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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
I don't want to tax the rich because I want to see taxes lowered on everyone.

The constant discussions about taxing the rich are just an acceptance of the idea that we should always have a military that is capable of invading and occupying several countries at a time, while patrolling the rest of the world, and maintaining bases in almost every other country.

I want to cut taxes, and I want to do it by spending less money killing people all around the globe.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
I don't want to tax the rich because I want to see taxes lowered on everyone.

The constant discussions about taxing the rich are just an acceptance of the idea that we should always have a military that is capable of invading and occupying several countries at a time, while patrolling the rest of the world, and maintaining bases in almost every other country.

I want to cut taxes, and I want to do it by spending less money killing people all around the globe.

I'd rather kill the same amount of people but do it more efficiently.
 

MrX8503

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2005
4,529
0
0
I don't want to tax the rich because I want to see taxes lowered on everyone.

The constant discussions about taxing the rich are just an acceptance of the idea that we should always have a military that is capable of invading and occupying several countries at a time, while patrolling the rest of the world, and maintaining bases in almost every other country.

I want to cut taxes, and I want to do it by spending less money killing people all around the globe.

The fact of the matter is that if we cut spending and raise taxes we still wouldn't have enough.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
For me personally, I think it all comes down to fairness. I think it is flatly unjust to tax someone more than 50% of their income. If you are talking 49%, maybe I can see it for the top tax brackets, but going back to 70-80% taxes it just ridiculous.........

when we had those sorts of rates the loopholes were ridiculously large. no one was paying 50% of their income and i doubt anyone was paying 50% marginal.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
I'm not talking the top 50%. I am only referring to the top 1% here, nobody else.

To answer your question, we don't support unfair taxation of the top 1% because were are not jealous of the top 1%.
We don't advocate a penalizing tax on them because they are successful.
Why do the top 1% or even top 50% of earners need to pay for the lower income earners or no income earners?
And don't say pay their share, because if you want to go down that road, the richest people shouldn't pay any tax as they don't use any of the social services, only the poor use those, and thusly, to be "fair" the poor should pay more in taxes.
 

wayliff

Lifer
Nov 28, 2002
11,718
9
81
If you're in the top 1% of earners and pay anywhere close to the top income tax bracket, you need to fire your tax accountant ASAP.

Ask Warren Buffet.

Yup - agreed.

I bet that most of that 1% do not pay personal income tax through payrolls.
Wages is probably the smallest source of income for them.
They are likely more concerned with Capital Gain taxes.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
How high taxes against the rich and businesses works is that rich people are smart and they know how to check for tax rates before they invest. Lower tax rates promotes investment and higher tax rates chases investors away. Sometimes Businesses relocate their headquarters so they will pay lower tax.

Welcome to Economics.

Lower tax rates promotes investment in the USA. This is why it would be beneficial to make the Bush tax cuts premanent instead of just making them temporary again. This gives the impression to investors of a more stable environment to operate a business in.

So if someone wanted to raise taxes they could still do so at any time. However, just saying they are a permanent tax cut gives the impression of stability.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
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.

You'd be batshit insane to think it wouldn't be sustainable without an income tax, since A) that's how it was originally, B) it was only said to be a temporary measure when started, and C) as has been show dropping the IRS would push back federal cash collection only a decade.

And if the progressive schmucks really want to get their wealth redistribution, they could do it by elimination the current income tax and restoring it to it's traditional meaning as only a tax on investment gains and not work earnings.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
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.

That's not a serious answer at all. That's a contrived answer a joker like Lawrence O'Donnell would come up with.

They're alarmed because the wealthy class do most of the shopping. If its more expensive for the upper classes to go shopping, the lower classes suffer.

Pure common sense.
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,647
5,369
136
because the politicians doens't link tax raises for top 1% with tax cuts for middleclass.

if you earn more than ~$64K you get +15% tax in Denmark.
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
Fair is fair. I don't believe in progressive taxes. Everyone should pay the same percentage of income tax. This country has been operating in a deficit since its inception. Asking one person to kick in more money just to subsidize bad fiscal policy is wrong.

Some here believe that the ends justify the means. If the federal budget was in the black, you could make that argument. In my mind you'd still be wrong ethically, but at least you could argue that taking the money would keep the country on an even till. But it isn't like that. Instead, you argue that its the job of the wealthy to prop up a country spending itself into oblivion.

There is really only one option. Dramatic cuts to the federal budget across the board. When it comes to sacrifice, its sooo easy to point the finger across the table. This is our country. The responsibilty for sustaining it is everyones, from the person making minimum wage all the way up to the Bill Gates' of the country. Either we ALL start kicking in an extra 30% to help maintain the status quo, or we make a fundamental change in how our fiscal policy operates. There are no other options.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
That's not a serious answer at all. That's a contrived answer a joker like Lawrence O'Donnell would come up with.

They're alarmed because the wealthy class do most of the shopping. If its more expensive for the upper classes to go shopping, the lower classes suffer.

Pure common sense.

Funny enough, you proved my answer, instead of raising a question about it.

The wealthy class is *far* more about owning anything that bring them income, than they are about spending their money.

Their spending is actually a tiny fraction of their income generally, and negligible in its economic impact compared to the issues of what they own for investment.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Spending could and should be cut. That's how you avoid what you mention above.

Ah yes, the Libertarian response-- every scheme is great, even one that shifts the burden to the middle and lower class, because somehow the Libertarian scheme always involves spending cuts.

OK, let's say we cut Medicare and Social Security and the military by 25%, against the will of 90% of Americans.


Then we take that money and give taxpayers a tax cut. That total tax cut is a fixed amount. Who do we give that tax cut to? Distribute it over everyone, or give it to the middle and lower class?

Or do you say "let's give the rich more tax cut, and just cut spending more"?

What a cop out. Maybe on Thanksgiving I'll bring a pie and give myself the biggest slice, then when people complain I'll just say "let's just make the pie bigger so you get normal sized slices".
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Fair is fair. I don't believe in progressive taxes. Everyone should pay the same percentage of income tax. This country has been operating in a deficit since its inception. Asking one person to kick in more money just to subsidize bad fiscal policy is wrong.

Some here believe that the ends justify the means. If the federal budget was in the black, you could make that argument. In my mind you'd still be wrong ethically, but at least you could argue that taking the money would keep the country on an even till. But it isn't like that. Instead, you argue that its the job of the wealthy to prop up a country spending itself into oblivion.

There is really only one option. Dramatic cuts to the federal budget across the board. When it comes to sacrifice, its sooo easy to point the finger across the table. This is our country. The responsibilty for sustaining it is everyones, from the person making minimum wage all the way up to the Bill Gates' of the country. Either we ALL start kicking in an extra 30% to help maintain the status quo, or we make a fundamental change in how our fiscal policy operates. There are no other options.

One of the problems with your position is that you don't understand than your simple notion of what's 'fair' results in a disastrous, extreme concentration of wealth.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Because undertaxing the rich has a very high price for society.

Why is every question you ask a straw man? (see what I did there?)

By your logic the, the original question is a strawman, just asked first.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
Ah yes, the Libertarian response-- every scheme is great, even one that shifts the burden to the middle and lower class, because somehow the Libertarian scheme always involves spending cuts.

And the typical liberal response -- spend, spend, spend! Let's just tax people more and NEVER examine our spending!

Except in this case, Democrats have no room to talk -- Obama is now "open" to extending the Bush tax cuts to ALL brackets. Seriously?

OK, let's say we cut Medicare and Social Security and the military by 25%, against the will of 90% of Americans.

And you've just hit on the whole problem, except I don't think you realize it. Americans want it all but don't want to pay for it. Something has to give. You can't keep taxes low while providing more and more services.

Then we take that money and give taxpayers a tax cut. That total tax cut is a fixed amount. Who do we give that tax cut to? Distribute it over everyone, or give it to the middle and lower class?

Or do you say "let's give the rich more tax cut, and just cut spending more"?

I say "Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire AND cut spending."

In our current situation, we have to do both -- raise taxes AND cut spending. There is no way around it. We shouldn't be discussing tax cuts OR discussing even more government spending.
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
One of the problems with your position is that you don't understand than your simple notion of what's 'fair' results in a disastrous, extreme concentration of wealth.

No society that has existed could every find an answer to the "concentration of wealth". Even countries that are heavily socialized or communist ended up with an aristocracy that held the majority of the wealth. In our case the government doesn't have any money. It creates a budget, then tasks the IRS (due to constitutional conflict) to collect money to impliment that budget.

We live in a capitalist society. Our country is falling apart trying to "redistribute" from the concentrations you describe to the masses. In this particular country, being an aristocrat doesn't by default give you power that you might acquire in more hybrid states such as Russia. Politicians are a different breed, but fortunately for us there are only a limited number of them.

Class warfare is class warfare. I agree that you can't take an even approach to every situation, but we are talking about taxes. I just think its unfair to unilaterally declare someone more liable for the expenses of the country than someone else. Charity should never be mandatory. Charity by gunpoint is simply wrong. And don't think my analogy doesn't fit. If Bill Gates decided that he was going to pay the same tax rate percentage as someone making 50K a year, he would go to jail for tax evasion. Theres your gun.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
If I'm to understand the gist of this thread: You should only care about what happens to people who are your direct peers. The non-rich shouldn't care if the rich are taxed out of existence because they're not rich.

By that logic, why should heterosexuals care if homosexuals are allowed to marry?

Why should non-smokers care if marijuana is legal?

Why should whites care if any other races have rights?

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that some of us believe in equality under the law.
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
Ah yes, the Libertarian response-- every scheme is great, even one that shifts the burden to the middle and lower class, because somehow the Libertarian scheme always involves spending cuts.

OK, let's say we cut Medicare and Social Security and the military by 25%, against the will of 90% of Americans.


Then we take that money and give taxpayers a tax cut. That total tax cut is a fixed amount. Who do we give that tax cut to? Distribute it over everyone, or give it to the middle and lower class?

.

You make a good point except for two points.

First and unfortunate, the vast majority of the deficit problem our country faces are programs like Medicare and Social Security. That isn't the fault of the wealthy or libertarians. Unfortunately, in order to fix it, the lower and middle class with have to bear the burden...there is no other way. There are no amount of taxes you can raise that will bring us in the black.

Second,

"OK, let's say we cut Medicare and Social Security and the military by 25%, against the will of 90% of Americans."

This is a misnomer because it implies defiance. We live in a republic. There is no legal mandate that congress has to regard the "will of the people" in any way. I would prefer none of these programs be cut, but at the end of the day something must be done or the entire nation will be jeopardized by a crushing deficit that has been hounding us for decades. Its like trying to pay a maxed out credit card with recurring overdraft charges, yet the CC company keeps letting us run up more bills. Gotta stop spending money before you can even begin to pay down the debt.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
No society that has existed could every find an answer to the "concentration of wealth". Even countries that are heavily socialized or communist ended up with an aristocracy that held the majority of the wealth.

Your post starts out with a good point, but unfortunately then goes on just to prove my post.

In our case the government doesn't have any money. It creates a budget, then tasks the IRS (due to constitutional conflict) to collect money to impliment that budget.

We live in a capitalist society. Our country is falling apart trying to "redistribute" from the concentrations you describe to the masses. In this particular country, being an aristocrat doesn't by default give you power that you might acquire in more hybrid states such as Russia. Politicians are a different breed, but fortunately for us there are only a limited number of them.

Class warfare is class warfare. I agree that you can't take an even approach to every situation, but we are talking about taxes. I just think its unfair to unilaterally declare someone more liable for the expenses of the country than someone else. Charity should never be mandatory. Charity by gunpoint is simply wrong. And don't think my analogy doesn't fit. If Bill Gates decided that he was going to pay the same tax rate percentage as someone making 50K a year, he would go to jail for tax evasion. Theres your gun.

So, I'll address the first good point you started out with (I see no reason to expected repeating the point you still missed would help).

Concentration of wealth and power - they generally go together - is a problem in any society.

You mention no one has dealt well with them.

And surely, there's some truth to that - but some have dealt far better.

Who has dealt especially well, putting aside primitive societies?

Well, the US has made *vast* improvements - eliminating many of the symptoms and reducing others - including slavery, child labor, education, political power (the vote not even just for property owners as it was at the start of the country, but for most of the population), lack of medical care, labor organization, and more.

And the progressive era, especially starting with FDR, saw a big *reduction* in the concentration of wealth. In the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's.

And this was not at the expense of our nation becoming some tyranny, at the expense of our becoming impoverished with a weak economy - quite the contrary.

But did you learn from history here? No.

Another society that has done much better with the issue is the Scandanavian culture - where much more liberal policies have worked very well.

But you demand the things that do worse.

You continue to spout ideology about what means seem fair to you, ignoring the disaster that comes from them.

In that, you resemble the communists quite a bit as they insisted on the rightness of their means, and ignore the results.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
No society that has existed could every find an answer to the "concentration of wealth". Even countries that are heavily socialized or communist ended up with an aristocracy that held the majority of the wealth. In our case the government doesn't have any money. It creates a budget, then tasks the IRS (due to constitutional conflict) to collect money to impliment that budget.

We live in a capitalist society. Our country is falling apart trying to "redistribute" from the concentrations you describe to the masses. In this particular country, being an aristocrat doesn't by default give you power that you might acquire in more hybrid states such as Russia. Politicians are a different breed, but fortunately for us there are only a limited number of them.

Class warfare is class warfare. I agree that you can't take an even approach to every situation, but we are talking about taxes. I just think its unfair to unilaterally declare someone more liable for the expenses of the country than someone else. Charity should never be mandatory. Charity by gunpoint is simply wrong. And don't think my analogy doesn't fit. If Bill Gates decided that he was going to pay the same tax rate percentage as someone making 50K a year, he would go to jail for tax evasion. Theres your gun.

Actually it's quite possible 'ol Bill pays a lower effective tax rate than someone making 50k a year.

Our country is not failing from trying to redistribute the wealth. Some of the largest periods of growth our country has ever seen occurred during eras where the top marginal tax rate was approaching 90%. The countries with the highest standard of living in the world (and GDP growth rates very comparable to most nations) have intensely progressive taxation. Germany, who is currently beating the pants off of most western countries has a taxation policy that you would view as downright communist. Your idea that redistributive taxation is causing our country to 'fall apart' is directly contradicted by both history and contemporary reality.

In addition, these countries have a FAR lower level of income inequality than the United States does, showing that you can in fact prevent the formation of an aristocracy in a modern society (at least to a significant extent).
 

extra

Golden Member
Dec 18, 1999
1,947
7
81
Because it never stops. The government just keeps adjusting the line. Not only that paying more than 50% of your earned income in taxes is just plain wrong on principle.

See Alternative Minimum Tax and phase out rules.

Are you stupid? Actually, we already know the answer. Reality: the tax rate on the rich in this country is lower than it was in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's. Imagine that.