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

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

The notion that rich people don't pay their "fair share...."

Government is about fairness?

Has anyone told them that?

0 Replies

@kuvasz,

Yeah, what kuvasz said.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

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

They shouldn't. Everyone should pay an equal percentage. But the rich (and large corporations) also shouldn't have access to tax loopholes that allow them to pay less than an equal share. The tax code needs to be simplified to eliminate loopholes that allow for disproportionate taxation.

If the government wants to help the needy, they should do it through programs of various types rather than through disproportionate taxation. Those programs are much easier to monitor, control and maintain than a taxation system is.

3 Replies

@rosborne979,

can't say it much better than that

0 Replies

@Linkat,

Quote:

In other words, if I use all my good hard earnings to start a business and it booms, then should I not be rewarded by it? The workers do not risk all their money to get a job. They do not risk any money to get a job.

Hogwash. I spent several years of my life and lots of money preparing (college) myself for a better 'job'. I see myself as a middle class person, the class that pays the preponderance of taxes. The class that is being squeezed out. I've made some money on real estate, homes I've lived in and then rented, but nearly all my income has been from work.

Workers get compensated for their time and labors. To me that is giving just as much as earnings for compensation.

Sure people should reap the rewards for their investments and risks and wise choices, but I have no problem expecting them to help pay for the betterment of all society. If society crumbles, will that not affect their lives also?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

More than 70%--in the 1950s, the highest nominal rate was over 90%.

Don't you mean marginal rate? That's not the average rate, just the rate on the top level.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

I can't agree with this. There is not a "flat" rate of benefit from the expenditures of the government, and that's not just "social programs." Highways help people in commerce more than they help individual comuters or vactioners--same with bridges and other civil engineering. An effective fire and police service keeps down insurance rates, which benefits businesses, small and large, more than it does individuals. There are a host of ways in which government spending helps the wealthy, helps capitalists, far more than it does the working class. You get more, you should pay more.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

You look a lot like a bloke I saw being interviewed on the Max Keiser report. Was it you? (Genuine question, I'm not trying to suggest anything)

No. There's a lot of goofy people out there.

1 Reply

@kuvasz,

Thanks!

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

Actually, the marginal tax rate is the effective rate of the last portion of taxed income. Nominal means in name only, the highest nominal tax rate is the rate before any adjustments or deductions are made. So, if your nominal tax rate is 91% on $200,000, you would pay $182,000 in taxes. But if you can reduce your taxable income through sheltered funds or accounts, and deductions for medical expense and business expenses, or other legal deductions and examptions--to $100,000 (still within the range of the highest rate in 1953), you would effectively be paying 45.5% on your gross income. And that's why i used the term nominal.

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

Right now the top two percent have roughly half the total wealth in this nation and in my opinion this is approaching the point where the society will become so unstable that every one will suffer including the top two percents

Oh as far as morals is concern the super rich have the rules/laws change in their favor during every session of congress with an army of lobbies so they earn it and they keep it argument get a little old.

GE have 15 billions dollars of profits in 2010 and not only pay zero taxes but was given over 2 billions more from the public treasury

If you wish to see us go the way or the Rome Republic or have an re-enactment of the French revolution we only need to keep going down the road we are on.

2 Replies

Clicking here will take you to the Wikipedia entry on marginal tax rates.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

I can't agree with this. There is not a "flat" rate of benefit from the expenditures of the government, and that's not just "social programs." Highways help people in commerce more than they help individual comuters or vactioners--same with bridges and other civil engineering. An effective fire and police service keeps down insurance rates, which benefits businesses, small and large, more than it does individuals. There are a host of ways in which government spending helps the wealthy, helps capitalists, far more than it does the working class. You get more, you should pay more.

That's what I was trying to say. Exactly.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Right now the top two percent have roughly half the total wealth in this nation and in my opinion this is approaching the point where the society will become so unstable that every one will suffer including the top two percents

Oh as far as morals is concern the super rich have the rules/laws change in their favor during every session of congress with an army of lobbies so they earn it and they keep it argument get a little old.

GE have 15 billions dollars of profits in 2010 and not only pay zero taxes but was given over 2 billions more from the public treasury

If you wish to see us go the way or the Rome Republic or have an re-enactment of the French revolution we only need to keep going down the road we are on.

No argument from me. I call it killing the golden goose.

What's sad is that they have the 'Tea Party' folks convinced that this less government idea is the right way to go.

I call it chaos, or anarchy.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

GE have 15 billions dollars of profits in 2010 and not only pay zero taxes but was given over 2 billions more from the public treasury

This exact practice is why I referred to the the earlier WSJ article as bullshit. The idea that companies pay anywhere near their effective tax rate, or indeed almost any taxes at all, is a total joke.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Regarding banking, it's part of the total cost of supporting the system that drives our country. A well funded banking system is essential and those with significant funds best reap the benefits of it, but they also pay the lowest fees.

What I think is missing from your argument though, is a connection that illustrates why this is a reason that the rich should pay more taxes.

I'm sure there are lots of lifestyle advantages to being rich, but the notion that this translates into moral justification to stick it to them through the tax code to be flimsy.

Quote:

Regarding infrastructure and related expenses, the rich gain far more proportionally than their higher usage would indicate.

Some do, some don't and they don't necessarily do so simply because they are rich, and many other demographics get more out of society than others but aren't used to justify different levels of taxation.

If your argument is really use-based then use should be targeted in the tax code and not mere socio-economic status.

Quote:

That's not bad since the rich turn around and hire the middle class then the middle class turns around and hires the poor. For the rich, taxes are a case of spend money to make money.

At least you don't want it both ways, pretending that contributions to society from the rich are not also proportionally greater than that of the poor on average.

Quote:

The rich do not benefit when their taxes go down by a few thousand dollars (that they won't notice) but the police department is cut in size, (crime directly and strongly correlates to police presence) since an uptick in crime will do more harm to their property values and way of life than will ever be made up by lower taxes. Nor do they benefit when the SEC doesn't have the resources to investigate financial fraud, both because they fall prey to the Enrons and Madoffs of the world and because they must spend more money to compete in a lawless climate.

But this is a completely false dilemma. You pose it as a choice between taxing the rich and having useful social programs but it could just as well mean not going around and bombing the world.

You can't just cherry pick spending and claim a false dilemma wherein failure to accept progressive taxation of the rich equates to acceptance of an erosion of social safety nets.

Quote:

All of these efficiency gains bestow gains to the rich far outweighing the cost in higher taxes IMO. Paying higher taxes, both in absolute terms and in percentage terms is a pretty reasonable investment to keep the good times going.

So is your moral argument essentially that it's right to compel them to pay more than you because it's for their own good? I don't want to get distracted into the minutiae of whether or not that is the case, but want to distill your ethical arguments. If that is not an accurate representation of them can you try to summarize the ethical basis for it?

3 Replies

@tsarstepan,

tsarstepan wrote:

Robert Gentel wrote:

(most of the ones cutting jobs are losing money).

That's utter hogwash.

If it is so your subsequent citation certainly does nothing to prove as much. It shows that in general profits are returning but that job growth is still lagging but does nothing at all to repudiate the notion that when companies cut jobs they are generally doing so because of losses (or to avoid them) rather than "obscene profits".

And the bottom line is that while it may be popular to simply characterize corporations as rich and stingy their spending tends to correlate very well with their earnings and they are comprised of the general population as well. Companies that cut jobs while enjoying "obscene profits" are truly few and far between.

But this is another class-war distraction anyway, and unless you have some ethical argument to make about the justification of progressive taxation I'd rather not get into discussing particular emotive claims about either the rich or the poor more than I have to.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Some do, some don't and they don't necessarily do so simply because they are rich, and many other demographics get more out of society than others but aren't used to justify different levels of taxation.

But, we don't tax based on wealth, we tax based on income. And it's hard to argue that those who are profiting to the point where they are considered rich aren't in fact taking more advantage of resources and infrastructure than those who are not.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Dave World,

Dave World wrote:

I wish people who spout off about this stuff would bother to actually learn something about what is really going on.

Do you have an ethical argument to make? Or just insipid ad hominems?

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

tsarstepan wrote:

The fact we are supposed to weep for them because of any extra tax burden is utterly disgusting and misplaced.

I find the populist desire to stick it to them untoward myself, but when you are done emoting about how you feel about the rich do you have an ethical argument to posit or not?

I appreciate that many people have strong feelings about class but I'd like to hold a discussion about the ethical arguments for progressive taxation and not a general place to vent one's particular worldview.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know