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

That doesn't answer my question but I'll humor you in case you have a point that now eludes me.

DrewDad wrote:

1. Are taxes ethical/moral?

I do not find it unethical to create a social compact that includes taxation.

...

I would not like to sign a social contract that makes me a minority stakeholder in my economic activity, I would find it unethical to compel people to live under such a social compact but do not find it inherently wrong.

That's just an abstract example, but in general my preference is to level the playing field, and just taking from the rich through taxes to do so strikes me as a crude legal instrument for the problem it purports to solve.

I would not trust Congress to come up with either, without sneaking in a significant tax increase.

Yes, some do think a tax increase while we've on the verge of the second dip of a recession would be a good thing.

I don't see any of them really intending to get by with less money to spend to forward programs that would help with their own re-election efforts.

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?

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:

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.

What I'd like to express is that what I'd most like to maximize is happiness (and thusly minimize suffering) and I wonder if there is a point at which economic productivity might be maximized while not maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering.

I'd like to clarify if you consider things such as sentimental value or purely economic value.

I am finding that my "maximizing happiness" criterion is perhaps too simplistic because I am not willing to compromise individualism to collectivism too much (perhaps because of how deeply I cherish being able to be individualistic).

I think the last line is the main qualifier for what I'm asking. Maybe this is a good question: if there were a society that had a social contract wherein any property that is not being utilized maximally can be used by those who can demonstrably show they are better able to use it.

Does that run into your libertarian streak at all? It positively rubs mine the wrong way.

I was very unclear, what I meant was if there is any kind of property redistribution other than the most obvious ones (such as violent robbery) that you disapprove of I would love to know what basis you do that on.

Would you approve, for example, of a society in which someone who demonstrates a greater ability to utilize my watch would be able to successfully prosecute a claim for it, for example?

The notion that rich people don't pay their "fair share" and that they should be taxed at higher rates than the middle-class is popular in many places. I've always ascribed this to simple populism, where the majority being non-rich simply don't mind placing a higher societal burden on a different group, but I wonder if anyone has a reasonable argument about why they deserve to pay at a higher rate that might convince me.

Here is my position: Giving tax breaks to people under the poverty line (or for other need-based reason) makes sense, but taxing people at a higher rate merely for being wealthy does not. I see no reason that the mega-rich's share of taxes is only "fair" if it's higher than that of the middle class. The richer they are the more they pay even if the rate is the same, and I find it untoward that the middle-class majority seems to think this is a fair thing to do with their policial power.