# Marilyn vos Savant - wealthy and taxes **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [February 28, 2014, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552 "2014-02-28T22:47:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![qazwart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5fc32e/32.png) [@qazwart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qazwart)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/61 "2014-03-05T02:40:48Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > “If this family paid a mortgage, paid taxes to the local or state government, had childcare expense, etc., their income tax would be even lower.” > IANAA, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t a given - if they claim mortgage interest deduction, they give up their standard deduction - pretty damned sure you don’t get to claim both. So the mortgage interested deduction may or may not reduce their total liability, no? No. You don’t get to claim both, but for most people, the mortgage interest deduction usually trumps the standard deduction. Imagine you bought a house about 10 years ago, 60% of your payment is going towards interest. If you’re paying $2000 per month, that’s $14,400. Plus, you get to now deduct your property taxes (say another $4000 per year). ---
**Author:** ![qazwart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5fc32e/32.png) [@qazwart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qazwart)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/62 "2014-03-05T03:15:50Z")
> [@Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](#): > > This is what I think people are getting at when they point out that “The top 3 percent of filers, those making $100,000-plus, paid 40 percent of the taxes.” Remember they are just talking about _INCOME TAX_ and not _TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES_. That’s a big difference. As I showed earlier, even a family making a fairly comfortable income can be paying a lot more in FICA than income taxes. Remember Romney’s statement that 48% of this nation are a bunch of lazy freeloaders? That’s because 48% of the people are paying no income tax, just FICA. If you include FICA, the top 3% are paying somewhere between 20% to 25% of all taxes and not 40%. Still the top 3% are paying 20% of all taxes still sounds like an unreasonable burden. Until you consider that just the top 1% is making 25% of all the income in the U.S. Puts that terrible burden of the Rich in a slightly different light. Doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![sich\_hinaufwinden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@sich\_hinaufwinden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sich_hinaufwinden)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/63 "2014-03-05T03:39:34Z")
> [@qazwart](#): > > No. You don’t get to claim both, but for most people, the mortgage interest deduction usually trumps the standard deduction. Imagine you bought a house about 10 years ago, 60% of your payment is going towards interest. If you’re paying $2000 per month, that’s $14,400. Plus, you get to now deduct your property taxes (say another $4000 per year). A family of 5 earning $67,000 a year cannot likely afford $2000 a month in principal+interest mortgage payments. Especially when you add in your proposed $4000 a year in real estate tax. Then insurance. And probably PMI if they only earn $67K. Your example doesn’t add up IMHO. They wouldn’t qualify for that kind of loan and if they did they wouldn’t have enough left over for 5 people to survive on. I’m not arguing against your general point but I think you’ve set up an unrealistic example to prove it. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/64 "2014-03-05T17:34:27Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I didn’t say the tax code should “be keeping them wealthy”. I said the tax code should not prevent them from continuing to be wealthy. That’s not the goal of the tax code. The idea that very high tax rates are disincentive is quite obvious, but taxes on the rich are _not_ high. Should the 1% really pay a lower percentage than the middle-class? Perhaps you think taxes should be raised at the middle to give even more cuts for the very rich? Have you no sense of proportion? **Voyager** gave a witty response when this right-wing confusion arose in another thread: > [@Why do lower taxes bring in more revenue?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-lower-taxes-bring-in-more-revenue/671894/33): > > See post 19. I am unaware of any liberal who says that it is never right to lower taxes. I know of some conservatives (not Reagan) who seem to think it is never right to raise them. As I said, the trick is knowing where you are on the curve. > > Since conservatives agree about the end points, but think that lowering taxes will always raise revenue, **maybe they shouldn’t call it the Laffer Curve but the Escher Curve instead.** 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/65 "2014-03-05T18:02:39Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > The idea that very high tax rates are disincentive is quite obvious, but taxes on the rich are _not_ high. Should the 1% really pay a lower percentage than the middle-class? This was posted on this thread by someone: [http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/taxmageddon.png](http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/taxmageddon.png) Shows that the “richer” you are the more percentage of your taxes you pay. ---
**Author:** ![tim-n-va](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim-n-va/32/3001_2.png) [@tim-n-va](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim-n-va)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/66 "2014-03-05T19:28:28Z")
The neat thing about taxes is that you can decide what to count and what to leave out. You can look at the marginal rates or effective rates. This shows all taxes - income, payroll, sales, property, etc. [http://ctj.org/images/taxday2012table.jpg](http://ctj.org/images/taxday2012table.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/67 "2014-03-05T19:37:56Z")
> [@tim-n-va](#): > > The neat thing about taxes is that you can decide what to count and what to leave out. If you want to talk about how to change sales, property, or other state taxes - sure, go ahead. But that is very specific to every state, so I would suggest starting 50 threads. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/68 "2014-03-05T20:35:16Z")
> [@tim-n-va](#): > > The neat thing about taxes is that you can decide what to count and what to leave out. You can look at the marginal rates or effective rates. > > This shows all taxes - income, payroll, sales, property, etc. > > [http://ctj.org/images/taxday2012table.jpg](http://ctj.org/images/taxday2012table.jpg) That chart shows that at the Federal level taxes are indeed progressive. It’s the state taxes that are regressive. I’m assuming this is largely because of sales taxes. ---
**Author:** ![sbunny8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@sbunny8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sbunny8)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/69 "2014-03-05T23:28:13Z")
Jim asked the question > [@](#): > > Following this logic, shouldn’t rich people also pay more for everything else? Why not a sliding scale for bus fare, Big Macs, movie tickets, etc.? After all, the rich can afford more. Lots of restaurants have a Senior Citizens menu with lower prices for people over 55. And movie theaters commonly give discounts to both senior citizens and college students, who tend to have less money to spend. And, where I live, people over 65 get bus passes for FREE. I’ll admit that it might makes things more complicated if we tried to haggle over every price and it’s easier to charge everyone the same price. But honestly, what’s the point of having money in the first place? It’s all about cooperation for survival. In small groups, we can remember who owes us favors and who we owe favors to. In large groups, keeping track of all that information becomes impossible, so money is a way to keep score, except favors aren’t usually transferable but money IS. But that doesn’t mean that money SHOULD be transferable. If money is just a substitute for favors, and favors expire, it’s not necessarily a good thing that money doesn’t expire. And does it really make sense for us to let someone accumulate many times more favors than any individual could possibly redeem in hundreds of lifetimes? Is it fair that you can treat people like dirt and be a jerk all the time and people are obligated to do favors for you just because somebody once gave you some money? I think it would be fair if we had a system of money which more closely resembled the way favors actually work in real life. I see no problem with giving discounts to people who have very little money. I see no problem with expecting people who have lots of money to pay most of the taxes. I see no problem with putting limits on how much of your money you can leave to your children. The problem that I **DO** see is that we seem to be stuck with the golden rule: _ **Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.** _ ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/70 "2014-03-06T03:50:44Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > It is almost impossible to tax wealth. Neither we nor any other country do it. It’s relatively easy to tax income and transactions, so those are the two areas typically taxed. Of course that’s not true. Its even possible to tax wealth held in forms other than real estate. We certainly have the ability to tax net worth over a certain amount. We do it all the time, we call it the estate tax. Now we can always in prove how we do things so we get better enforcement but its usually the people who want to get rid of the tax for poor enforcability that try to undermine the tax. > [@](#): > > The complaint of the rich, so to speak, is not so much that they pay most of the taxes (although that’s true) but that taxation is not a very productive way to generate a more wealthy society for any level–even the lower levels of socioeconomic status. It sounds like you are saying that taxation is a poor method of income redistribution. Maybe that’s right, but it works a hell of a lot better than what we had before the great society. > [@](#): > > As a rule of thumb (particularly in heterogeneous societies) high rates of business taxation have simply caused potential business to establish themselves elsewhere, or move profit centers and money elsewhere. It turns out it’s kind of tricky to just take money from other entities by legislative fiat and keep those entities within the community of recipients for the putative tax haul. This is largely due to tax competition. Tax competition between nations is just a race to the bottom. > [@](#): > > (See New York’s recent ads about not taxing new businesses in the hope that businesses will return there, for example) Tax competition between states is cannibalism. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/71 "2014-03-06T03:51:47Z")
> [@juliabliss](#): > > Did you know that tax rates on interest and investments are LOWER than tax rates on earned income. You probably meant **dividends** and investments, unless you mean municipal bond interest. > [@tim-n-va](#): > > Not exactly correct. Distributions to employees are an expense, deducted from gross income to get the business’ taxable income. I’m unsure if dividends paid are considered a deductible expense. There are very few instances where there is a dividends paid deduction. These are usually in cases where the entity is not supposed be taxed at the entity level. RICs and REITs (mutual funds and real estate investment trusts). on the other hand, these dividends are not qualified dividends and cannot take advantage of the preferential dividend rate for qualified dividends. > [@buddy431](#): > > I don’t really understand all the rules, but at least for dividends, it is very fair to claim that the money is being taxed twice (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it’s fair to say that). It really depends on how you look at things. If you recognize that corporations are separate entities then the notion of multiple layers of taxation seems a bit silly. You have to look at things from a particular point of view to say that the shareholders are subject to double taxation. You basically have to ignore corporations as entities. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/72 "2014-03-06T03:53:19Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Ok, seriously, that “90%” canard should be forbidden in any discussion about taxes. Go research what the effective tax rates were on the “rich” at the time the top tax rate was 90%. > [@Terr](#): > > What was it? Was it anywhere (and I mean _anywhere_) near 90%? It wasn’t? Then what’s the point of repeating that 90% canard? The effective tax rate on the top 0.01% was 42.9% in 1979 and 31.5% in 2005. Can we raise the effective tax rate for the top 0.01% to 43%? For the top 0.1% is was 40.7 and 32.1. Can we reverse that as well? > **[12-23-effectivetaxrates\_letter.pdf](https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/98xx/doc9884/12-23-effectivetaxrates_letter.pdf)** > > 615.43 KB Table 1 You will note that the national effective tax rate hovers around the 22% mark and yet every income category saw their effective tax rate go down (some more significantly than others) So how can everyone’s tax rate go down and yet the national rate remain steady? All the income moved upstream and precious little of it trickled down. This is what people are pissed off about. I don’t know that a more progressive tax policy is the best way to address this but its better than flattening out taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/73 "2014-03-06T03:54:46Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I didn’t say the tax code should “be keeping them wealthy”. I said the tax code should not prevent them from continuing to be wealthy. That’s not the goal of the tax code. The goal of the tax code is to raise revenue. The question is who to raise it from. > [@Learjeff](#): > > One of the types of double-taxation is taxation on capital gains. You have to look through a very particular lens to see the capital gains tax as double taxation. You can make an argument that dividends are double taxation, not so with capital gains. Particularly since a lot of capital gains represent value that was never taxed at the corporate level. The classic justification for the capital gains rate was that the income tax was punishingly progressive so it wasn’t fair to tax people at the high marginal rates for capital gains recognized in one year when the value was generated over years or even decades. For example, you buy 100 shares of IBM for $5000 when you are 25 and keep it until you retire at 65 when the shares are worth $2,005,000. The tax on $2,000,000 recognized in one year is a lot higher than the taxes you wold have paid if you recognized the gain over the 40 years you owned it. In 1960 the tax on 2,000,000 would have been $1,769,640, for an effective tax rate of 88%. The tax on one fortieth that amount would have been about $20,000. So if evenly distributed over 40 years, the total tax would have been $800,000 for an effective tax rate of 40%. So we used capital gains rates as a compromise. The notion that capital gains is double taxation is just an argument that has been floated by people with lots of capital gains tax and adopted by the anti-tax crowd generally. > [@](#): > > The real problem isn’t that the rich pay too little taxes. The problem is that the middle class has withered away in the US. IMHO, this is not because rich are getting richer, but because the jobs are moving overseas (and the rich are still benefiting from those jobs). The real problem is the world economy, not the tax code. The demise of the labor movement heralded the demise of the middle class. > [@Terr](#): > > If you want to talk about how to change sales, property, or other state taxes - sure, go ahead. But that is very specific to every state, so I would suggest starting 50 threads. Can limit this to just federal taxes (see FICA/WICA) and the effects of various common tax deductions, preferences and deferrals? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/74 "2014-03-06T10:40:48Z")
> [@sbunny8](#): > > When I read her columns, often I think that she’s oversimplifying, or just plain wrong. Granted, she’s usually right, but her answers don’t exactly make me jump up out of my chair and say “OMG she is the smartest person ever!”. Well it’s the strange idea of intelligence that some seem to have that smart = knowledgeable, and knowledgeable = knows everything that any human knows. So MvS is revered as an expert on all things and numerous TV dramas depict smart people as magic oracles. I’m a member of mensa yet I don’t know dickshit about even grammar and what. That’s the reality. ---
**Author:** ![qazwart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5fc32e/32.png) [@qazwart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qazwart)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/75 "2014-03-06T21:58:04Z")
> [@sich\_hinaufwinden](#): > > A family of 5 earning $67,000 a year cannot likely afford $2000 a month in principal+interest mortgage payments. Especially when you add in your proposed $4000 a year in real estate tax. Then insurance. And probably PMI if they only earn $67K. Your example doesn’t add up IMHO. > > They wouldn’t qualify for that kind of loan and if they did they wouldn’t have enough left over for 5 people to survive on. > > I’m not arguing against your general point but I think you’ve set up an unrealistic example to prove it. My original numbers didn’t involve itemized deduction. I merely stated that if the family in question had a mortgage, their taxes would be even lower. The standard is to allocate around 1/3 of your income to housing. The $2000/month turns out to be a slight bit higher than 1/3. ($24,000 vs. $22,333), but it’s not all that much higher, and banks usually (or use to) take into account the mortgage interest rate deduction as part of the package. I tried to apply reasonable figures. I live in Northeastern New Jersey, I know many people who make less than $67,000, yet pay more than that as part of their rent or mortgage. It’s expensive here, but that helps keep out the riffraff. Wait, this is New Jersey, we are the riffraff! And, $4,000 in real estate taxes is pretty darn cheap too according to my experience. Mine is our around $6,500 per year, and I moved there because the town where we say we live (but is a few blocks from us) has real estate taxes that are more than double that. If our house was a block further South, our taxes would be about $12,000 per year. However, you’re free to make up your own damn numbers. The standard deduction is $12,200. If your filing as a married couple, and your real estate tax and mortgage interest are more than $1,016 per month, you’re better off itemizing an and not taking the standard deduction. The way mortgage interest usually works, it’s more than 1/2 the mortgage payments for almost half of the life of the mortgage. ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2014, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/76 "2014-03-07T03:11:29Z")
> [@qazwart](#): > > The standard is to allocate around 1/3 of your income to housing. The $2000/month turns out to be a slight bit higher than 1/3. ($24,000 vs. $22,333), but it’s not all that much higher, and banks usually (or use to) take into account the mortgage interest rate deduction as part of the package. Not 1/3 of your gross income. 1/3 of your take-home pay. I’m pretty sure you won’t find many people making $67k a year with $2000/mo mortgages. Assuming your hypothetical family has $4500 withheld annually in federal taxes, plus your calculated $5126 in FICA, plus say $2000 in state taxes, that makes $11626. Subtract that from $69000 and you have $57374. One-third of that is $19125, divided by 12 is $1594. That’s the recommended maximum they should be spending on housing. Many experts even say 1/4, not 1/3, if the family wants to have extra cash to do stuff with… and with three kids, your hypothetical family probably could use it. That would come out to $1195 a month. Powers &8^] ---
**Author:** ![Gosta\_H.Lovgren](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ea5d25/32.png) [@Gosta\_H.Lovgren](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gosta_H.Lovgren)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2014, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/77 "2014-03-07T15:58:02Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > This isn’t due to convoluted tax deductions but in the difference how capital gains are taxed compared to income. Excuse my ignorance, Deeg, but isn’t “how capital gains are taxed compared to income” a tax concept/strategy? \>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\> \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* “I think ‘Hail to the Chief’ \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* has a nice ring to it.” \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\<\< ---
**Author:** ![repairminded](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/958977/32.png) [@repairminded](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/repairminded)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2014, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/78 "2014-03-07T20:09:44Z")
The power to tax is the power to destroy. I’ve never yet met a private business person who was in favor of higher taxes. Anyone claiming to be in favor of higher taxes isn’t concerned about abstractions such as social justice but rather with pursuing an agenda at the expense of the people who are paying the taxes. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2014, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/79 "2014-03-07T21:18:52Z")
> [@repairminded](#): > > The power to tax is the power to destroy. I’ve never yet met a private business person who was in favor of higher taxes. Anyone claiming to be in favor of higher taxes isn’t concerned about abstractions such as social justice but rather with pursuing an agenda at the expense of the people who are paying the taxes. So you propose zero taxes of any kind? Taxes can never be raised at all, from any value? Otherwise, your third sentence makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2014, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552/80 "2014-03-07T22:05:33Z")
> [@repairminded](#): > > Anyone claiming to be in favor of higher taxes isn’t concerned about abstractions such as social justice but rather with pursuing an agenda at the expense of the people who are paying the taxes. Higher taxes than what? And your claim is that no one concerned about social justice ever favors higher taxes? Powers &8^] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marilyn-vos-savant-wealthy-and-taxes/682552.md?page=5)