# Taxing the "rich" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 24, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209 "2011-07-24T21:14:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/141 "2011-07-25T21:56:16Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Oh, good grief! What I abhor is that our tax-the-rich government has decided that people living what almost anyone would consider to be typical suburban lifestyles are now so impoverished that they no longer required to help support the government. Dude, when I was a grad student, I didn’t pay any federal income taxes (well, to be technical, I paid them and then had them refunded). I made $16,000/year, which was enough to support me (just me), rent a not-a-hellhole but also not very nice studio apartment, buy a $2500 car with over 100K miles on it, buy groceries, and that’s pretty much it. Now, it wasn’t a horrible existence – I wasn’t starving or homeless or anything – but _now_ I live the “typical suburban lifestyle” and I can tell you that I was pretty fucking far off it in grad school. Oh, and need it be said that I was still “required to help support the government”? I just didn’t pay any _federal income_ taxes; I of course still paid into Social Security, still paid sales tax, and still had to pay state income tax. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/142 "2011-07-25T21:58:22Z")
And gas taxes. And FCC taxes. And FAA taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/143 "2011-07-25T22:11:09Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > No, I’m saying I can see that someone would seriously consider whether it was worth it to put in the work to make $550K as opposed to $500K. If we were to revert to 1990s-era taxes, do you know how much “extra” in taxes that person making $550,000 would pay on that additional $50,000 in income? $1,500. Would you really give up $50,000 in gross income because of a tax bill that’s $1,500 more than today? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/144 "2011-07-25T23:37:32Z")
> [@quixotic78](#): > > Dude, when I was a grad student, I didn’t pay any federal income taxes (well, to be technical, I paid them and then had them refunded). I made $16,000/year, which was enough to support me (just me), rent a not-a-hellhole but also not very nice studio apartment, buy a $2500 car with over 100K miles on it, buy groceries, and that’s pretty much it. Now, it wasn’t a horrible existence – I wasn’t starving or homeless or anything – but _now_ I live the “typical suburban lifestyle” and I can tell you that I was pretty fucking far off it in grad school. You’re making the assumption that your lifestyle then was/is the upper limit not to be taxed. Clearly half of our population isn’t living the way you did then, and yet they still don’t have to pay any income tax. I can tell you why that is but you probably won’t like it. What is happening is that Democratic congresspeople and Democratic presidents are continually seeking to raise the bar for what qualifies as insufficient income all out of proportion to reality of how they’re living, while seeking at the same time to soak the rich enough to make that possible. (And of course in so doing, they also have to keep redefining the definition of rich downward so as to bring more people into the tax-paying pool.) This practice is called “buying votes with other people’s money”. To the degree they can give the majority of the populace tax breaks, they can increase the number of people who will vote for them. And, knowing that “the rich” make up only a small percentage of the population, they can do this and reap far more votes than they’ll lose. It’s all very cynical, really. > [@quixotic78](#): > > Oh, and need it be said that I was still “required to help support the government”? I just didn’t pay any _federal income_ taxes; I of course still paid into Social Security, still paid sales tax, and still had to pay state income tax. This is the reason why I’ve only mentioned their being exempted from income tax. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/145 "2011-07-26T00:29:28Z")
**Starving** , Please repeat the following aloud: “I am sofa king wee Todd did.” ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/146 "2011-07-26T00:41:00Z")
So that speech therapy hasn’t been working out so well for you, huh? Well, you’ll get better. Your first sentence was just fine, don’t be so hard on yourself. Now, what was it you were wanting me to repeat again? ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/147 "2011-07-26T00:54:47Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > You’re making the assumption that your lifestyle then was/is the upper limit not to be taxed. Where on _earth_ did you get that idea? I mean, I can’t even remotely see why you’d make that inference. > [@](#): > > Clearly half of our population isn’t living the way you did then, and yet they still don’t have to pay any income tax. Actually, none of what you say is quite clear. **Jas09** has already pointed out that “half our population” is a statistical anomaly, that a more typical figure is 35-40%. But I shan’t quibble over 10-15%. What I _will_ quibble over, however, is your characterization of the lifestyle of those who don’t pay income tax. You were just flat-out wrong in my case, but hey, maybe I was just one of the (un)lucky ones. Feel free to share with me the studies you’re referring to about the lifestyles of those who don’t pay income tax. (And don’t you dare say, “Just look around.” That’s bullshit and even you must, at some level, know it’s bullshit). Skipping over the stuff about how Democrats are evil… > [@](#): > > This is the reason why I’ve only mentioned their being exempted from income tax. Patently false. Didn’t you say – and here, I’ll quote it for a second time, this time with gusto – > [@](#): > > What I abhor is that our tax-the-rich government has decided that people living what almost anyone would consider to be typical suburban lifestyles are now so impoverished that they no longer required to help support the government. If there’s a distinction you’re making that somehow only includes only income tax, you must have used a 0.0001 point font, because I can’t see it. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/148 "2011-07-26T01:05:40Z")
Given the tone of that post I’m not gonna waste my time with you. You sounded reasonable at first and that why I took the time to answer you despite the fact that I’ve spent way too much time on this board the last couple of days. In closing I would simply point out that Social Security and Medicare are not “the government”; therefore people paying into it are not “supporting the government”. I’ll leave it to you to figure out or remain confused as to the rest of what I said. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/149 "2011-07-26T01:54:19Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Given the tone of that post I’m not gonna waste my time with you. You sounded reasonable at first and that why I took the time to answer you despite the fact that I’ve spent way too much time on this board the last couple of days. Wow, really? Huh. Who knew conservatives had such delicate feefees… > [@](#): > > In closing I would simply point out that Social Security and Medicare are not “the government”; therefore people paying into it are not “supporting the government”. That’s a pretty asinine distinction. Regardless, I still paid state income taxes (and gas taxes and sales taxes etc.) even when I didn’t pay federal income tax. So you’re still wrong, pal. Uncle Sam takes his cut from everyone. Here’s a tip for future reference: no one will fault you for saying, “Sorry, I overgeneralized and misspoke. Thanks for the clarification.” It makes you look a lot less silly than these semantic hair-splittings you seem to be clinging to. ---
**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:** [July 26, 2011, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/150 "2011-07-26T02:09:28Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > If we were to revert to 1990s-era taxes, do you know how much “extra” in taxes that person making $550,000 would pay on that additional $50,000 in income? > > $1,500. > > Would you really give up $50,000 in gross income because of a tax bill that’s $1,500 more than today? It would be more like $2250 no? 35% now 39.6% under Clinton? ---
**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:** [July 26, 2011, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/151 "2011-07-26T02:12:30Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Given the tone of that post I’m not gonna waste my time with you. You sounded reasonable at first and that why I took the time to answer you despite the fact that I’ve spent way too much time on this board the last couple of days. > > In closing I would simply point out that Social Security and Medicare are not “the government”; therefore people paying into it are not “supporting the government”. > > I’ll leave it to you to figure out or remain confused as to the rest of what I said. So then you think the size of government is not 25% of GDP or even 20% of GDP but closer to 8% of GDP right? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/152 "2011-07-26T02:18:28Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > It would be more like $2250 no? 35% now 39.6% under Clinton? No. 39.6% only applies to the income over $379,150 [Tax Brackets](http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/153 "2011-07-26T02:22:07Z")
> [@quixotic78](#): > > That’s a pretty asinine distinction. Regardless, I still paid state income taxes (and gas taxes and sales taxes etc.) even when I didn’t pay federal income tax. So you’re still wrong, pal. Uncle Sam takes his cut from everyone. No, I’m afraid you’re wrong. Yes, Uncle Sam takes a cut of gas taxes, but they apply to everyone who buys gas and are not part of any income tax code; and no, Uncle Sam does not receive state and local sales taxes, and even if he did, once again they would not fall within income tax code. > [@quixotic78](#): > > Here’s a tip for future reference: no one will fault you for saying, “Sorry, I overgeneralized and misspoke. Thanks for the clarification.” It makes you look a lot less silly than these semantic hair-splittings you seem to be clinging to. Good advice, no doubt, and in some instances undoubtedly it would be good advice to follow. But this time you’re simply missing what I stated quite clearly. Kindly refer back to post #91, which is the post where I believe I first mentioned the 50% figure. In it, I clearly said: > [@](#): > > Trouble is, we’ve reached the point now where 50% of all American households have been deemed poor enough not to pay **any income tax**. \ Notice first of all that I specifically said “income tax”, which to my mind means that I’m talking about federal income tax and not Social Security, Medicare or anything else. Another hint is that no taxes but federal taxes apply to all households in the country, so this also should have tipped you off that I was talking about federal income tax. Secondly, don’t you think it’s a reasonable expectation, when discussing practices regarding federal income taxes, that people will understand that you’re talking about federal income taxes and not state taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, excise taxes, and any other type of tax? Why should I have been expected to anticipate that you would lump all taxes in with it when I was clearly talking about federal income tax, and then to post a mea culpa for my oversight in having not done so? Stop and think for a minute about what you’re doing here. You have misunderstood (or overlooked) what it is that I actually said, and now you’re trying to shift the blame to me for what is in fact an error you made in reading comprehension. Frankly, I think a mea culpa on your part would be the gentlemanly thing to do at this point, and you can expect a gracious response from me if you do. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/154 "2011-07-26T02:39:28Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So then you think the size of government is not 25% of GDP or even 20% of GDP but closer to 8% of GDP right? I do not equate budgetary obligations with government as an entity, no. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/155 "2011-07-26T02:45:36Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Yes, Uncle Sam takes a cut of gas taxes Thank you, so you finally admit that even someone who pays $0.00 in income tax contributes to the government. Was that so hard? > [@](#): > > …but they apply to everyone who buys gas and are not part of any income tax code; I guess it _was_ hard after all. Look, _I_ didn’t say that gas taxes are part of income tax code. That’s a silly thing to say. I do, however, hold gas taxes up as an example of taxes _senso lato_ that the government gets to collect. You know, arguing _against something you said_ that I’ll quote for a third time now (with super-duper emphasis this time) and you’ll obviously ignore (rather than refute, because you can’t): > [@Starving Artist](#): > > What I abhor is that our tax-the-rich government has decided that people living what almost anyone would consider to be typical suburban lifestyles are now so impoverished that **they no longer required to help support the government.** > [@](#): > > Uncle Sam does not receive state and local sales taxes, and even if he did, once again they would not fall within income tax code. Fair enough; I was glib and misspoke. Uncle Sam (i.e., the federal government) does not get my state income taxes. However, government (i.e., the government of the State of Ohio) did get my state income taxes. Again, me contributing to government without having to pay federal taxes. > [@](#): > > Kindly refer back to post #91, which is the post where I believe I first mentioned the 50% figure. In it, I clearly said: > > > [@](#): > > > > Trouble is, we’ve reached the point now where 50% of all American households have been deemed poor enough not to pay any income tax. That’s great, and the only objection I have with post 91 is the fact that you don’t want to acknowledge that 50% is an aberration… but as I also said, that’s fine, I can overlook a 10-15% difference. But what you said in post 91 doesn’t change the fact that you _also_ said what I quoted above. > [@](#): > > Secondly, don’t you think it’s a reasonable expectation, when discussing practices regarding federal income taxes, that people will understand that you’re talking about federal income taxes and not state taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, excise taxes, and any other type of tax? Why should I have been expected to anticipate that you would lump all taxes in with it when I was clearly talking about federal income tax, and then to post a mea culpa for my oversight in having not done so? An entirely reasonable expectation. One I originally made, in fact, based on post 91. But then you went and changed your position by saying that those who pay no federal income tax “are no longer required to help support the government.” Full stop. If anyone’s lumping income taxes with other taxes, it’s you with THAT VERY STATEMENT. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/156 "2011-07-26T02:46:39Z")
> **[CHARTS: 10 Ways America Has Become A Low-Tax Country](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ten-charts-showing-how-low-american-taxes_n_875067)** > > CHARTS: 10 Ways America Has Become A Low-Tax Country Starving, I posted this chart in the debates earlier. It is very simple to follow with line graphs. If you spend a little time, i am sure you can follow it. The fact is by nearly any measure you dig up, the rich and corporations are paying less and less taxes all the time. It has been going on since Reagan. The wealth in America is getting focused into a smaller and smaller group. It is dangerous to the American system . ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/157 "2011-07-26T03:02:13Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > This isn’t a generic thread about taxing people with a high income. This is a pitting of the fact that no one can say the word rich anymore without putting it in quotes. As if there were no rich people, or that the idea that someone making 500k+ a year isn’t rich by a reasonable standard. > > I don’t even feel it necesary to link to examples of this, because every single person who’s on the boards to shill for the rich uses the quotes around the term rich. > > Now you could argue, the top tax bracket being $250k, that someone that makes $250k isn’t rich. I think this depends on your personal definition of the word. I can see you making a case that if you aren’t set for life and have to work, you’re rich. On the other hand, I could see the idea that someone is making about 8 times the median income as rich. At the very least, it’s a debatable point, not something to scoff at. But it’s not even relevant here. > > You see, someone who makes $250k a year won’t be impacted by a tax increase in the top tax bracket. People seem to misunderstand a very simple, fundamental part of our tax system. Income is taxed marginally depending on what bracket it’s in. If (making up numbers) 0-30k is taxed at 5%, 30-50k is taxed at 15%, and 50-100k is taxed at 30%, that doesn’t mean that when you make $99,999 a year you pay 15% on it, and when you make that extra dollar to move up to 100k a year you suddenly double your tax burden. No, the income is taxed marginally for each bracket - for that first 30k, everyone is going to pay $1500. For that 20k in the middle bracket, everyone will pay $3000. So that top tax rate only applies to income that starts at the top tax bracket, everything else is taxed at the lower rate. > > Which means two things. One, the rich benefit from the tax cuts in lower margins. If the $0-30k rate is reduced, everyone benefits. It affects people who pay less relatively more, but it’s still relevant because it’s often presented as a false dichotomy between “tax cuts for the rich” and “tax cuts for the middle class/poor”. And the other thing, and one of the main points of this thread, is that you cannot make this argument: > > “You think someone that makes $250k a year is rich? My uncle/boss/me makes that much and we’re not rich.” - Well, if you make $250k a year, then a tax increase in the 250k+ bracket does not affect you one bit. If you make $300k a year, you’re only paying the extra tax on the last $50k. Is paying 3% extra on that extra 50k going to make you stop going to work and become a squatter in a hippie commune because the disincentives to make money are just too strong? > > So to actually really feel an increase in the 250k+ tax rate, you need to be making significantly more than 250k per year. For instance, for half of your total tax burden to be increased by 3%, you’d have to be making 500k. And I think a reasonable case can be made that the people making 500k a year are rich, not “rich”. The people most affected, the one who see the greatest portion of their income fall into this tax bracket, are the people making millions of dollars a year. At what point do they go from “rich” to rich? > > Again, the purpose of this thread isn’t to start a generic tax debate. It’s to pit people for using … what should we call them, incredulity quotation marks? to imply that the person who says rich is unreasonable for using the term. I think you are being overly dramatic here. I started a thread called “Ask the rich person” because (i) someone had recently started an “Ask the poor person” thread and (ii) I’m kind of an asshole. All I said about how much I make is that I make in excess of $250k (I may have thrown a little more on in passing, such as “well in excess,” I’m not sure). And some people said “you ain’ rich, you still have to work! Talk to me when you have $10 million in the bank.” So I said “OK, maybe I’m not rich, whatever.” Whereupon others said “geez, you make over $250k, how can you say you aren’t rich?” Whereupon I :rolleyes:ed all over myself. So, I think some of the use of “rich” in quotes is just to avoid the whole argument over what is rich and what isn’t. It’s a way of saying “so-called rich” or “rich, however you may want to define it, I don’t feel like fighting about it.” > [@SenorBeef](#): > > Well, I’ve heard “those making over 250k a year” in reference to being the top tax bracket about a million times in tax threads and in the news. But Darth Panda points out that 380k is the top tax bracket. [This site](http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm) supports that. Where am I getting the 250k number from then? It’s constantly in the media. > > Anyway, if we’re talking about increasing the top marginal tax rate, and it’s 380k rather than 250k, then my point is even more relevant. I think the $250k number was bandied about in Obama’s election campaign as the cut-off for the folks Obama wants to stick it to. He vowed not to raise taxes for anyone making less than that, for one thing. So, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for you to have that stuck in your head as the line for “‘rich’” (extra quotes for extra quotiness). ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/158 "2011-07-26T03:13:19Z")
> [@quixotic78](#): > > Thank you, so you finally admit that even someone who pays $0.00 in income tax contributes to the government. Was that so hard? I’m beginning to wonder just how long you’ve been out of college. If you’re a former grad student I’m guessing you much have skipped a few grades here and there, 'cause grown-ups don’t split hairs and take delight in little victories that no one cares about which have nothing to do with the subject at hand. You might want to take note of the fact that you’re the only one in the thread taking this tack. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/159 "2011-07-26T03:20:28Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [10 Ways America Has Become A Low-Tax Country [CHARTS] | HuffPost Impact](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/10/ten-charts-showing-how-low-american-taxes_n_875067.html#s290494&title=1_Tax_Revenue) > Starving, I posted this chart in the debates earlier. It is very simple to follow with line graphs. If you spend a little time, i am sure you can follow it. The fact is by nearly any measure you dig up, the rich and corporations are paying less and less taxes all the time. It has been going on since Reagan. > The wealth in America is getting focused into a smaller and smaller group. It is dangerous to the American system . It’s all well and good that you brought this up **gonzo** , but as they say - what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I’m talking about individual income tax rates and the fact that our government keeps raising the level of income as to who should be required to pay income tax while simultaneously lowering its definition of “rich” in order to take up the slack. What does that have to do with corporations and the ultra-rich who can take advantage of what are, let’s face it, government-created tax loopholes in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/160 "2011-07-26T03:34:11Z")
Such a pity they have no one to protect them, no allies in the Halls of Power, they are cast heartlessly onto the Hamptons, set adrift in the ski slopes of Aspen. If you have tears, prepare to shed them… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209.md?page=9)