What's the counter argument for why we shouldn't tax the rich?

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And what's the alternative to trickle down? Forced redistribution of wealth instead?

We should know, Karl Marx wrote a book on it.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im not sure why the idea of equating money with power is such a bad thing. As another poster said, they didnt get wealthy by accident. 1st generation money now exceeds old money so the excuse Sally happened to get lucky no longer works. If these people have the wherewithal to create millions or even billions in wealth for themselves, what makes YOU think YOU could do any better than them, when you cant even fucking balance your checkbook or save a month's salary?

Please. Power is where it belongs. If "middle income" earners feel so blighted maybe they get off their lazy fat asses and VOTE. THEN we would have the power. They have it because we let them.

Enjoy.

My point is, there is a huge difference between an entrepreneur who ends up making a lot of money and works hard at it, vs the benefactors of that work. You seem to be supporting wealthy people in general regardless of how they ended up with the money because your take is if they have money, they must have worked really hard for it.

We want to reward entrepreneurs and savers. Perhaps not so much the people who accumulate wealth faster than they can spend it.

I just can't see a way to have both.

What does Buffet have to say on this?

I think the greatest problem in our society is not being able to get a student loan for college if your family has bad credit. But what is the solution? Guaranteed loans backed by the government? That would flood colleges with students and the prices would just escalate like they did with the introduction of Pell Grants.

Now, its intersting that you bring up college tuition. The solution to college tuition is simple, lower it. For college/universities if they could be guaranteed the same level of students at all tuition levels and business as usual they would be all for it. The lenders obviously would be against it

I don't think guarantee is what they are looking for. They charge as much as possible and move on. Things like Pell Grants allowed them to charge more to get the same number of students, because that money was money the students never had to pay back, so it simply increased the number of students willing to pay the tuition to go to school. To offset this, they increase tuition until they get back to the norm. I go to Tech too, and the out of state right now is at 31K including room and board for 2k8-2k9.

BTW-- were you goalie for the soccer team?

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: herm0016
http://www.heritage.org/Resear.../images/bg1415cht1.gif

the top 10% pay nearly 2/3 of all income taxes collected.

Whenever I hear this argument, I never hear what percent of money does the top 10% or 1% have? I have a feeling they have more than 2/3 of the money.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bird222

Originally posted by: herm0016
http://www.heritage.org/Resear.../images/bg1415cht1.gif

the top 10% pay nearly 2/3 of all income taxes collected.

Whenever I hear this argument, I never hear what percent of money does the top 10% or 1% have? I have a feeling they have more than 2/3 of the money.

You're conflating income and overall worth. While somewhat related they are two different, and separate, issues.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Similarly, the Walton kids aren't exactly making Wal-Mart a whole lot more productive corporation for stockholders or society; they simply have a lot of stock so they're the wealthiest family in the US, and others run the company while billions are handed to the Walton family for their highly skilled owning of the stock. Multiply them by 1000 and you have the 'ownership class' in the US, in great part.

If you don't tax the rich, the harms are many and large. The rich will tend to get richer, owning more and more of all the wealth in society, which is a direct threat to democratic government. Opportunity, reward, will be reduced.

It's a right-wing myth that every dollar put in the hands of a wealthy person is used for the benefit of society; actually a fraction of it is, while a lot of it simply goes towards owning more leading to more wealth. It'd be more accurate in most situations to say that the same dollar given to the *bottom* does more good for society, where it's spent and helps the economy move.

In short, not taxing the wealthy enough, IMO, increases corruption and tyranny in the nation, and harms the middle class and the standard of living for everyone else. It's simply unacceptable in a healthy society.

Good answer.

 

[ayabe]

I'm not trying to hijack this thread but in related news has anyone been paying attention to the latest UBS scandel, where they were hiding the assets of rich Americans from the IRS?

There's hearings going on right now.

Here are a couple links:

ABC

Senate Report PDF


I wonder if 'ol Phil Gramm is going to be outed as one of these people. Supposedly there is a list of names and they will be released.

This should be met with serious jail time not only for UBS employees but the fatcats themselves who knew damn well they were skirting the law.

Senator Levin even suggested that we may need to revoke UBS's right to operate in the US.

According to the report, we lose about 100 billion dollars annually to tax cheats.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Vic
Investors don't reap dividends when consumers are too poor to purchase their products.

This is why nations with large wealth disparities and a small middle class also tend to have weak economies.

For a couple of years I lived in a 3rd world country where this phenomenon was very evident. A very very small percentage had the money, and they made sure that the small percentage kept the money by paying poor salaries, inflating the housing market so that very few can purchase homes now, putting a high investment buy-in on oil stocks so that only those who already have money can profit (oil being the only source of wealth in the country), etc. Of course the cost of living is increasing weekly due to these factors. Someone with a better understanding of economics could analyze the situation better.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Vic
Investors don't reap dividends when consumers are too poor to purchase their products.

This is why nations with large wealth disparities and a small middle class also tend to have weak economies.

For a couple of years I lived in a 3rd world country where this phenomenon was very evident. A very very small percentage had the money, and they made sure that the small percentage kept the money by paying poor salaries, inflating the housing market so that very few can purchase homes now, putting a high investment buy-in on oil stocks so that only those who already have money can profit (oil being the only source of wealth in the country), etc. Of course the cost of living is increasing weekly due to these factors. Someone with a better understanding of economics could analyze the situation better.

anthropology and sociology answer these questions, not economics... greed and powerlust are what make the 3rd world situation happen... revolutions then generate a redistribution that, if the folks are lucky and have a benevolent dictator for at least that generation, gets wiped out when the second generation (whom didn't have to fight the revolution but grew up with its benefits) decides the they 'deserve' to rule and be rich... of course this is the simple case, but has been repeated over and over...

this is the 'argument' for not allowing the passage of wealth or power on to subsequent generations...

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im not sure why the idea of equating money with power is such a bad thing. As another poster said, they didnt get wealthy by accident. 1st generation money now exceeds old money so the excuse Sally happened to get lucky no longer works. If these people have the wherewithal to create millions or even billions in wealth for themselves, what makes YOU think YOU could do any better than them, when you cant even fucking balance your checkbook or save a month's salary?

Please. Power is where it belongs. If "middle income" earners feel so blighted maybe they get off their lazy fat asses and VOTE. THEN we would have the power. They have it because we let them.

Enjoy.

My point is, there is a huge difference between an entrepreneur who ends up making a lot of money and works hard at it, vs the benefactors of that work. You seem to be supporting wealthy people in general regardless of how they ended up with the money because your take is if they have money, they must have worked really hard for it.

We want to reward entrepreneurs and savers. Perhaps not so much the people who accumulate wealth faster than they can spend it.

I just can't see a way to have both.

What does Buffet have to say on this?

I think the greatest problem in our society is not being able to get a student loan for college if your family has bad credit. But what is the solution? Guaranteed loans backed by the government? That would flood colleges with students and the prices would just escalate like they did with the introduction of Pell Grants.

Now, its intersting that you bring up college tuition. The solution to college tuition is simple, lower it. For college/universities if they could be guaranteed the same level of students at all tuition levels and business as usual they would be all for it. The lenders obviously would be against it

I don't think guarantee is what they are looking for. They charge as much as possible and move on. Things like Pell Grants allowed them to charge more to get the same number of students, because that money was money the students never had to pay back, so it simply increased the number of students willing to pay the tuition to go to school. To offset this, they increase tuition until they get back to the norm. I go to Tech too, and the out of state right now is at 31K including room and board for 2k8-2k9.

BTW-- were you goalie for the soccer team?

Back in 2000 out of state tuition was 20k. No I was not the Keeper for the GT team.

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bird222

Originally posted by: herm0016
http://www.heritage.org/Resear.../images/bg1415cht1.gif

the top 10% pay nearly 2/3 of all income taxes collected.

Whenever I hear this argument, I never hear what percent of money does the top 10% or 1% have? I have a feeling they have more than 2/3 of the money.

You're conflating income and overall worth. While somewhat related they are two different, and separate, issues.

Are you saying that the top 10% have less than 2/3 of the overall income?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cubeless
[
anthropology and sociology answer these questions, not economics... greed and powerlust are what make the 3rd world situation happen...

Boy, I hope greed and powerlust don't escape the third world and appear in the US. Luckily, we don't have any problems with abuse of power and wealth.

 

[cubeless]

was responding specifically to the question... alas unconstrained capitalism ends up feeding on itself... but it has had a pretty good run and surely improved more peoples lives overall than any other system so far... the problem is that the government put in place to control it isn't a much better alternative ion the long run...

this is why u have to have a nice revolution every so many years so everyone can be screwed for a while and the shared spirit can make people work together to build something 'new'...

man kind is, overall, too venal and self-interested so we are not destined for socialistic nirvana under any system here on earth... better luck in the afterworld...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bird222

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bird222

Originally posted by: herm0016
http://www.heritage.org/Resear.../images/bg1415cht1.gif

the top 10% pay nearly 2/3 of all income taxes collected.

Whenever I hear this argument, I never hear what percent of money does the top 10% or 1% have? I have a feeling they have more than 2/3 of the money.

You're conflating income and overall worth. While somewhat related they are two different, and separate, issues.

Are you saying that the top 10% have less than 2/3 of the overall income?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The following is for 2005, but it's the latest data I can find.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The top 25% barely make 2/3 of the overall income yet paid nearly 86% of the taxes. The top 50% of income earners in the US pay nearly ALL (almost 97%) of the income taxes.

The rich pay more than their share, much more, because this doesn't even take all federal taxation into consideration and the rich pay out the lion's share of that as well.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cubeless
was responding specifically to the question... alas unconstrained capitalism ends up feeding on itself... but it has had a pretty good run and surely improved more peoples lives overall than any other system so far... the problem is that the government put in place to control it isn't a much better alternative ion the long run...

this is why u have to have a nice revolution every so many years so everyone can be screwed for a while and the shared spirit can make people work together to build something 'new'...

man kind is, overall, too venal and self-interested so we are not destined for socialistic nirvana under any system here on earth... better luck in the afterworld...

You don't understand how the systems man sets up can improve or harm things.

You know how in some areas, different groups are just going to kill each other; look at the US now, what are the chances of two states going to war, in our nation where 300 million live together peacefully insofar as 'group wars' such as state-based wars, religion-based wars, race-based wars?

We have had our problems, from the north-south war, to the lynchings of thousands of blacks and white mobs killing people to prevent college for blacks just in the 1960's.

But system changes - such as democracy instead of dictators - improve things, despite human nature.

Out *regulated* capitalism has done a lot of great things, and can continue to do so.

The challenge is to prevent the most wealthy from abusing their power to turn our system into an oppressive one, to keep the public interest in power.

All the 'hate the government' talk serves their interests, as 'the government' is the public's representative against the few.

You confuse, in your comment about the government as an 'alternative' to the capitalist economic practices, the role of government - it's not to replace capitalism but to constrain it and keep it serving the public interest. Capitalism itself is happy to see the weak sick in the streets, the elderly without medical care (or homes), and slavery. It needs to be overseen by the societal interests that ensure the citizens' needs are served by the capitalist activities, whether that's child labor laws, taxes, workplace and product safety, or pollution.

The people in a society with a dictator and death squads killing and torturing are the same, basically, as the people in a peaceful, prosperous democracy. The people who allowed Hitler and the Japanese militarists to come to power are the same, basically, as the people today in German, Japan and elsewhere. The systems we set up and other political choices have an effect on how societies behave.

It's clear our own nation 'has issues' in areas, by our putting a George Bush in office (twice), and our not constraining government spending, or our own militarism, by our public's willingness to stay ignorant of our nation's policies overseas and at home, where wealth inequality has been skyrocketing, our media mostly controlled.

 

[cubeless]

alas in the course of human history the governments just become as corrupt and overwhelming as the 'haves' (now capitalists, before lords, etc...) and use their power to enrich and perpetuate themselves... they are people run orgs, too, so have all the foibles of man to play out...

and wow, u present a pretty powerful case for how wonderful the us is it seems to me... better stop that or people might think u r sick or something... when looked upon with a decade or two of distance gw may not be quite as villanous as u paint him... it's amazing what some perspective can do to history...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bird222

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bird222

Originally posted by: herm0016
http://www.heritage.org/Resear.../images/bg1415cht1.gif

the top 10% pay nearly 2/3 of all income taxes collected.

Whenever I hear this argument, I never hear what percent of money does the top 10% or 1% have? I have a feeling they have more than 2/3 of the money.

You're conflating income and overall worth. While somewhat related they are two different, and separate, issues.

Are you saying that the top 10% have less than 2/3 of the overall income?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The following is for 2005, but it's the latest data I can find.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The top 25% barely make 2/3 of the overall income yet paid nearly 86% of the taxes. The top 50% of income earners in the US pay nearly ALL (almost 97%) of the income taxes.

The rich pay more than their share, much more, because this doesn't even take all federal taxation into consideration and the rich pay out the lion's share of that as well.

First of all, the rich should pay more for all kinds of reasons. Food for your family - the first dollars you spend - is more important than the toy you buy with a high income.

Second, your info is from a right-wing organization, IIRC, and does not account for 'the tax burden', merely for the income tax. The chart looks very different with all taxes.

For example, the sales tax hits low-income people for a far higher percentage of their income than it hits the wealthy.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234
[First of all, the rich should pay more for all kinds of reasons. Food for your family - the first dollars you spend - is more important than the toy you buy with a high income.

That toy that is bought with a high income might be made right here in the US company that employs US labor. Those employees spend their income, which they get because people buy their toys, in their own community. The people that get their money respend it, maybe even on food. For those that can't afford food for their families, there are programs that provide for them that are primarily supported by the top 50% of US income earners.

Second, your info is from a right-wing organization, IIRC, and does not account for 'the tax burden', merely for the income tax. The chart looks very different with all taxes.

For example, the sales tax hits low-income people for a far higher percentage of their income than it hits the wealthy.

Their info is straight from a government report. If you have info to the contrary, or info that conflicts with theirs, then feel free to present it. Otherwise this "righ-wing organization" handwaving means nothing.

Besides that, the discussion has primarily been along the lines of income taxes, which is why I presented that particular information. Note that I also stated at the very end of my last post:

The rich pay more than their share, much more, because this doesn't even take all federal taxation into consideration and the rich pay out the lion's share of that as well.

The poor may take a bigger percentage hit on sales tax but the rich buy the higher ticket items and put far more actual dollars back into the system because of that. Besides that, for those poor people on State assistance programs it's the higher income earners paying for those too. I mean, what are supposed to do, give the poor a complete free ride? Sorry that it sucks to be poor but, like removing incentives to be rich, removing incentives not to be poor would put a further burden on an already burdened system.

 

[BoberFett]

Wait, is the OP suggesting we don't tax them at all? That's just ridiculous.

All income, corporate or personal, earned or capital gains, should be taxed at the exact same rate. There would no room for arguing about who's footing the bill for what. Every dollar earned in this country uses the services government provides, every dollar should be taxed identically.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And what's the alternative to trickle down? Forced redistribution of wealth instead?

We should know, Karl Marx wrote a book on it.

I'm just quoting these 2 posts to show that idiots that know nothing about economics should not pretend that they do.

Economies are supposed to flow in all directions, not trickle in one. The fact is that 'trickle down economics' is a kind of reverse Marxism entirely at odds with free market capitalism.

But hey, you guys just pretend you look cool and smart while spouting ignorant partisan rhetoric.

Get back to me when you have both the brains and the balls to address what I actually posted.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The poor may take a bigger percentage hit on sales tax but the rich buy the higher ticket items and put far more actual dollars back into the system because of that. Besides that, for those poor people on State assistance programs it's the higher income earners paying for those too. I mean, what are supposed to do, give the poor a complete free ride? Sorry that it sucks to be poor but, like removing incentives to be rich, removing incentives not to be poor would put a further burden on an already burdened system.

Removing incentives to be rich? You consider having an equal effective tax rate across the board is a disincentive to being rich? Isn't being rich it's own incentive?

I don't understand why you believe rich people should be afforded special treatment.

As evidenced in my earlier post, it appears that banks like UBS have been giving special treatment to the rich for a long time at the expense of the rest of us.

So yeah people who only make money via investments are getting hit with a 15% tax rate...on paper...but what's the effective tax rate? What % were the 20,000 rich people hiding money from the IRS really paying?

What's fair is fair and if some guy inherits his daddy's money he shouldn't be paying 15%(maybe, if he's too dumb to cheat) while the single mom working her ass off pays ~28%.

That is inequality plain and simple.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im not sure why the idea of equating money with power is such a bad thing. As another poster said, they didnt get wealthy by accident. 1st generation money now exceeds old money so the excuse Sally happened to get lucky no longer works. If these people have the wherewithal to create millions or even billions in wealth for themselves, what makes YOU think YOU could do any better than them, when you cant even fucking balance your checkbook or save a month's salary?

Please. Power is where it belongs. If "middle income" earners feel so blighted maybe they get off their lazy fat asses and VOTE. THEN we would have the power. They have it because we let them.

Enjoy.

A lot of 1st generation money was inherited from old money. I think you should read Buffets opinion on dynastical wealth and what it means.

Is GWB old money? The businesses he had, failed, yet he still has a lot of money. Why? Because the Bush family has a lot of money and GWB gets to inherit it and his daughters will have plenty of it as well. He never earned his share and I seriously doubt he could balance his own checkbook. If he was a regular joe he might still be constantly drunk and doing cocaine every day.

Same with Kerry, he and his family will have a lot of money because of the ketchup fortune.

My point is, there is a huge difference between an entrepreneur who ends up making a lot of money and works hard at it, vs the benefactors of that work. You seem to be supporting wealthy people in general regardless of how they ended up with the money because your take is if they have money, they must have worked really hard for it.

THanks for the funny math. First generation wealth = old wealth? Youre wrong. Sorry.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The poor may take a bigger percentage hit on sales tax but the rich buy the higher ticket items and put far more actual dollars back into the system because of that. Besides that, for those poor people on State assistance programs it's the higher income earners paying for those too. I mean, what are supposed to do, give the poor a complete free ride? Sorry that it sucks to be poor but, like removing incentives to be rich, removing incentives not to be poor would put a further burden on an already burdened system.

Removing incentives to be rich? You consider having an equal effective tax rate across the board is a disincentive to being rich? Isn't being rich it's own incentive?

I don't understand why you believe rich people should be afforded special treatment.

As evidenced in my earlier post, it appears that banks like UBS have been giving special treatment to the rich for a long time at the expense of the rest of us.

So yeah people who only make money via investments are getting hit with a 15% tax rate...on paper...but what's the effective tax rate? What % were the 20,000 rich people hiding money from the IRS really paying?

What's fair is fair and if some guy inherits his daddy's money he shouldn't be paying 15%(maybe, if he's too dumb to cheat) while the single mom working her ass off pays ~28%.

That is inequality plain and simple.

Sure there's inequality, as has already been shown. The rich pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes. I have no problem with that. Becoming rich is a risk/reward prospect, at least for the rich people who have actually earned their money. When you begin reducing that reward you begin having people questioning whether the risk to become rich is worthwhile.

As far as hiding money, there really is no such thing...legally. Those 20,000 people were involved in an illegal scheme and I hope the IRS rightfully gives them all the reaming they so justly deserve.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And what's the alternative to trickle down? Forced redistribution of wealth instead?

We should know, Karl Marx wrote a book on it.

I'm just quoting these 2 posts to show that idiots that know nothing about economics should not pretend that they do.

Economies are supposed to flow in all directions, not trickle in one. The fact is that 'trickle down economics' is a kind of reverse Marxism entirely at odds with free market capitalism.

But hey, you guys just pretend you look cool and smart while spouting ignorant partisan rhetoric.

Get back to me when you have both the brains and the balls to address what I actually posted.

If you check back you'll see I already had the "balls" to respond to you. Your response above makes me question whether brains should have been involved though.

pssst, if you can't stand a bit of partisan rhetoric you should go elsewhere. Surely you've been here long enough to know that partisan rhetoric is de rigueur from both sides in here?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The poor may take a bigger percentage hit on sales tax but the rich buy the higher ticket items and put far more actual dollars back into the system because of that. Besides that, for those poor people on State assistance programs it's the higher income earners paying for those too. I mean, what are supposed to do, give the poor a complete free ride? Sorry that it sucks to be poor but, like removing incentives to be rich, removing incentives not to be poor would put a further burden on an already burdened system.

Removing incentives to be rich? You consider having an equal effective tax rate across the board is a disincentive to being rich? Isn't being rich it's own incentive?

I don't understand why you believe rich people should be afforded special treatment.

As evidenced in my earlier post, it appears that banks like UBS have been giving special treatment to the rich for a long time at the expense of the rest of us.

So yeah people who only make money via investments are getting hit with a 15% tax rate...on paper...but what's the effective tax rate? What % were the 20,000 rich people hiding money from the IRS really paying?

What's fair is fair and if some guy inherits his daddy's money he shouldn't be paying 15%(maybe, if he's too dumb to cheat) while the single mom working her ass off pays ~28%.

That is inequality plain and simple.

Sure there's inequality, as has already been shown. The rich pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes. I have no problem with that. Becoming rich is a risk/reward prospect, at least for the rich people who have actually earned their money. When you begin reducing that reward you begin having people questioning whether the risk to become rich is worthwhile.

As far as hiding money, there really is no such thing...legally. Those 20,000 people were involved in an illegal scheme and I hope the IRS rightfully gives them all the reaming they so justly deserve.

That is false.

I bet you couldn't find a single person on earth, if given the chance to be rich or poor would choose poor because there isn't enough of a tax break to become rich, fuck it, it's not worth it. :disgust:

Gimme a break man, you are spouting nonsense now. Adieu.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The poor may take a bigger percentage hit on sales tax but the rich buy the higher ticket items and put far more actual dollars back into the system because of that. Besides that, for those poor people on State assistance programs it's the higher income earners paying for those too. I mean, what are supposed to do, give the poor a complete free ride? Sorry that it sucks to be poor but, like removing incentives to be rich, removing incentives not to be poor would put a further burden on an already burdened system.

Removing incentives to be rich? You consider having an equal effective tax rate across the board is a disincentive to being rich? Isn't being rich it's own incentive?

I don't understand why you believe rich people should be afforded special treatment.

As evidenced in my earlier post, it appears that banks like UBS have been giving special treatment to the rich for a long time at the expense of the rest of us.

So yeah people who only make money via investments are getting hit with a 15% tax rate...on paper...but what's the effective tax rate? What % were the 20,000 rich people hiding money from the IRS really paying?

What's fair is fair and if some guy inherits his daddy's money he shouldn't be paying 15%(maybe, if he's too dumb to cheat) while the single mom working her ass off pays ~28%.

That is inequality plain and simple.

Sure there's inequality, as has already been shown. The rich pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes. I have no problem with that. Becoming rich is a risk/reward prospect, at least for the rich people who have actually earned their money. When you begin reducing that reward you begin having people questioning whether the risk to become rich is worthwhile.

As far as hiding money, there really is no such thing...legally. Those 20,000 people were involved in an illegal scheme and I hope the IRS rightfully gives them all the reaming they so justly deserve.

It's more important to look at wealth than income.

If you own huge wealth, which is greatly increasing in value but you aren't cashing it in, it's 'stealth income'; you might be worth a billion more this year, but show no income from it.

Most extremely wealthy people are in that situation, where they only need a relatively small amount of income, while their owned assets increase in value for years and years.