Allowing many people to have a shot at being uber-wealthy is dangerous
Making the uber-wealthy share the load would be bad for the economy
The middle class do not have as much of an influence on politics as the wealthy do
The idea that the middle class pay the most crippling amount of income tax is a myth
A few wealthy, a few more middle class and many lower class citizens is best
Be in general virtuous, and you will be happy. -- Benjamin Franklin
I support a flat tax because it prevents the many from voting up taxes on others.
right now there is absolutely no bar against the bottom 95% voting up the taxes on the top 5% up and up and up
a flat tax would cause pain for everyone when taxes are raised I want that . Pain is a good teacher. those who want more government need to suffer pain when government grows.
The main point is that the top percentiles make so much that it wouldn't hurt to increase progressive taxation on them - they wouldn't feel it, no skin off their back .. however, increasing taxes on any other group would be tyrannical
Again, if progressive taxation did not exist, you and I would both be in the poor house as essentially all of the income eventually end up in the hands of only one very small group of people .. that would exclude those who are not currently billionaires - how is that so hard to understand?
"It is a natural process for the wealthiest individuals and firms in a society to become disproportionately wealthier over time. In order to prevent the political instability resulting from the natural stratification of the populace into an ever smaller and wealthier aristocracy or moneyed class, and an ever larger working class, all free market democracies engage in progressive taxation and programs to enhance economic opportunity for the lower and middle classes"
Not to mention the relative burden on the lower income individuals and families would be much more severe .. while the wealthiest hand out chump change .. you have to look at tax paid in as it compares to living expenses
Politically sound strategies are relative. Talk of a flat tax often rouses popular sympathy. I'd say supporting a flat tax has been a politically sound strategy for a lot of people.progressive income tax is a politically sound strategy
Taking too much money from the wealthy would result in economic implosion. Economic implosions result in conditions hazardous to a political career (see Tea Party), so politicians have strong incentives to avoid them.it allows politicians to buy the votes of the many with the wealth of a minority voting bloc.
Furthermore, the lower income brackets are spread unevenly across geo-political lines and the ideological spectrum; regardless of dependency on welfare, they don't aggregate into a cohesive voting bloc that supports Democrats and opposes Republicans, partially because the Republicans aren't really a serious threat to welfare (in many historical cases post-New Deal, the opposite has been true).
Certainly, to meet the domestic and foreign challenges of the 20th century, including two world wars, nuclear power, the Cold War, globalization, and the Information Age. The administration of these events required vast sums of capital; more than a flat tax could have provided.it also gave congress a ton of power.
It's pretty intuitive. The wealthy don't create jobs that don't have a high probability of making a profit, they don't raise salaries when they have a global economy as a labor resource, and, in an economy like that, bonuses are becoming a quaint notion. Ironically, much like any policy that empowers a few at the expense of the many, the prosperity these practices create is a fragile, artificial thing. Rapid industrialization and agitation for more rights in foreign countries (see contemporary Middle East as an example) will lead to increasingly chaotic local politics, endangering the stability of the global economy, and, spurred by their citizens, foreign governments will become increasingly protectionist (which, in comparison to the United States, they already are -- but they will get worse). They will not allow American companies to provide products or services to their populations (aka, closed markets), meaning that America's wealthy will be restricted solely to their country for consumers. Problem is, by that time the middle class will have shrank to a size that no longer supports economies anywhere near the size or productivity of what we currently enjoy.so your claim is without any rational basis
Consequently, the wealthy, though they will probably remain wealthy, will certainly enjoy far less capital (relative to what they possess now), and certainly far less than if they had been more cooperative in securing America's collective economic well being.
Last edited by Morality Games; 08-23-11 at 10:38 PM.
If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.
Calling it crippling is hyperbole, but it's also true in some cases...
Also, if you pay off certain debts too fast, that's possibly another tax you pay. The middle class can rack that tax up fast without knowing it, and they are trying to do the best thing... pay off their debt asap. It's not hard to get into credit card debt in this economy either.