I agree with this position, and would just rephrase your first sentence to clarify that it is more than “government programs” that allow the wealthy to benefit from being part of our society (as is clearer in your second sentence). A poor, yet reasonably viable, analogy in support of progressive taxation is that one pays more for seats on the fifty yard line than the obstructed view seating in the upper deck.
Either we’re an interconnected American society or we are not. Are the wealthy Americans? Do they want to continue to be?
The kicker is that empirically, things work out better for everyone under Democratic administrations (except for the extremely wealthy, who do about the same regardless). So any kvetching about sacrificing for the greater good when voting Democratic, while well-intended, is in reality unjustified.
Did you read any of my other posts? Did you see that I donate a lot of time and money to my local community? Do I sound like some sort of robber-baron who twirls his evil mustache while I count my money and make fun of the poor?
My point is that the tax increase that everyone seems to be in favor of, stands to hurt the very people who are benefiting today. Yet that point is falling upon deaf ears. If I have less cash on the books at the end of the day, that is less cash than I am willing to donate freely, in turn, unnecessarily punishing those who benefit directly from my actions.
Adding to that, less money offers me less opportunity to expand my business to employ another person or two. What is a bigger gain to the .gov revenues, me paying an additional 3% of my $250k or me hiring another couple of consultants earning $100k annual?
Agree, if you pay a lot of taxes, you must be doing something right.
If you are speaking of my comments as “moaning” I can assure you that I am no where near wealthy, nor am I moaning. It is difficult to engage in a debate where the other side reduces one’s statements to “moaning” don’t you think?
To paraphrase Chris Rock - Shaquille Oneil is rich. The guy that pays Shaq’s salary is wealthy.
WTF? So now my americanism is being questioned, because I think I can spend my money in my community to help my neighbors better than Obama? I still just shake my head as I read these comments from folks who know that they know better than I as to how my money should be allocated.
Who do you folks think own small businesses anyway?
I’m not feeling too sorry for him. I heard that he’s a regular on the right-wing talk radio shows and I don’t like his politics OR his Sammy Davis, Jr. comment. While he might represent John Q. Ohio Bluecollar, I do not believe he’s representative of the majority of small businessmen (a group he’s not a member of) or the country, in general. He’s none too bright, opening himself up to the scrutiny he’s under for tax issues, licensing issues, and the like.
There’s just no good evidence to support the idea that a tax increase, particularly a meager one like the Obama’s, will be harmful to the overall economy, regardless of your anecdotal suggestion that you might donate less. In fact, the opposite is true.
Thinking further about it, if more people have a little more money, donees are less reliant on one person’s generous decision making, aren’t they?
Because you are in no position whatsoever to know what collective solutions are required for your society as a whole or choose between them. Neither, I hazard, do you or the people you say you contribute charity towards, know what is best for your ‘neighbours’ either.
No I don’t. If you wish to debate, you might do well to be less thin-skinned. Feel free to substitute complaining, bitching, objecting, or whatever word you wish for my chosen “moan” in what was a relatively quickly drafted message board post - not a thesis for the ages.
My cynicism towards the excessive taxation “complaints/objections” (what word do you prefer/suggest?) comes in part from my current residence in a town where there are a good number of people definitely living large (although recent developments are revealing that some with the largest lifestyles were apparently living beyond their means.) I have had many occasions on which I heard my neighbors, living in million $+ homes, sending their kids to private colleges, driving their BMWs and Mercedes, complaining about their horrendous tax burden. And to be honest, I’m not at all sympathetic towards their perceived plight.
Certainly it’s a bigger gain to revenue if you hire two consultants for an outlay of 200k a year. However, you won’t pay an additional 3% of your 250k–the tax rate reverts back to the 3% higher it was for people ABOVE 250k. And I’m sure you understand about tax brackets. Even, if, let’s say you make 300k so that we can get some of your income taxes at the higher rate: that’s $1500 more per year. I doubt that saving that $1500 would tip you over to hiring $200k of employees. The tax increase seems very slight, unless you truly are very wealthy.
You may be the exception to this rule. Typically trickle down economics trickle into the pockets of those who already have enough. For instance the obscene perks and bonuses paid to CEOs and other corporate elite. I’m not convinced that there is much “trickling” down in most cases
Offering those with less financial means a tax brake so they can put food on the table 30 out of 30 days each month seems like a better plan to me.
Well, your tax rates were pretty damn favorable under Reagan and Bush II, were they not? Care to look at the evidence demonstrating how well you did in resolving poverty through your charitable giving during those periods of time? I suspect you already know what it will show.
That’s the purpose of taxes…to share the wealth. Not sure why everyone’s panties are in a bunch over what amounts to a less-than-optimal choice of words.
I like to think that taxes should be spent to keep roads paved, bridges standing upright, and the government as a whole running. Once taxes become some sort of a transfer payment from one to another, ie. sharing the wealth, the panties get bunched.
Although it was you who brought up the war on poverty, I applaud you for your efforts to feed the hungry. So, is anyone still going hungry? We can see if we can find statistics about the less fortunate having food during the Reagan, Clinton and Bush II eras (or more generally during periods of regressive versus progressive tax rates).
