# Why are the rich so opposed to paying taxes? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 15, 2011, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137 "2011-07-15T15:47:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/101 "2011-07-18T09:43:27Z")
Still, it was the GOP who called for paying off “outside” T-bill holders before paying back Social Security, if necessary to avoid total default. Obama didn’t start that. Furthermore, the idea that Obama is the nasty one screwing over pensioners here is fraud. It’s been the case for 15 years that great numbers of us (both right-wing and libertarian) have argued that SS is generational theft, & that the GOP has been deliberately trying to gut the welfare state (or so they claim–I think they just have to cut taxes to get anyone to vote for them). To blame Obama for pointing out that the beast is starving, when you yourself done starved it, is the act of a party that knows it does not have the people behind it, & is trying to pull one over on the populace. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/102 "2011-07-18T17:50:15Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I suspect it depends on who ‘the rich’ is we are talking about. The super rich, like the oft quoted Buffet? He probably wouldn’t mind too much if he had to pay more in taxes than he current is paying (though if he REALLY thinks he’s paying too little then all he has to do is fire all his tax people and not bother with all those deductions and loopholes they find for him). > > -XT Buffet doesn’t bother with tax lawyers. He just pays what it says in the tax code : - Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all. It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?” Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare. “There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”\* [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html?ex=1322197200&en=0cf877b05b918674&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html?ex=1322197200&en=0cf877b05b918674&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) Don’t you think that the wealthy should at least pay the same effective rate of tax that the rest of the country pay? How about corporations too? ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/103 "2011-07-18T17:56:46Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > We have higher corporate tax rates than most of Europe. Corporate tax isn’t a very good way to get revenue, in any case. Corporations are far more flexible than people are with their income. > > People use their income to fund their lives. A corporation is different, its life is about creating value for others (investors.) No one is taxed on gross earnings, be they humans or corporations. That is why your Adjusted Gross Income when you file taxes is always going to be lower than your gross pay, the government isn’t going to make you pay taxes on your gross because they know you’re paying money out in payroll taxes for one, as well as perhaps retirement, health care, mortgage payments, and various other things governments are willing to let us deduct. > > So if you take all the money corporations earn and then deduct all the money they had to spend to earn it, you have their taxable earnings. This is what is taxed by corporate income taxes. Here is where corporations are totally different from human beings. > > Some corporations are very interested in generating a large amount of operating profit and paying hefty dividends to shareholders. These corporations will pay a lot of corporate income taxes. Other corporations are interested in extreme growth and do not care about paying dividends. Shareholders will buy stock in these companies because their value is increasing as the company’s operations expand, so even though they do not get dividend checks they realize a gain on their investment. These companies will not pay very high corporate income taxes because any money they have after operations will be used for capital expenditures, hiring new people and etc, all of those things are going to reduce the final taxable income of the corporation dramatically. > > Interestingly, those things: capital expenditures and hiring new people, is by many people’s account a better use of a corporation’s money than paying dividends to shareholders. So many people who argue for high corporate income taxes aren’t arguing for it because they think corporations should pay more to the Federal government in absolute numbers, but because they believe higher corporate income tax rates will stimulate greater job growth and overall output of firms. > > What would happen if you dramatically raised corporate income taxes is you would just cause corporations to decide they wanted to make more capital investments and hire more people. Unfortunately though that’s not always a good thing. Not every corporation is in the market position to justify that sort of thing, and in fact that sort of thing could cause organizational bloat and leave them running in the red down the road. Additionally, some corporations will find various ways to just pay top executives more and more fat bonuses and stock options instead of hiring more people, it’s debatable whether or not we want to promote that sort of thing (bloated executive compensation is neither great for the economy or the shareholder, and I say that as a very right-wing person.) > > Whatever you may believe about corporate income taxes the one thing that is essentially true without a doubt is they aren’t a good way to fix deficit problems. High rates may be a good way to stimulate capital investment but they aren’t going to help the deficit because unlike people corporations can easily and without using “loopholes” or “illegitimate actions” lower their pre-tax earnings by simply spending those earnings on growing the business. If you tried to structure so that corporations could not do that, then you may get more money out of them but it might be worse for the economy overall because corporations would not be as interested in expanding. We have higher corporate taxes thsn elsewhere but you also say that corporations just find loopholes to avoid tax. And they do! Like GE, who make billions in profit but don’t pay any tax and actually get money back from the government. A lot of the biggest US corporations actually have a similar negative tax rate. US corporations managed just fine back in the 1950s when they paid a vastly bigger share of national taxation than they do now. They had vast sums to invest, made vat profits and employed vast numbers of Americans compared to now. So clearly taxation rates don’t have the kind of negative effects on them that you claim. Don’t you think that they should pay a fair share of the tax burden? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/104 "2011-07-18T18:36:30Z")
Even the Wall street Journal just published an article saying tax breaks to the wealthy do not create jobs. it was part of a polling of economists who overwhelmingly agreed. Seems strange that rightys will reject them and believe Bachmann, Palin and Cantor. They are just picking and choosing so they do not have to face their own economic ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/105 "2011-07-18T20:59:27Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > Three years ago, the economy was in a mess and the government essentially borrowed a metric boatload of money to try to stimulate our way out of it. While there’s a certain ambiguity about whether that worked or not, it’s unquestionable that the markets have pretty much recovered. At the heart of the economic downturn, I, as a very middle class American, had, on paper, lost several tens of thousands of dollars. I fortunately did not lose my job and didn’t have to liquidate any assets, so all those investments have now recovered and bit more besides. So I personally regard the funds spent by the government in avoiding permanent hideous economic disaster as money well spent. The stock market’s best year ever was 1933. The Great Depression lasted until ~1941. Also, 1937 was one of the worst years ever for the stock market. In other words, the stock market is not a very good indicator for the overall health of the economy. ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2011, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/106 "2011-07-19T04:32:42Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Even the Wall street Journal just published an article saying tax breaks to the wealthy do not create jobs. it was part of a polling of economists who overwhelmingly agreed. Seems strange that rightys will reject them and believe Bachmann, Palin and Cantor. > They are just picking and choosing so they do not have to face their own economic ignorance. The Journal has been advocating lower income tax rates for quite some time as they (rightly) believe that will encourage investment and development. They’ve also pushed to reduce the complexity of the tax code and eliminate as many of the loop holes as possible. Really though, they’re for lower rates of income tax. ---
**Author:** ![SlyFrog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a3d4f5/32.png) [@SlyFrog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlyFrog)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2011, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/107 "2011-07-20T17:52:55Z")
Given that: (a) the “rich” are by definition a very small percentage of society, (b) that we live in a republic where we elect the people who determine tax policy on a one person-one vote basis, and © the rich have no realistic choice but to pay the taxes put in place by such people who determine tax policy, you could also interesting ask why the non-“rich” do not simply exercise their superior voting power to elect people who will heavily tax the “rich.” ---
**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:** [July 20, 2011, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/108 "2011-07-20T18:50:51Z")
> [@SlyFrog](#): > > Given that: (a) the “rich” are by definition a very small percentage of society, (b) that we live in a republic where we elect the people who determine tax policy on a one person-one vote basis, and (c) the rich have no realistic choice but to pay the taxes put in place by such people who determine tax policy, you could also interesting ask why the non-“rich” do not simply exercise their superior voting power to elect people who will heavily tax the “rich.” So, there are no campaign ads or campaign donations on your planet? BTW, I’m still waiting for a cite that demonstrates that the rich are indeed so overwhelmingly opposed to paying taxes. ---
**Author:** ![SlyFrog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a3d4f5/32.png) [@SlyFrog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlyFrog)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/109 "2011-07-20T18:54:09Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > So, there are no campaign ads or campaign donations on your planet? If people really wanted to soak it to the rich, they could simply elect people who absolutely commit to do so. Campaign ads and donations do not physically prevent people from voting for candidates of their choice. Now you could argue that campaign ads give people the wrong notion (that they should vote for candidates who won’t heavily tax the rich). But that’s really a different issue, as it is one of why more people don’t insist on candidates that heavily tax the rich. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/110 "2011-07-20T20:25:03Z")
> [@SlyFrog](#): > > If people really wanted to soak it to the rich, they could simply elect people who absolutely commit to do so. Campaign ads and donations do not physically prevent people from voting for candidates of their choice. > > Now you could argue that campaign ads give people the wrong notion (that they should vote for candidates who won’t heavily tax the rich). But that’s really a different issue, as it is one of why more people don’t insist on candidates that heavily tax the rich. Campaign ads and other propaganda convince people to vote against their best interests all the time. Anyone saying they want to increase taxes on the rich gets attack ads saying “HE WILL INCREASE YOUR TAXES” or get called a Socialist, or get accused of class warfare. And they appeal to the dreams of people. Look at Joe the Plumber, dead set against a policy which would benefit him because he had a fantasy that someday he’d get rich. If people only did things that didn’t hurt them, there would be almost no smoking and McDonalds would be 1 /100th the size it is today. Murdoch bankrolls Fox News, and millions of people believe the crap they hear on it. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2011, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/111 "2011-07-20T20:27:35Z")
> [@SlyFrog](#): > > Given that: (a) the “rich” are by definition a very small percentage of society, (b) that we live in a republic where we elect the people who determine tax policy on a one person-one vote basis, and (c) the rich have no realistic choice but to pay the taxes put in place by such people who determine tax policy, you could also interesting ask why the non-“rich” do not simply exercise their superior voting power to elect people who will heavily tax the “rich.” The answer is that a scarily high percentage of non-rich voters have been suckered into believing that taxing the rich is more unfair and unjust than skimping on social services that help the poor, the elderly, and the sick. They’d rather live in a society that allows a rich man to sink a few extra dollars in his Swiss bank account than live a society where ERs aren’t overflooded with indigents who can’t pay the bill for their uncontrolled diabetes. ---
**Author:** ![SlyFrog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a3d4f5/32.png) [@SlyFrog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlyFrog)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2011, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/112 "2011-07-20T20:42:25Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > The answer is that a scarily high percentage of non-rich voters have been suckered into believing that taxing the rich is more unfair and unjust than skimping on social services that help the poor, the elderly, and the sick. They’d rather live in a society that allows a rich man to sink a few extra dollars in his Swiss bank account than live a society where ERs aren’t overflooded with indigents who can’t pay the bill for their uncontrolled diabetes. I agree, and I think that is the real problem. The rich aren’t going to agree to raise their own taxes. I work with many of them, and the Warren Buffets of the world are the exception. The wealthy people I work with, you’d swear that making them give an extra dollar to stop someone from dying in the street was the equivalent of invading their home at gunpoint. Instead, the question is why is the average schmuck so gullible as to be pro rich? The Economist had an article recently that suggested Americans are much more concerned about opportunity than class. That is, in a Lake Woebegone type of way, most Americans somehow think that they might get rich some day, so let’s avoid taxing the high life now because they don’t want to give up a penny of the imaginary “some day” wealth they have in their heads. (Of course, the entire notion that America is a land of equal opportunity is itself a joke, as the article points out indicators that it may now actually be easier to climb class ladders in Europe than it is in America. Just another thing that the common person is misinformed about.) ---
**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 21, 2011, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/113 "2011-07-21T03:27:19Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > Three years ago, the economy was in a mess and the government essentially borrowed a metric boatload of money to try to stimulate our way out of it. While there’s a certain ambiguity about whether that worked or not, it’s unquestionable that the markets have pretty much recovered. At the heart of the economic downturn, I, as a very middle class American, had, on paper, lost several tens of thousands of dollars. I fortunately did not lose my job and didn’t have to liquidate any assets, so all those investments have now recovered and bit more besides. So I personally regard the funds spent by the government in avoiding permanent hideous economic disaster as money well spent. > > Now we’re heading into possible default and the sticking point seems to be the Republican’s insistence on No New Taxes, even though we’re now paying what are historically pretty low taxes. As for me, I’m worried about rising gas prices, fuel oil prices, and food prices, but my tax bite isn’t something I get too worked up about except for a week or so around April 15th. Realistically, if it went up $500.00/year or $1000/year, I’d curse a bit (or possibly more than a bit), pay it, and get on with my life. And I’m far below Obama’s target range of taxable people. > > Now if we do have a default, I can easily see another big market crash. So let’s weigh the possible outcomes. A mildly unpleasant increase in taxes each year, or a completely disastrous plunge in the markets that could cause a 20 or 30% hit to our collective net worth. > > Me, I’m willing to pay the taxes. Because the alternatives really, really suck. And, as a fiscally conservative person, I’m in favor of paying off debts once they’re incurred. > > What’s the problem with the rich? They can spare it even easier than I can. They didn’t get rich by thinking about how they could afford to pay more taxes than the next guy. ---
**Author:** ![FlyingScotsman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/838e76/32.png) [@FlyingScotsman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlyingScotsman)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/114 "2011-07-21T15:01:25Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Obama this morning mentioned polls showing 80% of us are in favor of a budget solution which raises revenues, in other words, more taxes. At this point, more taxes can be easily sold as a way of avoiding cuts. No one is talking about growth, anywhere. It makes sense for the rich to pay more because the rich have gotten a lot more, while the poor and the middle class have seen wage stagnation. Cast aside the debate over whether this “80%” number is a fabrication or not (we could have a whole 'nuther topic on just the statistical manipulation that creates that figure). If we think a minute about this, this should mean that Obama should seek to impose a tax increase that increases taxes on 80% of the American public. At a time when it’s alleged that forty-something percent (give or take, depending on who’s arguing) of the tax-paying public pays no income taxes. I double-dog dare him. ---
**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 21, 2011, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/115 "2011-07-21T15:14:20Z")
> [@FlyingScotsman](#): > > If we think a minute about this, this should mean that Obama should seek to impose a tax increase that increases taxes on 80% of the American public. I have thought and I have thought, and I cannot come up with a rational reason why this would be so. How does it follow if 80% of the people want a plan to reduce the deficit to include tax increases, then the tax increases should be on 80% of the people? I don’t follow. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/116 "2011-07-21T15:23:13Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I have thought and I have thought, and I cannot come up with a rational reason why this would be so. How does it follow if 80% of the people want a plan to reduce the deficit to include tax increases, then the tax increases should be on 80% of the people? I don’t follow. I agree - I suspect that the polls are really saying that 80% of people want other people’s taxes to be raised. btw, just letting (all of) the Bush tax cuts expire would get pretty close to increasing taxes on 80% of the people. ---
**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 21, 2011, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/117 "2011-07-21T16:21:18Z")
> [@amarone](#): > > I agree - I suspect that the polls are really saying that 80% of people want other people’s taxes to be raised. If the voters want to raise taxes on the rich, why should their will not be respected? ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/118 "2011-07-21T16:56:04Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > If the voters want to raise taxes on the rich, why should their will not be respected? Because it leads to the end of democracy? > [@anonymous](#): > > A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy. Anyway, there are many things that a civilized country should not do even if the majority of its citizens vote for it. Having said that, I am not against raising taxes on the rich. I am in favor of raising taxes on pretty much everyone. ---
**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 21, 2011, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/119 "2011-07-21T17:30:06Z")
> [@amarone](#): > > Because it leads to the end of democracy? It never has in the past. I see no reason to believe it will now, or ever. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/120 "2011-07-21T18:00:02Z")
> [@FlyingScotsman](#): > > If we think a minute about this, this should mean that Obama should seek to impose a tax increase that increases taxes on 80% of the American public. At a time when it’s alleged that forty-something percent (give or take, depending on who’s arguing) of the tax-paying public pays no income taxes. > > I double-dog dare him. Let’s look back over the last decade – who’s income has been affected by the current rates? If someone’s wealth has gone up, they have benefited by the rates, and should pay more. If someone’s wealth has stagnated or gone down, their cohort should not. I’ve done pretty well by the tax cuts – I wouldn’t mind paying my fair share. I don’t see any benefit in increasing taxes on the unemployed or very poor… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137.md?page=7)