You have a lot to learn about basic economics and the way business works.
So why should the wealthy person pay more in taxes? A zillion reasons. First of off, because the wealthy CAN pay more. Secondly, becaused they benefit more from our government and society, thus they pay in relationship to what they benefit. Thirdly because if we don't have some redistribution in our economy, like a game of monopoly we play only until one person ownes everthing and then our economy would end.
By the way, I am a small business owner. I don't quite make $250k, but my family income is far more than average. I don't mind paying more income taxes because I know that is my responsibility. It's just part of the deal. When you are successful, you pay up, and it's no sweat because the taxes I pay don't take any food off my table, I have plenty thank you.
Last edited by imagep; 03-10-12 at 09:11 PM.
Thats why redistribution has to be constant and modist. What we are trying to avoid is cataclismic mass redistribution.The number of businesses consumers voluntarily support (via their purchases) determine who makes the money and who doesn't. Redistributing money to the modest classes doesn't result in lasting change unless consumers diversify who gets their money a bit more. Right now we as consumers are failing to do this and it's reinforcing all of the income/wealth problems you're identifying.
I understand that you would prefer a true democracy and not a representative democracy, but can you identify any succesful true democracies? Or how about libertarian economies (other than Somolia)? I'm always hoping someone will come up with a good example. Havn't seen one yet.Even as a rigid libertarian, I can agree with this, but I believe the responsibility lies with the People (NOT the government officials they elect) and, at worst, their state governments. If New York wants to heavily tax its $250k/yr+ citizens, let them give that a try and see what happens. If it's a successful policy, it will catch on. If not, well, it won't. And that's good, in either case.
Last edited by imagep; 03-10-12 at 09:21 PM.
Evertime a conservative wants to "flatten" our tax rate it about increasing taxes on the middle class. Every time a conservative proposes a consumption tax it is conservative code for "higher taxes on the midde class".
Yes, the class warriors are waging battle against the middle class every day. They just don't admit to it publicly.
Of course I don't think it's a good thing, however I do think it's a necessary thing, because the wealthy in this country couldn't touch meeting our federal debts and mandatory spending requirements even if they were taxed at a 100% rate.
"God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
-C G Jung
No singular example is that great a loss to humanity. That's not the issue. The original claim is that when you tax the rich more, it results in higher incomes for the less-rich. I don't think this example translates.Also, lets say that a famous movie start decided not to star in as many movies because he has to pay too much in taxes. Do you really think that there would be a great loss to humanity?
I'm trying to avoid incrementalist redistribution while encouraging people to feel able to organize to solve their own problems (i.e., not appointing an already-corrupt government to solve their problems). So many people are bleating for the government to redistribute money from the rich back to them, and meanwhile they spend tons of their money on the stuff rich people produce. The People are redistributing their own money to the rich, and then whining that government isn't counter-redistributing it back to them for no reason other than the observation that the wealth gap is increasing.Thats why redistribution has to be constant and modist. What we are trying to avoid is cataclismic mass redistribution.
True democracy is only possible in small groups. Communism is also only possible in smallish groups. I just prefer a rule of law that protects individual liberties and doesn't leave room for vote-seekers to overstep their job duties by pandering to the needy. Success and failure are necessary incentives to learn and grow. Both need to be left alone.I understand that you would prefer a true democracy and not a representative democracy, but can you identify any succesful true democracies? Or how about libertarian economies (other than Somolia)? I'm always hoping someone will come up with a good example. Havn't seen one yet.
Federal income taxes bring in about 42% of the federal revenue, but payroll taxes (which is different that income tax and effects 100% of all employees) is very close at 40%. Yes, taxes on earnings of $92,000 or less just about matches all income taxes put together, including the taxes paid by the rich. It's staggering that most of the tax burdon is on the backs of the middle class, especially during a time where middle class incomes are not even keeping up with inflation.
Last edited by imagep; 03-10-12 at 11:50 PM.
It's sorta like how you work in your personal life; when your checkbook doesn't have enough for the family to go out to eat, you eat at home. IMO, we'd see more of the "shrimp on a treadmill" programs go to the wayside.