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

mysteryman wrote:

Tax everyone at the same rate and eliminate all of the deductions currently out there.

That would solve the problem.

Uh, no it wouldn't. Flat taxes are tremendously regressive.

Cycloptichorn

Giving tax breaks to people who don't pay taxes is ridiculous. It is redistribution of the wealth, which is anathema to the American capitalist system. All charity should be of a voluntary nature or it isn't charity at all, it is robbery at the point of a government gun, taking one man's property to benefit another man - a very immoral action.

Just for the record: do you yourself receive Medicaid, Social Security, or any form of disability payments from the government?

It's been my long experience that louder an asshole is about people 'thieving' from the government, the more likely they are to be receiving some sort of benefits themselves.

Cycloptichorn

The FairTax Plan would solve the problem.

Honestly, I am not making an economic point about it.

My position is that humans have evolved a need for the concept of personal property, and a need for personal space (of some size) and that violating it is itself objectionable, regardless of the value of the object, the effort involved in doing so etc.

It is redistribution of the wealth, which is anathema to the American capitalist system.

Isn't wealth redistribution the very essence of capitalism?

The U.S. entitlement programs, namely Social Security and Medicare, aren't just financially bankrupt, they're "morally bankrupt." They're also funded by money stolen from hard-working, responsible Americans.
That's the conclusion of Yaron Brook, the president of the Ayn Rand Institute.
The author of Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and other books, Ayn Rand is famous for espousing free markets and self-reliance. Yaron Brook, a former finance professor, shares these beliefs.
Brook believes that our society should eliminate social programs so we encourage citizens to stand up and take responsibility for themselves. He also argues that Social Security and Medicare are "theft" because the money to pay for them is stolen from those who don't believe in or need the programs.
The entitlement programs were created by elected representatives, of course--representatives who could presumably eliminate them if citizens decided they no longer wanted them. So I asked Brook whether the money to pay for the military, police, and other government programs is also stolen.
Brook said no. There is a role for government in our society, he says--protecting the people from crooks and outside attacks--so the money is being put to proper use.
But if the money for Social Security is being stolen from citizens who don't believe in it, why isn't the money to pay for the military also being stolen from pacifists who don't believe in war?
Because, says Brook, the collection and spending of the latter money is in everyone's interests and is therefore justified.

Josef cv wrote:

It is redistribution of the wealth, which is anathema to the American capitalist system.

Isn't wealth redistribution the very essence of capitalism?

One of the largest holders of the national debt happen to be the SS system and for almost all of it history it had taken in far more funds then it had given out.

The only problem with our government is it had been taken over by the wealthy almost completely and that can and must be corrected in the near future even if it mean building copies of French guillotines and placing them in front of Congress.

The government is now working great if only to the benefit of a small fraction of one percent of the nation and all that now need to be done is to redirect those efforts to benefit all of us.

There are always power struggles in any society and as long as they are kept within limits that fact is not a problem.

However, right now we had reach such an insane point that a major party is backing doing away with SS and at the same time granting even lower top taxes rates.

It is my opinion and my hope even people who had join the tea party will wake up in the near future and ask what the hell is going on.

Perry spoke of SS from the perspective of a YOUNG person
who is able to read and therefore knows that the government
has already said that SS will run out of money b4 he retires.
From the perspective of a young person, it is a Ponzi scheme
into which he is required to contribute.

Perry spoke of SS from the perspective of a YOUNG person
who is able to read and therefore knows that the government
has already said that SS will run out of money b4 he retires.
From the perspective of a young person, it is a Ponzi scheme
into which he is required to contribute.

A ponzi scheme that had taken in trillions of dollars more then it had given out in seventy years or so?

A pronzi scheme that is now owe by the government trillions of dollars?

That is a very strange pronzi scheme indeed by anyone standard.