Why is taxing the rich considered so taboo by the non-rich?

[Orsorum]

because it's not fair.

i'm also willing to bet that most people believe in this ideology are more financially responsible than those who think the opposite.

I would, too.

Also, I want to be rich someday and I find the idea of some arbitrary cap on income to be insulting.

 

[Zebo]

The top 1% are almost all business owners, and taxing them would give them less capital to expand their businesses or start new businesses. Hence, leaving them unable to hire additional employees to work in these new/expanded businesses.

Rich people dont just sit on their money. They invest it to try and make more. These business investments provide jobs to Americans.

By taxing them, you reduce they money they have to invest, resulting in a hiring drop which therefore increases unemployment. Or at the very least, does nothing to reduce it.


Example:

Business man X wants to hire average Joe's A B and C to open up a new store. Business man X no longer has the money to open up his new store since the government increased his taxes, leaving him with less capital to invest. That taxed money goes into the financial black hole known as the Federal Government, leaving average Joe A B and C unemployed and dependent on the Federal Government for food stamps, unemployment benefits, and housing assistance.

People are stupid like this post. Reinvesting profits into business has never been taxable.

 

[nick1985]

mp

 

[hal2kilo]

It's not been unknown for slaves to not want to leave their masters.

 

[KlokWyze]

"Direct taxes shall be apportioned...."

I believe that on individual income, but as far as monopolies, price fixing, etc. these bastards need to be controlled. So corporations that have gotten to the point of "too big to fail" need be held to a higher degree. ..... accountable would be a good start.

 

[Darwin333]

Serious answer: propaganda has conditioned them to react that way, and ignorance makes them vulnerable to the propaganda.

They get a lot of wrong ideas about how wealth works, the effects of when it's excessively concentrated, etc.

Real answer: A lot of people know their bosses and their bosses are considered "rich". Unfortunately, their bosses live slightly better than they do and in the same relative financial situation (high debt/low assets....just better shit that they owe money on). Taking more money from those people doesn't really help a damned thing and could easily wind up hurting them.

Make a $100,000,000 bracket or something, remove a few of their loopholes, and you get the real meat without pissing very many people off. Instead you argue if $250K is rich.... Enough people think it isn't so instead of going for 75% you engage in endless debate over the small part that has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

Really want to argue that people making $250K a year is an issue with concentrating wealth?

 

[Patranus]

Because most people don't feel entitled to the labors of other hard work.

Redistribution of income is social/communism. Most people are against that.

I know that is a tough concept for you "progressives" to understand.

 

[Fayd]

Question for conservatives: Do you realize that every dollar given as a tax cut to the rich means raising taxes a dollar on the rest of us?

some research for you. check "laffer curve".

 

[jackace]

Hahah, thats a good one.

LOL I was thinking the very same thing.

Our economy is not a free market, never has been, and never will be.

Not to mention that success in business has a lot more to do with connections and luck then hard work.

 

[jackace]

Because most people don't feel entitled to the labors of other hard work.

Redistribution of income is social/communism. Most people are against that.

I know that is a tough concept for you "progressives" to understand.

We have had this so called "redistribution of income" for over 100 years. If it stopped our country would no longer exist.

 

[nyker96]

The top 1% are almost all business owners, and taxing them would give them less capital to expand their businesses or start new businesses. Hence, leaving them unable to hire additional employees to work in these new/expanded businesses.

Rich people dont just sit on their money. They invest it to try and make more. These business investments provide jobs to Americans.

By taxing them, you reduce they money they have to invest, resulting in a hiring drop which therefore increases unemployment. Or at the very least, does nothing to reduce it.

But there's also the opposite coin to this argument, let's say we shift some of the tax to top 1%, and take the extra and drop it to the bottom 10% of people. Those people tends to be very poor, they use almost 100% of cash out every month. Now, this extra spending gets to the pockets of rich business owners, creates market demand and with increased demand for their products, business open new factories to satisfy demand. This money also creates jobs, you spending indirectly creates jobs for you. In short, no matter where you drop the money it gets into the economy, resulting in jobs.

I personally think, both ways work at different times. In normal times when consumer demand is high, demand drives business, there's no need to pour money into consumer end rather you can give some cuts to businesses to ease burden in opening factories etc. Even a low cost loan would be enough for business.

But during recession/depression, there's no consumer confidence, no demand, giving money to businesses don't solve the demand problem. Businesses will not spend money on new factories with that extra money, reason is simple, they follow demand, they are not going to take a "make these merchandise and they will come" approach. In this case, some extra money to the lower end of spectrum would help spur demand as well as artificially creating job w/ stimulus. Thus a few rounds of deficit spending on business infrastructures like railroads, high ways, new shopping mall etc. would create jobs while the business sector is temporarily paralyzed. Along with some tax rebates will boost consumer confidence. then turn around and do business tax cuts when consumer demand is higher. This 1-2 punch should be effective.

The natural switching between Dem/Rep in election cycles essentially achieves this 2-ended boost to kick start the economy in a recession.

 

[MrX8503]

Because most people don't feel entitled to the labors of other hard work.

Redistribution of income is social/communism. Most people are against that.

I know that is a tough concept for you "progressives" to understand.

I'm not getting any richer from the rich paying more taxes.

In order for the government/country to function, everyone has to throw in their share in Taxes. This isn't a redistribution of income.

 

[punjabiplaya]

Never underestimate the power of greed. c.f. 1920's America.

 

[dmcowen674]

Also, anyone in the top 50% knows what it's like to be raped by those claiming poverty.

As it stands now, half the country is living off the other half.

Enough taxes, period.

Anyone in the top 50% is paying 40-50% in combined total taxes.

Then leave

Why are you and the rest of them still here if it's so bad?

What's keeping you here?

 

[Throckmorton]

some research for you. check "laffer curve".

Laffer Curve my ass. I have an economist friend who went to school with Laffer's son and wouldn't stop talking about the Laffer Curve.

What makes you think we're at the optimal point on the curve?

Edit: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html
Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.

 

[Throckmorton]

Did you know that the source of that table is a preliminary model created in 2004, two years before the tax data was released by the IRS?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/98xx/doc9884/12-23-EffectiveTaxRates_Letter.pdf

00-20%__07.9__04.3__-3.6
20-40%__11.4__09.9__-1.5
40-60%__15.8__14.1__-1.7
60-80%__18.7__17.3__-1.4
80-95%__21.1__21.2__+0.1
95-99%__22.5__25.3__+2.8
Top 1%__24.6__31.4__+6.8

first column is effective federal rate from your chart, second is the effective federal rate from the CBO letter and the third is the difference between the two.

note: I did a weighted average for 80-95% and Top 1%, using number of households multiply by average pretax income as the weight factor.

The CBO document is about income tax, but not the SS or Medicare, or the state and local taxes.

 

[Hacp]

I'm not getting any richer from the rich paying more taxes.

In order for the government/country to function, everyone has to throw in their share in Taxes. This isn't a redistribution of income.

I love how people say fair share when its not fair. Is it fair that one person has to pay a higher rate than another? No! Everyone should pay the same rate, and that rate should be low. There shouldn't be any special treatment for lower income people. If there is, that's called redistribution of wealth. In fact, for most of America's history, we didn't even have an income tax!

 

[borosp1]

The top 1% pay much less on a % of there income than a middle class worker because of all the tax loopholes they use (registering business in no tax countries, holding and receiving a significant income stream through dividends taxed @ 15%, and many other tax tricks they use..). Middle class on a majority does not enjoy the tax breaks/schemes the ultra rich enjoy.

My favorite is when Warren Buffet explained how he pays less on a % in taxes than his own secretary.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece


"Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000"

and

"The richest 1% of adults owned 40% of the world's total assets in the year 2000."


http://www.endgame.org/primer-wealth.html

 

[Monster_Munch]

I think redistribution of wealth is a necessary evil. It reduces inequality which in turn reduces crime and increases social mobility.

 

[jackace]

I think redistribution of wealth is a necessary evil. It reduces inequality which in turn reduces crime and increases social mobility.

It's not even redistribution of wealth. That is just a lie the rich use to justify them not paying their fair share. The only way to equally burden every citizen is to use some form of progressive tax structure. The economic term is Marginal Utility.

 

[Hacp]

I think redistribution of wealth is a necessary evil. It reduces inequality which in turn reduces crime and increases social mobility.

There's that nasty word again. Equality. I HATE equality. I don't want someone who put in less effort as me getting the same reward as me.

 

[lupi]

I'll take things done as a form of ideological policy for $500 alex.

 

[Monster_Munch]

There's that nasty word again. Equality. I HATE equality. I don't want someone who put in less effort as me getting the same reward as me.

I don't think of things like education and health care as "rewards".

 

[Possessed Freak]

Then leave

Why are you and the rest of them still here if it's so bad?

What's keeping you here?

Damn it, didn't you leave already?

 

[MrX8503]

I love how people say fair share when its not fair. Is it fair that one person has to pay a higher rate than another? No! Everyone should pay the same rate, and that rate should be low. There shouldn't be any special treatment for lower income people. If there is, that's called redistribution of wealth. In fact, for most of America's history, we didn't even have an income tax!

The rich are getting tax breaks and are paying a lesser rate than middle class people. Also you're completely insane if you think no income tax is sustainable.