Why should rich people pay a greater share of their wealth to taxes?

Because then the rich are forced to share all their earnings to those that do not earn as much money.

Do you agree with the concept of forcing people who make more money to share with those who make less?

Retribution on the bosses' driving down wages and cutting jobs, in the interest of obscene profits, for one.

Companies that can cut jobs should, there is no reason to keep a job open that is not needed and very few companies make "obscene profits" (most of the ones cutting jobs are losing money). But putting that aside, do you really think that kind of "retribution" should be codified in the tax code?

I knew my joking would probably miss the mark -

How else ya gonna get it out of them?

You remember why Willie Sutton robbed banks?

Actually, I don't think it would be good for too much wealth to be controlled by too few, which is a bit of social engineering, I admit. In any event, we don't dare take the idea to the extreme of killing the golden goose.

Um, you title says "Wealth". I am flat against confiscating wealth. I hope you meant income.

I do agree that a flat tax is the most fair tax overall. I see no reason to punish some one simply because they earn more money than me.

Some of them actually deserve it.

I don't personally think there is any moral basis for doing so in the first place.

Hey now. If we had a flat tax, I might have to start paying, too.

While I'm not big on soaking the rich, I am less than delighted to hear Warren Buffet announce that his secretary paid a higher percentage than he did. Now, Buffet wasn't gloating by any means. He was advocating a fairer tax system, but still. . . .

They want us to work for low wages. I want them to pay high taxes.

I get that basic impulse but don't begin to see why anyone could consider that fair. Most people want to be paid more, but that doesn't mean they are being paid unfairly.

No - I'm talking flat tax without loop holes that result in the wealthy getting certain write offs. There really should be very minimal things you can write off on your taxes.

That would bother me if it were true, but the notion that the rich are paying a lower percentage really isn't:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576466541882356616.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

What does 'deserve' mean? How do we define what some deserve, while others don't?

I think there are several compelling arguments, but the top two would be:

1, America is for the most part a europe-descended society, and the experiment of allowing the 'nobility' to amass unlimited wealth and power didn't end well there, in the opinion of the founders of our society. Progressive taxes help fight this phenomena of concentration of power amongst the tiny few.

2, the rich can afford to pay much higher rates without significantly damaging their lifestyle or ability to engage in society. If they aren't meaningfully harmed by the tax rates, there's no reason not to charge them, because we need the money!

If those aren't convincing or worth further discussion, I'm willing to move on to other arguments if you like.

Cycloptichorn

I'm not sure that article supports your contention, when you take SS taxes into account, and the part about corporate taxes is pure bullshit.

Cycloptichorn

I think that's a better case to make for a high (even if flat) estate tax, not progressive taxation. In any case I don't think progressive taxes affects that phenomenon much at all and the wealthy, the powerful etc will always be the few by definition.



Needing the money is a result of choices, America is one of the wealthiest nations on earth and plenty get by with a lot less. This is the majority deciding they "need" the money of those richer than them and using politics to force them to give it to them. I do not think that this is a legitimate right, to decide you "need" to support your spending by taking it away from those who are wealthier "because they can better afford it".

And funny thing is, when we talk about countries you say you don't care that other populations are more needy and that America can better afford to give them better trade relations. If you don't care on that scale why does it make moral sense to you within the microcosm of American politics?

If Cycloptichorn says it's bullshit it must be so, but in any case if it were true that the rich paid a lesser percentage I would disagree with that taxation structure as well, and I want to keep this discussion to moral justification for having progressive taxation rather than whether or not it is actually so for Warren.

We will have to agree to disagree there.