OK, for the sake of argument I’ll play devil’s advocate (if indeed the rich fat cats are all evil).
Why should a wealthy minority be singled out for more taxes? It’s not like they enjoy more protection from our military, or use our national highways more, or any other particular service from the government. If anything, they are probably less likely to collect on unemployment, social welfare, or Medicaid. Sure they’re fortunate in their circumstance, but does this warrant an increased tax to level the playing field? Chalk it up to the cost of being a member of society?
In every other aspect of life, we all pay the same rate for our food, gas, clothing or whatever other service we get from society. It’s not like we get to negotiate the prices we pay for anything else, based on our income level.
Yes I realize that a high flat tax places a heavy burden on people who are barely scraping by. Yet in places where combined max federal and state taxes reach 50% of income, is that any more fair? Other than social altruism or good karma, isn’t taxation of a minority just caving into the political expediency of going along with the masses?
In a democracy with many voices, I guess there’s never a perfect solution to anything.
Thanks for all your responses. Glad that this forum exists for intelligent discourse, rather than emotional rants and expletives.
Not all fat cats are created equal, so the evilness of some has no bearing.
Taxes are painful. To be fair, why not more or less equalize the pain for all tax payers? If you buy this, then the principle of marginal utility says that taking one dollar from Bill Gates is less painful to him than taking one dollar from a person just barely making enough to eat. The marginal utility curve is well understood, and is less than linear, so taking more as a percentage from the rich than you do for the poor tends to equalize the pain. Much simpler than trying to value the benefit they and we get from society.
Actually not. Maybe gas, but the rich tend to buy more expensive food and more expensive clothing than the poor, since paying for a $1,000 shmatte might be easier for them than someone on welfare paying $50 at WalMart. Compare the food and prices offered at high end groceries to medium ones like Safeway to cheap ones. Sure the rich could buy food just as cheaply - but they don’t, and that is for a reason.
As you have undoubtedly noticed (provided you are over age 3), ** life** is unfair. Truth be told life tends to be even more unfair to those who have less wealth than it is to those who have a great deal of wealth. Holding up a flag on this one aspect in which things are unfair in the negative direction for the rich, is not going to yield a whole lot of sympathy when compared with the huge mountain of ways in which life is unfair in a positive direction.
I assume, since you say you’re playing the devil’s advocate, that you don’t actually believe this nonsense and are just doing a poor job of arguing a position you don’t take.
I am not a radical who blames capitalism for all evil. But just as government is set up to promulgate and protect the beliefs of the majority, government is set up to benefit the wealthy. The tax code is written for their interests. The court system protects their interests. Their lobbyists buy laws, or more accurately, special provisions in laws to benefit their specific needs. Their influence is greater the farther down in government you go. Ignorant people talk about the wealthy buying Congress and clamor for moving things to the states. Horsepucky. The entire history of state and local governments is being a wholly-owned subsidiary of wealthy interests. The situation we have now is manifestly better, cleaner, less corrupt, and less biased toward wealth than at any previous time in our history, although you will never convince the ignorant of that. Even in this state of relative bliss, the wealthy make out like bandits. Roads do help them more. A world safe for business and commerce does help them more. Everything the government does to create a civilized society benefits them more.
The wealthy do pay a large chunk of our taxes. I would argue, strenuously, that the wealthy get far more back. The cheapest investment any business can make is to pay a lobbyist or make a campaign donation. In the real world, a business that returns 10% RoI is doing great. But political money can return 10,000% RoI.
Arguing that the wealthy shouldn’t pay more in taxes because they don’t get more from the government is like asking whether minorities are protected by the Constitution. History tells us it is the exact opposite.
I think it’s a matter of simple pragmatism. If the cost of government were divided equally among the population, the amount per person would be too large for the poorest people to pay. To make up for that, people who have more money have to pay more. All the rest of the tax code is just working out the details.
Actually, I think you’re incorrect here. They absolutely enjoy more protection from our military. And not just in the sense that the US (and to a lesser extent other industrial nations) uses its military in part to create a global economic system that the wealthy gain disproportionately from. Look at any country in history that’s been conquered from within or without. How many of the wealthy made a smooth transition there? Hell, they’re lucky if they’re not the first up against the wall. They get more protection from the police. Poor people are more likely to be the victims of crime, but wealthy neighborhoods get more regular police patrols. They get more protection from fire services (at least in California. Not super-familiar with how other places work) They use highways more (plenty of poor people can’t even afford cars, let alone go on multi-state trips). They use airlines more, meaning the services of the FAA, the TSA (though I’m sure they’d gladly give that up), etc. There are lots of government services that the wealthy get more use out of.
Well, yes. But if we taxed the people most likely to need a safety net to provide that safety net, we wouldn’t have any money to provide one.
Devil’s advocate (snarky) response.
[ul]
[li]The very wealthy have a much higher level of disposable income. They can afford to pay a higher level of tax that won’t impact their life compared to those at the bottom.[/li][li]Life ain’t fair. It never will be. Deal with it.[/li][/ul]
We can argue all of these things back and forth without anyone suggesting that higher taxation of the rich constitutes ‘oppression’ of any sort. (Or even 'repression,’ per MP&HG. ;))