It’s part of the propaganda that the really stonking super-rich earnt their money. Mostly they inherited a money-making organisation with a board of directors working out how to make more for them. Others gambled other people’s money and awarded each other commissions and bonusses for losing it. A very few like Richard Branson and Bill Gates can be said to have worked their way up but even they, after they had planted their first money-tree only had to stick around waiting for the fruit to fall every year.
In a capitalistic system, as long as the money was not illegally made or acquired, then the money is rightfully theirs. Who are you to say otherwise?
If they cannot afford a plumber unless they get a tax cut, they are, by my definition, not rich.
What’s missing from this discussion is the reason the left so desperately want to raise taxes on the rich. What would be the purpose? Why do you want to do it?
Decrease the deficit (again) that occured while conservatives sumultaneously started an unnessary war and cut taxes on the rich.
Offered without comment.
That’s my theory, of course. :rolleyes: Just curious what your reason is.
Why not just decrease spending by the same amount you want to raise taxes? Wouldn’t that be easier?
Nonsense. They might not redo the kitchen on their house in the Hamptons. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t hire a plumber if the sink was backing up.
No one wants to raise taxes on the rich, they want to pay for government services and the money has to come from somewhere. It’s not punitive, it’s a recognition that some people disproportionately benefit from our system and therefore should pay more in recognition of what they withdraw from society’s pool.
Because we need to? Because we are extremely deeply in debt and need to find additional revenue to pay at least some of that back? Because, as a nation, we can not even afford to decently educate our citizens? And…
You may nave heard recently that many Americans can’t afford health care. Our country, as a whole, is fabulously wealthy but a large segment of our society can’t afford proper health care. How can that be when there is so much money floating around? And…
We have roads and bridges all over the country crumbling–about to fall into some Big Muddy like some Minnesotan bridge. How the fuck are we going to pay for all of this? A bake sale? Some telethon? Stick-up Belgium?
Our tax burden in this country is too low. You know how I know? Because we can’t pay the bills our country owes, and we also can’t afford many basic human services that the civilized nations cover as a matter of course (see above–health, education, child care, etc.).
I don’t just desperately want to see taxes raised on the rich, I want to see them raised on myself, the rest of the middle-class, and the working poor too. But here’s the thing-- most poor folks can’t really afford to pay any more taxes (if they are paying any at all) and part of the reason for that is that our government services are so lacking or non-existent compared to the more advanced nations.
And, in an economy like we are experiencing right now, there is not a lot of wiggle-room left for the middle-class to afford to pay their fair share of taxes either. Not while they are being pillaged by underhanded credit card and student loan interest and fees. Not while they are under the constant threat of losing their health insurance if they should have to leave their job because of some catastrophe.
Again-- IMO the poor and the middle-class should be paying (proportionally) higher taxes as well as the rich, and when and if they are able to be able to afford it, I hope national policy changes so that they will.
But right now, the wealthy *can * afford a higher tax burden. Let’s start with them, and get to everyone else later. We are desperately short on revenue and we are desperately short on the basic human services and protections that the rest of the wealthy first world has already decided go hand-in-hand with being a prosperous 21st Century nation.
We’ve got no time for this Joe the Plumber boneheadedness or Scrooge McDuck selfishness. No time for Sarah Palin cluelessness or Rush O’Hannity unscrupulousness. And certainly no time for Elliot Ness.
If we don’t raise taxes then the terrorists win. Let’s roll!
Thanks, Love. Knew it wasn’t just hookers and blow…
The lack of tax cuts does not prevent the rich from redoing the whole house in the Hamptons. I think your definition of rich is somewhat more modest than mine.
Gotta get revenue from somewhere. Why do people rob banks? Because that’s where the money is. We should definitely put taxes on top earners back to Reagan-era levels.
I Love Me, Vol. I: Why do you assume tax revenues will increase if you increase taxes? Is it not conceivable that tax revenues could increase if taxes are cut?
Yes, I am talking about multi-millionaires.
If someone has 1,000,000 of disposable income to spend on whatever one year and the next year they have 800,000 that’s 200,000 less that they spend on contractors. It’s really fucking simple and is infinitely scalable. If they have 20% less money to spend on frivolity that’s 20% less people they hire to perform those jobs.
I want to see the government make better use of the money that they already have. The problem with your line of thinking is that, one, it assumes that government can solve all of the nations problems and two, we can simply increase taxes to pay for those solutions. I’m not convinced that letting the government waste my money better than I could ever waste it myself is the way to go.
The middle class is supposedly shrinking as it is. And you want the government to take even more of their income?
Last time I checked, no one held a gun to people’s head and forced them to use their credit cards.
Look, we have a nation full of morons. Why should my taxes go to bail out people who can’t figure out how to use a credit card properly?
I’d prefer Eisenhower-era levels, personally.
Look at what happened to tax revenues over the last few decades but especially since Bush cut taxes in 2001. Really difficult to make a case that tax cuts increase revenues when you look at the evidence of the last decade.
I’d go with that for a decade or two, yeah.