get everyone to pay your way though life with their taxes.

[Hannah Bell]

79. um, everytime the government taxes it takes "other people's money".

and everytime it spends it gives "other people's money" to different people.

what we're quibbling about now is who'll pay what & who'll get what.

i'd warrant there's not a single american who doesn't support the principle of taking "other people's money" -- it's just who gets taken from, who gets given to, & how much they dispute.

[jtuck004]

93. +1

[ZombieHorde]

82. No one deserves anything. "Deserve" is a phantom. The questions should be,

what will create the most happiness, and what will alleviate the most suffering, and can we do these things without endangering others?

Taking 50% of the average DUers income would endanger that DUer, but taking 90% of a billionaire's income would not endanger the billionaire.

[blindpig]

84. First of all.....

it's not their money, it is the labor they have expropriated from workers.

Fuck the rich, they need be relieved of the means of production and then we won't have to bother with this argument.

[gateley]

2. I don't. I just don't think they should be able to take advantage of loopholes that

allow them to pay LESS.

[stray cat]

5. That's why I hope they come up with a flat tax percentage with absolutely no deductions

[gateley]

12. That always seems to make sense to me, but people who understand economics

tend to say it wouldn't work. :shrug:

[Kweli4Real]

69. It depends on what you consider works ...

If you mean exclusively that a flat-tax system would raise sufficient money to fund governmental programs and services ... then yes, a flat-tax system would certainly work.

But taxation schemes are for more than just fund raising; it is to encourage activities like charitiable giving, purchasing of Municipal Bonds, businesses investing in research. On the other hand, it intends to discourage certain behaviors, like smoking. The system is also designed as a values statement for our society, indicating that the wealthy have an obligation to provide for the less fortunate. This obligation is found in both the concept of the noblesse oblige, and the realization that the wealthy use and depend on our system of government far more than the less wealthy.

[WinkyDink]

23. Let's do the math, shall we? Would you rather live weekly on 90% of $100 or 90% of $1,000?

STRICT PERCENTAGE IS EXTREMELY INEQUITABLE IN REAL-LIFE EXISTENCE.

[WCGreen]

47. Exactly....

[TBF]

59. Of course you do. All libertarians hope for that. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

86. why would a right wing libertarian be posting on DU?

[TalkingDog]

87. There are left wing libertarians. I fall into that category

I'm in the very good company of the Dali Lama and Nelson Mandela.

The word libertarian has been sullied by idjits the same way the word conservative has.

I'm all for conserving resources, land, a balanced budget, human rights. In those instances, I am a conservative. And most likely so are you.


don't let labels trip you up.

[Warren Stupidity]

88. That is why I said 'right wing libertarian',

or as my hero Emma G. would have called them, 'individualist anarchists'.

[TalkingDog]

94. ah... I mistook your question..... n/t

[WCGreen]

6. The loop holes are designed to nudge certain economic behavior

that the congress believes is in the best interest of the overall economy.

I would love to get rid of loop holes and let the economy work it's own magic.

[Lucinda]

54. x2

[Sherman A1]

3. Things work better when they do

When the tax rates were much higher on the upper income folks the economy was better, the middle class prospered and it appears that the wealthy still did just fine. It worked so why not return to that model?

[WCGreen]

11. Good point....

[craigmatic]

4. It's very simple- they've got the majority of the wealth in this country as

as result of trickle down economics for the last 30 years. Tax rates were higher under presidents FDR-Carter and the economy was good for most of those years as opposed to the bbom and bust cycle we've been on for the last 30. Raising taxes on the rich is a way of paying down our debt and deficit.

[Spoonman]

41. It is simple, but you missed the simplest point

STOP OVER SPENDING is how you reduce the deficit!

[socialist_n_TN]

76. There's a limit to how much you can cut...........

and still have a viable social safety net. Or do you not believe in that safety net? If not, I hear that Somolia is a libertarian paradise!

[Auggie]

7. "Once you made it, you are pretty safe"... how much do we spend

on National Defense to ensure that safety -- that freedom?

That's why the rich should pay more.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. Citizens should repay in proportion to the benefit they gain from living ...

in a free society. The wealthy benefit enormously, the poor,not so much.

[WCGreen]

13. Basically what I said....

[blueamy66]

9. Because they have more and won't miss a penny

That is all.

[pacalo]

10. They should pay their "fair share", which should be relative to the percentage paid

by the average tax payers.

[RegieRocker]

17. Yes and no loop holes...(IRS)

[pacalo]

24. Absolutely. With loopholes & countless tax-deduction creativity, where's the

sacrifice? If a person makes more, they should pay more. The poorer people shouldn't be the only ones who know the meaning of sacrifice.

[aquart]

33. "Relative" ? If I pay 10%, billionaire pays 10%?

Define "relative" because that term is meaningless.

[pacalo]

53. As in comparable.

If a middle-class worker were paying 30% of his/her salary for taxes, while a multi-millionaire pays 15% of his/her salary for taxes, the middle class worker is sacrificing more take-home income than the multi-millionaire.

[haele]

49. The more I have in my bank account, the more resouces I use from the local government -

regulatory resources to protect "my money", my purchases, my sales; educational resources, more medical resources, roads (I can now go more places) and recreational resources, better and fresher food, more local infrastructure than when I was poorer, more water for my big assed lawn or garden, more power for my home, more oil for my cars - all of which have some sort of regulation or local infrastructure and "spread the costs" activities that need to be provided to ensure that I get what I pay for and can afford the costs.
If we were down to "government drowned in a bathtub" level of infrastructure,unless I was in the top 1%, I'd be dirt poor because 1) there's no frontier left for me to homestead on, and 2) Everything that is "comfortable" in my life would end up being way too expensive for me to, say, ensure that the $100 black market 5 lb bag of milled grain I just bought was actually 5 lbs of grain instead of 2.5 lbs of grain and 2.5 lbs of powdered concrete.

I don't think I'd like living in Pinochet's Argentina, Papa Doc's Haiti, or modern Somalia, where the wealthy 1% become Warlords, and everyone else fights to stay on their good side.

That's why I pay taxes.

Haele

[pacalo]

57. Why don't the ones who make the laws understand that?

Beatifully said, Haeole.

:hi:

[Common Sense Party]

65. Umm...

Pinochet's Argentina didn't exist.

Try next door.

[WCGreen]

66. Great point....

[bemildred]

14. Patriotism? A desire to serve the common interest? Loyalty to the society they belong to? Gratitude?

[riderinthestorm]

62. Because it's the right thing to do? Because a healthy middle class actually benefits them too?

I like how you think mildred. I looked through all the responses but you nailed my feelings the most precisely.

The selfishness and unkindness and heartlessness of the wealthy in the past few decades (since Reagonomics??) is pretty staggering. I know we have had our gilded ages in the past but in theory at least, the notion that a healthy middle class is imperative for a vibrant culture and country has definitely been acknowledged by most economists. You'd think the rich would understand it's in their own best interests as well to foster that.

And from there you can understand the concept of "doing for the least of us"... by taking care of the poor, and the manifest benefits that flow therein.

The income disparity in this nation right now is toxic to a vibrant USA.

[AlabamaLibrul]

15. Paying salaries, obviously, since they own the government n/t

[WinkyDink]

16. Because they pay MUCH LESS of a percentage of income to SOCIAL---as in, SOCIETY---Security, for

starters.

Because non-productive interest is taxed at a much lower rate than income from the sweat of one's brow.

[angstlessk]

18. ARE YOU PEOPLE INSANE? The old tax rates had loopholes that included

INVESTING IN AMERICA..I say tax the hell out of the rich..BUT give them credits for hiring AMERICAN workers in AMERICAN jobs...hell, if they can get their taxes down to zero by creating jobs and hiring Americans in America...GOOD FOR THEM!

[RegieRocker]

22. We want to invest in ourselves! We don't want to have to

wait for someone to invest in us hoping that they will while we go hungry and money less. We want to create our own businesses and take control of our own destiny. Now who is insane?

[angstlessk]

25. use the tax code to entice those WITH money to invest in America..it worked for years

Why would you or anyone starve if the rich were forced to CREATE JOBS IN AMERICA...as opposed to CHINA?

[RegieRocker]

27. Wouldn't it be better if

the middle class could benefit to create jobs with small to medium size businesses preferably manufacturing?

[angstlessk]

31. SURE...but how to entice ANY BUSINESS to create jobs in America as opposed

to Mexico...China or India???? TAX BREAKS ..THAT'S HOW!

What Obama did was criminal..tax breaks for the rich..with NO STRINGS ATTACHED...grrrr

[Kalun D]

20. Look at it like this

A rich person owns a factory with 100 workers.

The rich person and the workers split the net profits about 50/50. So the rich person makes 100 times the individual worker. (this is just a generic number)

Now look at the tax funded roads that all those 100 workers have to drive to work on. The rich person profits from all 100 workers driving to work on those roads, the individual only profits for himself, so the rich person benefited 100 times more than the individual worker from the tax funded roads.

[Kennah]

21. Simply put ...

... the rich should pay more because they use more of the commons.

[msongs]

26. because wealthy people benefit more since laws make it possible for them to make more n keep it lol

[Digit]

28. Because saying the rich create jobs is bull

Why can't you give the tax cuts to the ones actually CREATING American jobs and instead of tax cuts to EVERYONE in the upper echelon?
Trickle down doesn't work...never did...never will.

And while we are at it, social security tax should be paid by those making over 75K.

Throw us a bone you tightwads.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. I think anyone who voted for Bush or supported the Iraq Invasion should pay more.

Talk about a waste of money.

[Warpy]

30. Oh, as the disaster of Reaganomics continues to unfold, they WILL pay more

Whether it's for increased taxes to restart the economic money pump or it's in salaries to private armies to protect them from increasingly restive people who used to have values as workers, that's largely up to them right now.

If they resist doing the right thing long enough, I await the tumbrils. I have my knitting at the ready.

[Skink]

32. Poor people with only saving accounts don't even get interest anymore.

the cost of living continues to rise to where the poor person pays every cent just to get by. If government collects more from the rich they could invest in more infrastructure projects that would employ people and those are jobs that pay good wages.

[notesdev]

34. Because the only way to get rich these days

is to be a thief

[Obamanaut]

96. Confirms my suspicions. About half of congress members are

millionaires, and not all of them are Republicans.

Now we know.

[underpants]

35. Beacaue the original thing was set up only to have the top 1-4% to pay ALL income taxes

passed and signed under Taft

Since then there has been a coordinated effort to make you and me pay part of there share.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x535914
worth the watch

[L. Coyote]

36. Why do you think the rich should keep paying less? What is your justification?

Because Bush let them slack off?

[theophilus]

37. Noblesse oblige. With privilege comes responsibility. People have

believed that for a long, long time. It was probably begun by the survivors of a rich family. The rest of their kin had been roasted and eaten by the starving peasantry when those rich folks wouldn't lift a hand to help them in their hour of need.

If you had a neighbor who had so much food that much of it was rotting and you and your family were slowly starving, because of things that neighbor had done, would you just give him a thumbs up and a smile and say "Way to go Mr. Moneybags"? We should all be interested in helping those who don't have enough. In America we should encourage all to have Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

The rich should give til it hurts or, history tells us, the destitute will hurt them til they give. Their choice.

[Skink]

38. Poor people don't really have enough to sustain roads etc.

[theophilus]

39. We ALL benefit from those things and the rich benefit the most.

Mr. Giant Corp will make even more money if the roads are good, if the people don't have to be bankrupted if they get sick, if the people have extra money to buy his goods or services, etc. It's a win/win for Mr. Giant Corp unless he allows the government and its services to collapse. We're all, believe it or not, in the same boat.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. Because if person A earns $25,000 and person B earns $25,000,000...

...taxing X% hurts person A much more than it hurts person B.

Simple, no?

[kentuck]

43. At one time, they needed America and its consumers..

They don't need America anymore and have less and less enthusiasm about paying taxes in our country. They have gone multinational.

[Skink]

44. Eventually they will outsource to America.

[kentuck]

46. It may sooner than we think?

When the wages in India and Indonesia are too high, they can move to low-wage America.

[lonestarnot]

50. 1% in a country should not control 55 percent of the country's wealth.

[WCGreen]

63. We are approaching France pre Revolution disparity...

the only thing different is access to food and entertainment...

Curiously, the refusal of French farmers to plant Potatoes and rely heavily on grains exacerbated the conditions leading up to the revolution.

What, I wonder, will be the our potato moment?

[B Calm]

64. Back when the working poor got the guillotine out. . . I see that happening again!

[WCGreen]

51. What a great discussion.

[kentuck]

60. Wealth should not be measured in quantity...

It should be measured in quality.

Most people work harder to make $25,000 per year than do some at making $250,000.

We like for both of those pay grades to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

But, we must understand, that it is, a lot of time, the labor of that person making $25,000 per year that is making it possible for the other person to make $250,000 per year. How do we measure wealth and what is the fair tax to pay to make everyone's lives better, the rich and the poor?

[TwilightGardener]

55. To whom much is given, much is expected in return.

[kentuck]

58. delete..

wrong placement

[EstimatedProphet]

61. Because they have more

Don't look to drill for water in the desert.

[lukasahero]

67. "To whom much is given, much is expected"

I don't think I ever realized this quote came from the bible, but it makes sense that I would hold it dear since I grew up in a very liberal New England church. My town/classmates/etc were middle/upper-middle class and I was certainly raised to understand the privilege that bought us - and more importantly to share our gifts and care for those who had less.

I'm not sure that's enough "justification" for anybody - and it doesn't have to be - it's how I choose to live my life - yours is your own to live.

[Ilsa]

71. BECAUSE THEY USE MORE OF THE COMMONS.

This is the most fair reason I see for them paying more.

In order to achieve their wealth, they had to take advantage of a system that:

1) Provides basic education and social training to a population that becomes their employees. That is done primarily through public school systems including state colleges and universities. Schools train their employees how to read, count, follow rules, etc, even on a basic level.

2) They have more assets, and more diverse assets to protect via public systems and regulations.
A. they have more physical assets to be protected by fire, police, and military.
B. They have more financial assets that are protected by laws and regulations and regulators within the banking system, SEC, etc.
C. We have a court system in which their are likely to litigate their contractual disputes. I seriously doubt the "court fees" cover that huge expense, including the real cost to employers (especially small business employers) in losing employees to serve on juries.

Please feel free to add to this list.

[Nikia]

72. As a whole, the rich are doing much better, while everyone else is doing worse

They can afford to be taxed more while poorer people cannot. Years of this trickle down experiment has proven that it does not work. Since the ideals of Reganomics have failed, the only way to save our economy as a whole and the reputation of America being a good place for most people to live is to force the rich to give more of their money to finance the public good.

[Overseas]

73. Yeah, golly. Bill Gates and I have an average income in the billions!

We are rich!

[Codeine]

75. Because that's where the money is?

:shrug:

[PhillySane]

78. The current tax deal raises taxes on the poor

Why should they pay more?

[ecstatic]

81. Stop repeating that lie nt

[PhillySane]

83. About $210 more

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/17/pf/taxes/tax_cut_deal_janpaychecks/index.htm

[ecstatic]

80. Because the country is in a bad financial state

But even when we're in a good state, giving them cuts is a bad idea. Best to just keep them at the pre-Bush rates.

I do not like the compromise, but I do not want MY taxes going up next year either because I'll need every penny I can get. Hopefully at some point both dems and reps will be able to say "no" to those making 500k/yr and up... until then, I shouldn't have to suffer.

[mwooldri]

89. Because right now they are not paying their share percentagewise.

Taking ALL taxes into consideration, there are some people on Social Security and not subject to Income taxes who pay more than multimillionaires percentagewise in relation to their income.

This includes things like sales tax, gas tax, property taxes, etc.

Warren Buffett even said so himself when comparing himself and his "secretary".

I say pay according to your means. I'm no "Fair Tax" supporter, but would like to see a fairer and simpler tax system in place.

[devilgrrl]

90. Easy answer. The rich got a lot of help getting rich - pay up bitches.

eom

[Skidmore]

91. The wealth is not clear and free.

Amassing and retaining wealth is based upon consuming the resources of the community and nation, in physical goods, labor, and infrastructure used to manufacture or provide services. To me this social contract allowing people to gain financial success must contain a component that there are returns to the community from which the wealth is drawn.

[the redcoat]

92. My reason is because of exponential growth

The insanely rich (so not all) have so much money that they're not able to spend it all. They get to a point where they buy investments and just sit back, and from this and interest, their wealth increases exponentially. Even if it's not literally exponential, it still gets to a point where wealth grows just because it's so large, so they essentially get to a point where they money without doing anything.

So, they should pay more in taxes because their worth increases at a faster rate than the middle and poor. I'm not talking about actual worth, I'm talking about comparing the rate of growth.

[Evoman]

95. Because people like me will kill them and take it anyways if the country falls apart.

It's in their best interest to keep people happy and satisfied and society running smoothly. But they never learn. They never study history.

[B Calm]

97. Very good point! The rich have been riding on the back of a tiger

now for over 30 years and now that tiger is getting very damn hungry!! I see interesting days ahead if the rich continue down this path of screwing us over!!!

[lunatica]

98. If you dig deap enough you'll find a lot of people are poor because the rich are rich

When people are rich because they profit from war it means a lot of people have been killed. That's just one example.