# What is a fair amount of tax for the rich to pay? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 26, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416 "2010-04-26T16:52:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/321 "2010-05-04T18:05:32Z")
The entire problem with “fair” is that many view (correctly or incorrectly) our current system as wealth re-distribution. I propose that in all universities, all student with A’s must give up 10% of their class points, B students must give up 8% of their points and C students must give up 6% of their points and these points be distributed to students with Ds and Fs because clearly, they don’t have the same access to As, Bs and Cs as the top students. Sounds ridiculous right? Ida Mae Fuller paid less than $25 into social security but received over $20,000 in benefits. On this board, we have discussed how those with insurance pay for medical treatment for those who do not have insurance and with the ban on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions that will get even worse. The cost of supporting illegal immigrants is skyrocketing and it is unclear if they contribute (fiscally) more than they cost us. But before you claim this is a Republican rant: Tax money goes to bailout companies that were risk-takers. Strange thing is, I bet if their risk paid off that they would have kept the money. Corporate money and power is growing, mostly through a tax code that is full of handouts and breaks. Also the price controls that “help out the farmer” but aren’t most family farms being taken over by corporations? I don’t think it is fair to have rich people penalized for being rich to pay for wealth-distribution. BUT, this brings up the deeper underlying issue of taxation and spending. Would it be fair to tax corporations on (revenue - (COGS+payroll)) thus eliminating expensing out corporate jets and naming rights for stadiums? Would it be fair to amend the Constitution to have a balance budget amendment to eliminate the deficit? If so, would it be fair to place surcharges and taxes on every person and corporation to pay of the debt within (let’s say) 20 years? Is it fair that we are turning into a socialist society which rewards bad choices and laziness at the same rate as those suffering misfortune? Although not a government issue, take the fact that people who made bad choices about house-financing can get breaks on their mortgage but those that made good choices cannot. Before analyzing one small part of the system to ask what’s fair, ask if the system itself is fair. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/322 "2010-05-04T19:11:39Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So if the richest man in the country paid $1 because that is all it cost to run our government, you would have a problem with the fact that he was carrying the entire burden? Hey Bartender , bring me a ridiculous extreme with a twist and a side of WTF?? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/323 "2010-05-04T19:38:33Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > Incorrect. You’ve narrowly connected “marginal utility” to the **quantity** of money. This is not necessary. One can have marginal utility simply based on how different people **prioritize their usage** of money. Therefore, market segmentation can still work even if everyone was given an _equal_ amount of money. > > You give $10,000 to both John and Jane. They have an equal quantity of money. > John, happens to really like movies. > Jane, happens to really like fancy clothes. > > Market segmentation can still be applied because John will pay more for a premium Blu-Ray disc than Jane. Jane will pay more for a hat than John. It’s the buying preferences and **not the quantity of money** that lays at the foundation of marginal utility. > > Therefore, your characterization of “market segmentation” being similar to progressive taxes is wrong. Likewise, it is entirely reasonable to see progressive taxation as “more unfair” than a flat tax because the progressive tax is connected to “quantity” of money. > > There are good reasons for progressive taxes but “marginal utility” is not one of them. What you are talking about is [utility theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility). In my examples I was trying to compare items with roughly the same utility to the buyer for this very reason. The differing perceived utilities of objects in no way refutes the marginal utility of money. You can’t really talk about the marginal utility of a pair of shoes vs a book - it does have application in considering the value or utility of the nth pair of shoes vs the first. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/324 "2010-05-04T19:55:38Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Ida Mae Fuller paid less than $25 into social security but received over $20,000 in benefits. Part of the purpose of Social Security was to get money into the hands of seniors in need, who might have lost their savings. Would you have preferred that someone like her starve to death instead of getting this “unmerited” payment? > [@](#): > > On this board, we have discussed how those with insurance pay for medical treatment for those who do not have insurance and with the ban on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions that will get even worse. The problem with the current system is that this transfer of wealth is happening in a shadowy and disorganized way. These cases are brought up to show that those who are complaining about paying for care for the poor are already doing so. The new system will allow those with pre-existing conditions to pay for health insurance instead of being forced to do without and declare bankruptcy, sticking the hospital with their bills. How is them paying more going to hurt again? It also forces those who can but choose not to pay now to pay at least something - how will this hurt? > [@](#): > > Is it fair that we are turning into a socialist society which rewards bad choices and laziness at the same rate as those suffering misfortune? Although not a government issue, take the fact that people who made bad choices about house-financing can get breaks on their mortgage but those that made good choices cannot. The only people being rewarded for bad choices I see are the banks, which as you said yourself are making tons without any penalty for destroying the economy. As the WaMu data showed, people taking bad loans were getting directed into them by greedy mortgage officers. These people did not have degrees in finance, but believed the nicely dressed expert who told them that they could fulfill their dream of home ownership at a reasonable cost, that housing prices were only going up, and that nothing could go wrong. Sometimes we may need to run deficits - in times of war or economic disaster, like now. I don’t know how you would write an amendment protecting us against Voodoo economics. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2010, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/325 "2010-05-04T20:10:24Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > In exactly what way is it an absurd number? There are countries right now [using flat tax that hover around 20%](http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v29n4/cpr29n4-1.html) the interesting part is as prosperity grew the tax rate was able to be lowered for everybody. Are you still sayign that we should try flat taxes here because Estonia had a flat tax and it experienced economic growht (along with just about every communist nation that adopted capitalistic principles)? You realize that Estonia had NEGATIVE 14% growth last year right? ---
**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:** [May 4, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/326 "2010-05-04T20:31:47Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’ve seen that written several times. Would someone please demonstrate how that is true? What are we considering the middle class? > > [Benefits](http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v29n4/cpr29n4-1.html) Go to the citizens for tax justice site and you can read their side of the argument. I think most any credible economist will agree that the statement is correct or at least likely to be correct. The people who pay more under a flat tax is the average taxpayer making between 40K and 300K. If you make more than about 300K you pay less. these are rough numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/327 "2010-05-04T20:34:17Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Part of the purpose of Social Security was to get money into the hands of seniors in need, who might have lost their savings. Would you have preferred that someone like her starve to death instead of getting this “unmerited” payment? I didn’t argue right or wrong. I merely argued that SS is wealth re-distribution which your claim seems to confirm. > [@Voyager](#): > > The problem with the current system is that this transfer of wealth is happening in a shadowy and disorganized way. These cases are brought up to show that those who are complaining about paying for care for the poor are already doing so. The new system will allow those with pre-existing conditions to pay for health insurance instead of being forced to do without and declare bankruptcy, sticking the hospital with their bills. How is them paying more going to hurt again? It also forces those who can but choose not to pay now to pay at least something - how will this hurt? First of all. If I get stage-3 cancer with $1000 a week costs, do you really think that when I get my BCBS, they’ll charge me $4000 in premiums? Who pays for that? But again that is wealth re-distribution. You are clearly arguing that wealth re-distribution is a necessary (or at least desired) socialism. But the point that is often ignored is that the government produces no wealth so it is not “the government” that is supporting these people but _taxpayers_. So the argument that a government has a moral duty to provide social welfare is ridiculous. Instead, the argument needs to be that wealthy people have a morall obligation to provide social welfare (hence the question in the OP of what is fair). For example (although we can substitute any social welfare program), this new UHC bill will tax us for 4 years before most of it goes into effect. Let’s say for the sake of argument it will cost $500 million per year and be paid for by tax on everyone earning over $250,000 per year. Why should they be made to pay it? Is it: 1. They have an obligation to help support the less fortunate. Please justify this noblesse oblige. 2. They can afford it. Isn’t this Willie Sutton’s rationale for robbing banks? “That’s where the money is”? So it is OK to take money from people to give to others Robin Hood style? ---
**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:** [May 4, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/328 "2010-05-04T20:37:02Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Double taxes would be if you got taxed on a purchase and then taxed again on the same item every year as part of a luxury tax (like in Virginia). You might not have a problem with that (as you say, it’s all a value statement), but that’s why I never lived in Virginia…I thought it was ridiculous and unfair. Different strokes. No double taxation is when you get taxed on the same money twice. With income and sales taxes, you get taxed once when you earn your money and again when you spend it. The classic "double taxation boggeyman by the right is the taxation of dividends. You implicitly get taxed when the company earns the money and again when you get the money, you don’t get taxed on the value of your stock, its not a wealth tax. > [@](#): > > Well, as you say, that’s a value statement that depends on how one looks at such things. “Fair” is more objective than that. Philosophers have spent considerable time thinking about what is fair and equitable. The most compelling version of fairness I can think of is John Rawls’ philosophy based on “original position” and the “veil of ignorance” ---
**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:** [May 4, 2010, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/329 "2010-05-04T20:38:29Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > Fairness can also be defined by deliberately ignoring the “marginal utility of money” and charge everyone the same %. That’s also a reasonable sense of fairness. You disagree with it, I know. That is not a reasonable definition of fairness by anyone who has studied concepts of fairness objectively. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/330 "2010-05-04T20:42:19Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > The entire problem with “fair” is that many view (correctly or incorrectly) our current system as wealth re-distribution. I propose that in all universities, all student with A’s must give up 10% of their class points, B students must give up 8% of their points and C students must give up 6% of their points and these points be distributed to students with Ds and Fs because clearly, they don’t have the same access to As, Bs and Cs as the top students. > Sounds ridiculous right? > > Ida Mae Fuller paid less than $25 into social security but received over $20,000 in benefits. > On this board, we have discussed how those with insurance pay for medical treatment for those who do not have insurance and with the ban on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions that will get even worse. > The cost of supporting illegal immigrants is skyrocketing and it is unclear if they contribute (fiscally) more than they cost us. > But before you claim this is a Republican rant: > Tax money goes to bailout companies that were risk-takers. Strange thing is, I bet if their risk paid off that they would have kept the money. > Corporate money and power is growing, mostly through a tax code that is full of handouts and breaks. Also the price controls that “help out the farmer” but aren’t most family farms being taken over by corporations? > > I don’t think it is fair to have rich people penalized for being rich to pay for wealth-distribution. BUT, this brings up the deeper underlying issue of taxation and spending. > Would it be fair to tax corporations on (revenue - (COGS+payroll)) thus eliminating expensing out corporate jets and naming rights for stadiums? > Would it be fair to amend the Constitution to have a balance budget amendment to eliminate the deficit? If so, would it be fair to place surcharges and taxes on every person and corporation to pay of the debt within (let’s say) 20 years? > Is it fair that we are turning into a socialist society which rewards bad choices and laziness at the same rate as those suffering misfortune? Although not a government issue, take the fact that people who made bad choices about house-financing can get breaks on their mortgage but those that made good choices cannot. > > Before analyzing one small part of the system to ask what’s fair, ask if the system itself is fair. That was terrible. The rich get a lot more from the system than we do. Ever drive a junker car through a fancy neighborhood and get pulled over 3 times by the cops? Ever notice the quality of roads in good neighborhoods? We don’t all get great police and fire protection.They pay a far smaller portion of their wealth on taxes while getting far better services. Buffet thought it was wrong his secretary paid a greater proportion of her income in taxes than he did. He figured out it was fundamentally wrong. Too bad you can not see it. If the rich paid a reasonable share we would not have this deficit. Do airports service the rich or poor? A poor person might go on an airplane a couple times in their whole life. The rich get better everything and pay less. Hell they pay much less interest on credit cards or for homes. Lots of poor people pay their credit cards and mortgages on time. But they don’t get preferred rates. The guy who invented credit cards said the rich are subsidized by the rest of us. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/331 "2010-05-04T20:43:54Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Are you still sayign that we should try flat taxes here because Estonia had a flat tax and it experienced economic growht (along with just about every communist nation that adopted capitalistic principles)? You realize that Estonia had NEGATIVE 14% growth last year right? No, if you’ve read my posts you’d see that’s old news I found it interesting that according to a linked graph , when we consider all taxes paid by different income groups we are somewhat close to the flat tax proposal. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/332 "2010-05-04T20:48:30Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > To lower them if the economy is booming [ Wow, so what do you do when the economy is slumping? Lower them more? > [@](#): > > Not really. If we’re going to have an income tax as citizens then let it be about income. Other issues should be dealt with separately. The incentive door is a big part of what makes it so complicated. it is largely republicans that have led the charge to use the tax code for social engineering (see accelerated depreciation, capital gains rate differentials, dividends income differentials, special tax deals for various industries, etc.). I’m with you. Lets treat all income equally. Capital gains and dividends should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income but somehow it is unfair to tax income earned from capital at the same rate as income earned from labor. > [@](#): > > It’s just that for those who cry the rich should pay more a flat tax does that. The rich do pay considerably more that is not what marginal utility implies. The fact that a billion dollar earner pays 200 million while a million dollar earner pays 200K does not recognize marginal utility. The millionth dollar of the million dollar earners’s income is far more valuable to him than the billionth dollar of the billion dollar earner’s income. This is the basis of progressive taxation. A flat tax does nto recognize this. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2010, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/333 "2010-05-04T20:58:10Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Very similar to tithing. How much should you contribute to your church? X%. Simple. Fair. Do you remember the story of the poor woman offering a pittance to Jesus? The apostles laughed at her because it was such a small amount and Jesus rebuked his apostles for their ridicule and said that her pennies mean more to him than a welathy man offering a lot of money? Its because Jesus understood marginal utility and knew that the sacrifice the poor woman was making far exceeded the sacrifice the wealthy were making. If you want to do a “what would jesus do” analysis of distributing the tax burden, I don’t think you end up where you think you would end up. > [@](#): > > Why should Person A have to work January thru May for the government and Person B have to work only from January thru March? Because Person A can live without want with what they make in the month of June alone while Person B will have to make significant tradeoffs in consumption when they spend or save the money they earn from April through December. > [@](#): > > Now, I also think that it would be a good thing to have those who do not pay any taxes contribute _something_. I think most people would agree with this. > [@](#): > > I think the simple question is: should the system be fair? Or just result in the greatest number of people paying taxes the least amount in taxes possible? The current system is not perfect but its a lot fairer than a flat tax system ---
**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:** [May 4, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/334 "2010-05-04T21:01:35Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Thanks, I love facts. They are often surprising. I wonder if the reason that the 90-94% crowd pays higher taxes is because a fair amount of their income is subject to payroll taxes, but for the ultra-rich it is negligible because it is only on the first $70K-something of salary. It is probably more because of the capital gains and dividend rate differential but the social security cap along with all the phase outs exacerbates the hump. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2010, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/335 "2010-05-04T21:08:57Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Is it also true that people get back all they paid in a more on a pretty regular basis? If you hit the social security cap, your rate of return is close to zero. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/336 "2010-05-04T21:15:57Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Of course tax cuts _can_ raise revenue, just as tax raises _can_ lower it. Except at the very extreme ends, this is untrue. Tax cuts simply do not generate enough additional economic activity to overcome the reduction in tax rate. > [@](#): > > Obama is just increasing spending even faster yet, while raising taxes. Other than health care, how is he raising spending (and I beleive with health care we are paying 1% more in halth care costs to cover an additional 15% of the population, maybe not a bargain you wold make but a bargain nonetheless). And not to argue semantics but I thought Obama was letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire while cutting taxes for the bottom 95% of the country and raising taxes on the top 1%. > [@](#): > > And no, that’s not one-time stimulus: Even if we assume absolutely everything goes according to their plan, the current administration will not balance the budget. What does a balanced budget have to do with whether or not the stimulus is a one time event or a structural budget item? > [@](#): > > While I’m all for tax reform (massive simplification, including combining ALL federal taxes, would be my biggest wish) unless and until we get our spending under control, fiddling with the tax code just determines how quickly or how slowly we sink. Exactly. If you want to cut spending, then cut spending, stop staring at the tax code. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2010, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/337 "2010-05-04T21:18:09Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Before analyzing one small part of the system to ask what’s fair, ask if the system itself is fair. How would you define fair? See John Rawls. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/338 "2010-05-04T21:19:23Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Hey Bartender , bring me a ridiculous extreme with a twist and a side of WTF?? Ridiculous extremes are how you address people who stand on principle. This poster said he was offended by the principle and the actual numbers didn’t matter. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2010, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/339 "2010-05-04T21:22:28Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > No, if you’ve read my posts you’d see that’s old news > > I found it interesting that according to a linked graph , when we consider all taxes paid by different income groups we are somewhat close to the flat tax proposal. I thought we were only talking about income taxes but if the fact that counting all taxes gets us pretty flat makes you think the world is fair then I would say that it shouldn’t be flat and the rich should be paying more. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/340 "2010-05-05T00:05:37Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I didn’t argue right or wrong. I merely argued that SS is wealth re-distribution which your claim seems to confirm. > > First of all. If I get stage-3 cancer with $1000 a week costs, do you really think that when I get my BCBS, they’ll charge me $4000 in premiums? Who pays for that? But again that is wealth re-distribution. > > You are clearly arguing that wealth re-distribution is a necessary (or at least desired) socialism. But the point that is often ignored is that the government produces no wealth so it is not “the government” that is supporting these people but _taxpayers_. So the argument that a government has a moral duty to provide social welfare is ridiculous. Instead, the argument needs to be that wealthy people have a morall obligation to provide social welfare (hence the question in the OP of what is fair). For example (although we can substitute any social welfare program), this new UHC bill will tax us for 4 years before most of it goes into effect. Let’s say for the sake of argument it will cost $500 million per year and be paid for by tax on everyone earning over $250,000 per year. Why should they be made to pay it? Is it: > > 1. They have an obligation to help support the less fortunate. Please justify this noblesse oblige. > 2. They can afford it. Isn’t this Willie Sutton’s rationale for robbing banks? “That’s where the money is”? So it is OK to take money from people to give to others Robin Hood style? Wealth transfer is hardly socialism. When the kings of Babylon taxed their subject to pay the army that was wealth transfer. When the Church tithed believers and used it for charity, to feed the poor, that was wealth transfer also. None of this has anything to do with socialism. Go scare someone else with the big bad S word. As has been mentioned several times already, the amount of government spending is not the issue. However much the people agree on, there must be taxes for it, and if there are taxes, they should be allocated fairly. You can’t take an incremental tax in isolation. If the current system taxes the rich less than others, by some metric which is clearly not absolute dollars, taxing them more will increase both fairness and revenue. If they were being overtaxed by some metric the fair thing to do would be to, say, increase the tax on the middle class. You can’t increase taxes on the poor - see stone, getting blood out of. I’ve already advocated a measure of fairness - equal measures of pain, based on marginal utility and the total tax burden. (Sales tax gives the poor enough pain as it is.) What is yours? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416.md?page=18)