# 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:** 8
**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 23, 2011, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/141 "2011-07-23T17:54:03Z")
I agree, and I am probably more seriously anti-democratic than you are. But that quote is used in this democracy to inculcate the idea that our government is illegitimate; and to encourage people to vote oh-so-democratically not only against their own interests, but against legitimate government authority in general. ---
**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 23, 2011, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/142 "2011-07-23T18:04:31Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because the [coming crash](http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10688) is from entitlements, not defense spending. Oversimplification. It’s coming from us spending more than we take in revenues. If we reduce 10% of our spending, from the standpoint of correcting the deficit, it doesn’t matter whether that 10% comes from entitlements or the military. > [@](#): > > I thought we already agreed that our health care spending is way out of proportion when compared to other countries. And therefore your assessment doesn’t seem to be valid. We both know that why healthcare spending here is high, since it’s been topic that has been debated ad nauseum. Don’t insult our intelligence by pretending as though it’s because the government provides too many people with health insurance. > [@](#): > > I don’t know how you budget, but if I were running up a thousand dollars a month in credit card debt, and $900 of it was groceries and $100 was clothes, I would **not** look to try to fix the problem by cutting my clothes allowance in half. But we don’t spend 9 times as much on groceries as we do clothes. You need to cough up some cites for the stats you threw out in your earlier post. From my [reading\*](http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-countries-spend-their-money/), we spend 19% of our budget on healthcare and 19% on the military. To go back to my earlier analogy, the same percentage of our income is going to groceries as it does on clothes. You could say we need cut back on groceries, but the house is full of growing children who are barely eating as it is. At the same time, the kids are dressed in Armani suits and Air Jordans. Seems to me that before we decide to let kids starve, we need to cut back on the designer clothes and sneakers. And raise revenue. \*Not the most credible site on the planet but the best I could find in 30 seconds. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/143 "2011-07-23T18:19:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because the [coming crash](http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10688) is from entitlements, not defense spending. What a silly article. Look at the first paragraph: > [@](#): > > The welfare state was born in Otto von Bismarck’s Germany, a ploy of the famed Iron Chancellor designed to counter the electoral appeal of the rival Social Democrats. Thus, social security was created in 1889 and eventually spread, under several guises, to many nations. Here, the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program (Social Security) was approved in 1935, an early victory for Franklin Delano Roosevelt as he rapidly and dramatically expanded government control over the economy. For FDR, Social Security’s most important benefit was political: He recognized that once the American people got hooked on government benefits, they would never go back. Would you care to make a list for us of every policy Bismarck ever enacted so that we may know in detail what else we must avoid? Shall we go back to the time before Bismarck, say the days of kings and serfs? Oh wait, the founding fathers fought a war to escape that, whoops. This kind of thinking is a way to avoid dealing with real-world problems by hiding in ideologies. Yeah, it is all about ‘controlling the economy’, nothing to do with addressing a real problem which leads to suffering and death for millions if left unaddressed, nosiree Bob. How are we going to take care of seniors and sick people, **Shodan**? Are we going to just throw them all to the dogs because Bismarck did something in 1889? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/144 "2011-07-23T18:55:10Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Would you care to make a list for us of every policy Bismarck ever enacted so that we may know in detail what else we must avoid? I don’t think you quite got the point of the paragraph. > [@](#): > > This kind of thinking is a way to avoid dealing with real-world problems by hiding in ideologies. Well, no - as I said, you might want to actually read the article. It deals with a real-world problem. And speaking of retreating into ideological inanities rather than dealing with real-world problems - > [@](#): > > How are we going to take care of seniors and sick people, **Shodan**? Are we going to just throw them all to the dogs because Bismarck did something in 1889? The notion that doing something to avoid going bankrupt is “throwing seniors and sick people to the dogs” is a good example. I’m so hard-hearted - I don’t want entitlement spending to grow until it consumes 100% of the federal budget. At least the current debate about driving the country further along the road to bankruptcy makes it clear who are the serious people, and who are not. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/145 "2011-07-23T19:36:10Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > The thing that gets me is how the problem is cast as though the government is overspending in some general, nebulous, ill-defined way. As though the government were a ship riddled with a trilillion little leaks that are steadily sinking us into the ocean. But that image is a lie. > > We’re bleeding money all right, but the source of the bleeding is mainly coming out of one hole: defense. Not that we don’t spend a lot on Medicare and Medicaid too, but when other governments spend proportionately more on their healthcare-related programs than we do, it’s hard for me to say we spend too much on ours. Especially since we don’t even have universal healthcare. Our services only cover the tip of the population iceberg, and yet we’re supposed to believe even that tip is too much? Yeah, okay. > > It’s undeniable, though, that our defense budget is way out step with other countries. None of the Republicans whining about how our government is overstretched will come out and acknowledge that elephant in the room. Rather, they try to act as though that government spending in general is the problem. Instead of preaching about how we need to be realistic about what the govt can and can’t do, they should be saying, explicitly, that we need to be realistic about what our _military_ should and shouldn’t be doing. Two things I’ve read (_Time_ IIRC): 1.Our Defense spending is more than the rest of the 1st World combined. 2.Pentagon spending has allowed Western Europe to fund their social safety net. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/146 "2011-07-23T20:26:14Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > If the voters want to raise taxes on the rich, why should their will not be respected? Because many of them have no skin in the game. If we everyone, or even a substantial majority, paying income tax and they voted to increase the tax burden on everyone, fine. I’d have no problem with that. But when you have 50% or so of the populace excluded from being hit by the tax it should be unsurprising that they’d vote to increase taxes _on other 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 23, 2011, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/147 "2011-07-23T21:29:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Because many of them have no skin in the game. If we everyone, or even a substantial majority, paying income tax and they voted to increase the tax burden on everyone, fine. I’d have no problem with that. But when you have 50% or so of the populace excluded from being hit by the tax it should be unsurprising that they’d vote to increase taxes _on other people._ So what? That is what the Constitution calls for; one man, one vote, or as libertarians call it, tyranny by the majority. That is far preferrable to tyranny by the minority, which is what you are advocating, and what the Republicans are arguing for in the House. Not likely to change just because you don’t like the way the Constitution works. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/148 "2011-07-23T22:37:29Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > So what? That is what the Constitution calls for; one man, one vote, or as libertarians call it, tyranny by the majority. That is far preferrable to tyranny by the minority, which is what you are advocating, and what the Republicans are arguing for in the House. Not likely to change just because you don’t like the way the Constitution works. No, that’s not what I’m arguing for. I’m arguing for everyone (with a few exceptions) paying income tax. And in a way that if it goes up for anyone it goes up for everyone. But out of curiosity, what do you say to this idea: we tax everyone worth over $1 billion, 95%? would you advocate such plan. If so, why? If not, why not? ---
**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 23, 2011, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/149 "2011-07-23T23:10:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No, that’s not what I’m arguing for. I’m arguing for everyone (with a few exceptions) paying income tax. And in a way that if it goes up for anyone it goes up for everyone. So you agree with Orrin Hatch, who thinks the poor need to [“share some of the responsibility”](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&drKey=1259&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fboards.straightdope.com%2Fsdmb%2Fshowthread.php%3Fp%3D13998557%26highlight%3Dorrin%23post13998557&v=1&libid=1311462359925&out=http%3A%2F%2Ftpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com%2F2011%2F07%2Fdems-go-after-hatch-for-saying-poor-need-to-do-more-to-shrink-the-debt.php%3Fref%3Ddcblt&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fboards.straightdope.com%2Fsdmb%2Fsearch.php%3Fsearchid%3D6845500&title=Stupid%20Republican%20idea%20of%20the%20day%20-%20Page%2079%20-%20Straight%20Dope%20Message%20Board&txt=the%20poor%20need%20to%20%22share%20some%20of%20the%20responsibility%22) for reducing the deficit? > [@](#): > > But out of curiosity, what do you say to this idea: we tax everyone worth over $1 billion, 95%? would you advocate such plan. If so, why? If not, why not? Because it is unecessarily confiscatory. However, returning to the Clinton era tax rates would work wonders to reduce the deficit. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/150 "2011-07-23T23:23:55Z")
[QUOTE=Fear Itself] So you agree with Orrin Hatch, who thinks the poor need to “share some of the responsibility” for reducing the deficit? [/QUOTE] I think you’re mischaracterizing his point. It all depends what you mean by “poor”. He was making the point that some of the so-called “poor” make over $80,000. And yes, they should share in whatever pain there is. You know, it’s kinda funny that the same group that considers people who make $80,000 poor constantly characterize those making over $200,000 as "millionaires. I don’t know if they’re having a hard time with the numbers or the language. ---
**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 23, 2011, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/151 "2011-07-23T23:26:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think you’re mischaracterizing his point. It all depends what you mean by “poor”. He was making the point that some of the so-called “poor” make over $80,000. And yes, they should share in whatever pain there is. > > You know, it’s kinda funny that the same group that considers people who make $80,000 poor constantly characterize those making over $200,000 as "millionaires. I don’t know if they’re having a hard time with the numbers or the language. There are no people making $80,000 that pay no income tax. Full stop. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/152 "2011-07-24T01:46:00Z")
Why? Seriously? Because, to paraphrase Montgomery Burns, “You know, as much money as I have, I’d trade it all away for just a little more.” ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/153 "2011-07-24T09:02:40Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > There are no people making $80,000 that pay no income tax. Full stop. Can you prove that? I just filled in a tax return spreadsheet (you can get it from [http://www.excel1040.com](http://www.excel1040.com)) and found it pretty easy to enter details for a family making $80k and end up with zero income tax liability. My fictitious family: [ul] [li]made $80k gross[/li][li]put 6% into a 401(k)[/li][li]has 4 children, all eligible for the child tax credit[/li][li]Paid $3k in property taxes[/li][li]Paid $6k in mortgage interest[/li][li]Donated $1k to charity[/li][li]Put $5k in an IRA[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/154 "2011-07-24T09:08:08Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > However, returning to the Clinton era tax rates would work wonders to reduce the deficit. Now this I agree with. Of course, that would mean many more people paying federal income tax. [Less than 25%](http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1410.html) escaped federal income tax in the Clinton years. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/155 "2011-07-24T20:06:55Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > There are no people making $80,000 that pay no income tax. Full stop. I see that **amarone** has dealt with this. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > However, returning to the Clinton era tax rates would work wonders to reduce the deficit. Would you be an advocate of this? ---
**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 24, 2011, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/156 "2011-07-24T20:19:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Would you be an advocate of this? I would advocate returning to pre-1994 tax rates, yes. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/157 "2011-07-24T20:50:16Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I would advocate returning to pre-1994 tax rates, yes. Why pre-1994? If Clinton’s policies were responsible for for our financial health, why not go with the ones he enacted? As per **amarone’s** link, the tax code in 1993 had about only 23% of people owing no taxes at the end of the year. Are you okay with having more people on the lower end paying? If so, I’d agree with that. Widening the tax base is helpful in several respects. ---
**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 24, 2011, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/158 "2011-07-24T21:03:11Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Why pre-1994? If Clinton’s policies were responsible for for our financial health, why not go with the ones he enacted? Because the 1993 Clinton tax increase rates will reduce the deficit faster than the rates rammed through by the Contract on America. > [@](#): > > As per **amarone’s** link, the tax code in 1993 had about only 23% of people owing no taxes at the end of the year. Are you okay with having more people on the lower end paying? If so, I’d agree with that. Widening the tax base is helpful in several respects. I am willing to compromise. If you can get your side to go for pre-1994 tax rates, I will work on broadening the tax base. But note that amarone’s statistics are per person, while mine are per household. Not the same, so I doubt there is much of a difference. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/159 "2011-07-24T21:26:52Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > But note that amarone’s statistics are per person, while mine are per household. Not the same, so I doubt there is much of a difference. Not so. The statistics I linked to are “per return”, which is neither per person nor per household. However, it is a lot closer to “per household” then “per person”, as most couples file jointly and you mostly will get multiple returns per household only if more than one working generation lives together. All the statistics I found (I only linked one of several) were done on a per return basis - it is difficult to analyze any other way. ---
**Author:** ![Kensley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/74df32/32.png) [@Kensley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kensley)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137/160 "2011-07-24T23:35:07Z")
Why are the poor opposed to paying ANY taxes… I say if POTUS wants to raise taxes on ANYONE, then they need to raise taxes on EVERYONE. Oh wait, 1/2 of the population pay NO TAXES… perhaps it’s time they start paying their fair share. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-rich-so-opposed-to-paying-taxes/589137.md?page=9)