Can someone give me a reasoned answer as to why the rich should pay higher taxes?

[LisaNY]

I hear this all of the time, but I fail to see *why* people who make more money should have to pay higher taxes. Obviously, the more money you make, the more taxes you pay, but why should the rate be higher as well?

 

I've already heard "Because they make more money". That simply isn't a good enough reason, IMO.

 

The gov't is going to get more money from the guy up the block from me, who makes $500k a year than they are from me, that's for sure.

[Stacy in NJ]

I think some view it as a fairness issue. A Spiderman-like thing, "With great power comes great responsibility."

 

The Wealthy don't only pay at a higher rate they also lose many of the tax credits and exemptions that are available to others. For example, people earning over a certain income lose the tax credit on the interest portions of a mortgage payment. The spousal and child exemptions are also lost.

[bkpan]

You know, I find myself feeling very ambivalent over this issue.

 

One perspective is that I do feel there is an inherent unfairness in expecting the wealthy to pay for more than their share (percentage) of the expenses. IOW, why does their rate go up, instead of an equal percentage for all (except perhaps the very poor)?

 

The other perspective is that all of our resources in a global sense, are not really "ours" at all. There is also something inherently unfair in how where you are born, or luck, or circumstances, can mean that you will live a more comfortable life than someone else. So, in that sense, trying to even things out a bit also seems fair.

 

So, I'm no help at all.:tongue_smilie: I don't what the most "fair" answer would mean.

 

Kim

[Laura Corin]

A reason often given is that the rich have more disposable income, so they notice a tax on it much less. A crude example:

 

If you earn 100 dollars and your basic expenses are 70 dollars, then a tax of 20% will leave you with only 10 dollars of free income to spend as you wish, whereas a tax rate of 30% would leave you with no spare money at all.

 

If you earn 1,000 dollars, then your basic expenses are unlikely to be 10 times higher than the first person's. Say they are 500 dollars (to reflect a much more luxurious lifestyle). If you then pay 30% tax on your income, that will leave you with 200 dollars of free income to spend as you wish. The difference between that and a 20% tax rate (300 dollars of spare money) is marked, but won't be nearly as painful to you as it would be to someone with a lower income.

 

So this argument proceeds not from whether the rich 'should' be taxed at a higher rate, but rather whether it hurts them very much to be taxed at that rate.

 

Best wishes

 

Laura

[Carol in Cal.]

For instance, above a certain income you don't pay any Social Security or Payroll tax. Also, above a certain income, you are likely to pay a lesser proportion of your income in sales taxes, because you're more likely to have income to save. Also, above a certain income, you are more likely to have capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate than other types of income; or be able to take advantage of other tax breaks such as mortgage interest rate deductions or property tax deductions that effectively reduce your taxes a lot.

 

I'm a bit ambivalent on the whole issue myself, but those are some of the arguments that I have heard.

[Paula in MS]

It basically boils down to the fact that someone has to pay for all the programs that the government deems necessary. Those that are less rich cannot afford to pay more taxes, so the rich are taxed more. It would make more sense to me to just be more careful with their spending and prioritize, but you know how that works.

 

Paula

[clwcain]

For instance, above a certain income you don't pay any Social Security or Payroll tax.

False.

 

. Also, above a certain income, you are more likely to have capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate than other types of income

How is that relevant? It's still triple taxation of productive economic activity.

 

; or be able to take advantage of other tax breaks such as mortgage interest rate deductions or property tax deductions that effectively reduce your taxes a lot.

Also false. Most of the deductions are phased out over $150k p.a., IIRC.

 

I'm a bit ambivalent on the whole issue myself, but those are some of the arguments that I have heard.

I, too, have heard this nonsense. But that people repeat it doesn't make it any less nonsense.

[Mama Lynx]

For instance, above a certain income you don't pay any Social Security or Payroll tax. Also, above a certain income, you are likely to pay a lesser proportion of your income in sales taxes, because you're more likely to have income to save. Also, above a certain income, you are more likely to have capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate than other types of income; or be able to take advantage of other tax breaks such as mortgage interest rate deductions or property tax deductions that effectively reduce your taxes a lot.

 

I'm a bit ambivalent on the whole issue myself, but those are some of the arguments that I have heard.

 

It's not that you don't pay Social Security above a certain income level; it's that they cap Social Security at a certain amount. They only allow you to pay in so much in a year, because you won't be allowed to get out more benefits than that. Same with Medicare. Your benefits are capped, so your payment into them is capped as well. Last time I looked, the income level for that was 89,500. What that means is, if you make $100K, you pay the payroll taxes on that first 89,500, and then the cap takes effect so that you can't pay the taxes on the last $10,500.

 

Medicare has different top out rules than Soc. Sec., and I don't remember off the top of my head what they are.

 

Anyone can have capital gains taxes. I'm not wealthy, but I do own stock.

[Apiphobic]

I'm fresh out of reason right now and I'm mesmerized by your bouncing little sheep. Did it lose little Bo Peep?

 

But in the interests of at least appearing concerned about this issue, I'll throw in a link because it sure sounds like an attempt at a reasoned answer to your question.

 

But I really doubt you're going to get any answer that will satisfy you.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Apiphobic
ETA a reasonably reasoned reasonable link

[Carol in Cal.]

Please cite sources if you are going to accuse me of falsehood. Better yet, check your facts first.

 

The social security tax is only paid on income up to a certain level. That level is adjusted upward annually, but is still relatively low.

 

Property tax and mortgage interest are deductible past incomes of 150K. If you are referring to the Alternative Minimum Tax, it is a gross oversimplification to imply that it kicks in at 150K. Its applicability is a complicated function of both income and deductions.

[Sarah CB]

There is also something inherently unfair in how where you are born, or luck, or circumstances, can mean that you will live a more comfortable life than someone else. So, in that sense, trying to even things out a bit also seems fair.

 

 

Kim

 

I get really angry when I see this type of reasoning. People make *choices* in life. Some people choose to spend 10 years working their butts off in university while also working minimum wage jobs to support themselves through university. Then, they make the choice to put more than 40 hours a week into their jobs - they sacrifice vacations and weekends, they bring work home with them and they go the extra mile. There's nothing "lucky" or "circumstantial" or "inborn" about where these people got to - it boils down to making sacrifices, working hard, and getting less sleep than the next guy.

 

We know tons of people who are all concerned about their "rights". They want to take their vacation, go to every hockey game, have weekends completely free of any thought of work, and leave their cell phone behind. Why on earth should those people benefit from the sacrifices made by others? Why are people who are willing to put in huge work weeks punished by having to pay a higher percentage of their hard earned income?

 

I'm sorry for venting. We live in a city where "lifestyle" is a buzzword. There are far too many clock-punchers here who think it's "unfair" for others to be earning more - but they're not willing to put in what it takes to get there.

[Ellie]

There is no reason.

[Renee in NC]

I get really angry when I see this type of reasoning. People make *choices* in life. Some people choose to spend 10 years working their butts off in university while also working minimum wage jobs to support themselves through university. Then, they make the choice to put more than 40 hours a week into their jobs - they sacrifice vacations and weekends, they bring work home with them and they go the extra mile. There's nothing "lucky" or "circumstantial" or "inborn" about where these people got to - it boils down to making sacrifices, working hard, and getting less sleep than the next guy.

 

We know tons of people who are all concerned about their "rights". They want to take their vacation, go to every hockey game, have weekends completely free of any thought of work, and leave their cell phone behind. Why on earth should those people benefit from the sacrifices made by others? Why are people who are willing to put in huge work weeks punished by having to pay a higher percentage of their hard earned income?

 

I'm sorry for venting. We live in a city where "lifestyle" is a buzzword. There are far too many clock-punchers here who think it's "unfair" for others to be earning more - but they're not willing to put in what it takes to get there.

 

I think we have two extremes here - it isn't black/white.

 

I don't think success is all "luck" but it isn't *all* hard work either. You can work as hard as possible and still not end up "wealthy."

[cathmom]

I have always favored a flat tax (isn't that what it's called?)

 

10%, 15%, 20% (whichever amount works) income tax, no loopholes, no Cayman Island dodges, everybody pays, even the poor people.

 

I would pay that, and we live below the poverty level. Then it would be fair and people could stop calling me a thief.

[Renee in NC]

I have always favored a flat tax (isn't that what it's called?)

 

10%, 15%, 20% (whichever amount works) income tax, no loopholes, no Cayman Island dodges, everybody pays, even the poor people.

 

I would pay that, and we live below the poverty level. Then it would be fair and people could stop calling me a thief.

 

:iagree:

[LizzyBee]

It's not that you don't pay Social Security above a certain income level; it's that they cap Social Security at a certain amount. They only allow you to pay in so much in a year, because you won't be allowed to get out more benefits than that. Same with Medicare. Your benefits are capped, so your payment into them is capped as well. Last time I looked, the income level for that was 89,500. What that means is, if you make $100K, you pay the payroll taxes on that first 89,500, and then the cap takes effect so that you can't pay the taxes on the last $10,500.

 

Medicare has different top out rules than Soc. Sec., and I don't remember off the top of my head what they are.

 

Anyone can have capital gains taxes. I'm not wealthy, but I do own stock.

 

There is a no longer a cap for Medicare tax. It was removed completely several years ago.

[Tracey in TX]

I get really angry when I see this type of reasoning. People make *choices* in life. they sacrifice vacations and weekends, they bring work home with them and they go the extra mile. There's nothing "lucky" or "circumstantial" or "inborn" about where these people got to - it boils down to making sacrifices, working hard, and getting less sleep than the next guy.

 

 

Thank you, I agree. DH works 6 days/wk, often 12+ hrs, and when he takes a new job it's 100 hrs/wk. Just finished his MBA in addition to his job. More time away from home and family. He earns every dollar and every gray hair. Lots of sacrifices. His choice is to work like a maniac so I stay at home. Lots of missed birthdays, anniversaries, soccer matches, red eye flights, Sunday morning conference calls standing outside of church. To feed our family and support a lifestyle we've strived for we all make sacrifices. Ours isn't the typical monetary budget, but time allocation, IMs/texts instead of couch cuddling, etc.

Everyone has sacrifices. If Family A isn't willing to support Family B with their time and energy, why should Family B support Family A's income--unless it's a dire financial situation? (Don't get socialism or Robin Hood mentality.)

[Renee in NC]

I know better. :-) ACCKKK! Meaning I deleted my post.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Renee in FL

[mcconnellboys]

I don't think they should pay a higher rate, I simply think they should actually pay on ALL their assets, rather than having tons of loopholes and hideaways which allow them to pay on only a fraction of their wealth.

[Nestof3]

It basically boils down to the fact that someone has to pay for all the programs that the government deems necessary. Those that are less rich cannot afford to pay more taxes, so the rich are taxed more. It would make more sense to me to just be more careful with their spending and prioritize, but you know how that works.

 

Exactly.

[LisaNY]

I'm fresh out of reason right now and I'm mesmerized by your bouncing little sheep. Did it lose little Bo Peep?

 

But in the interests of at least appearing concerned about this issue, I'll throw in a link because it sure sounds like an attempt at a reasoned answer to your question.

 

But I really doubt you're going to get any answer that will satisfy you.

 

Thanks for the link, but I'm not really pickin' up what that guy's layin' down. :rolleyes:

[bkpan]

I get really angry when I see this type of reasoning. People make *choices* in life. Some people choose to spend 10 years working their butts off in university while also working minimum wage jobs to support themselves through university. Then, they make the choice to put more than 40 hours a week into their jobs - they sacrifice vacations and weekends, they bring work home with them and they go the extra mile. There's nothing "lucky" or "circumstantial" or "inborn" about where these people got to - it boils down to making sacrifices, working hard, and getting less sleep than the next guy.

 

We know tons of people who are all concerned about their "rights". They want to take their vacation, go to every hockey game, have weekends completely free of any thought of work, and leave their cell phone behind. Why on earth should those people benefit from the sacrifices made by others? Why are people who are willing to put in huge work weeks punished by having to pay a higher percentage of their hard earned income?

 

I'm sorry for venting. We live in a city where "lifestyle" is a buzzword. There are far too many clock-punchers here who think it's "unfair" for others to be earning more - but they're not willing to put in what it takes to get there.

 

But this is assuming that everyone has exactly the same playing field and it just isn't so. Yes, sometimes hard work and sacrifice can get you the American dream, but more often than not, you are already starting with a leg up. There are some that are truly just "born" into the most dire disadvantages and that is what I am referring to. And there are others (think Kennedy's, Hilton's, etc.) that with no effort whatsoever will live very privileged lifestyles.

 

I find it hard (and naive) to look with indifference at those that are in a very real poverty trap, with the attitude along the lines of ..."if you just worked harder..."

 

Kim

Kim

[5kidsforME]

You know, I find myself feeling very ambivalent over this issue.

 

One perspective is that I do feel there is an inherent unfairness in expecting the wealthy to pay for more than their share (percentage) of the expenses. IOW, why does their rate go up, instead of an equal percentage for all (except perhaps the very poor)?

 

The other perspective is that all of our resources in a global sense, are not really "ours" at all. There is also something inherently unfair in how where you are born, or luck, or circumstances, can mean that you will live a more comfortable life than someone else. So, in that sense, trying to even things out a bit also seems fair.

 

So, I'm no help at all.:tongue_smilie: I don't what the most "fair" answer would mean.

 

Kim

 

Like my father always said, Life isn't fair, deal with it. My parents never had money either. This was not coming from a man that was born into excess or extravagance, he worked his tail off until he got cancer.

[wulfbourne]

Thank you, I agree. DH works 6 days/wk, often 12+ hrs, and when he takes a new job it's 100 hrs/wk. Just finished his MBA in addition to his job. More time away from home and family. He earns every dollar and every gray hair. Lots of sacrifices. His choice is to work like a maniac so I stay at home. Lots of missed birthdays, anniversaries, soccer matches, red eye flights, Sunday morning conference calls standing outside of church. To feed our family and support a lifestyle we've strived for we all make sacrifices. Ours isn't the typical monetary budget, but time allocation, IMs/texts instead of couch cuddling, etc.

Everyone has sacrifices. If Family A isn't willing to support Family B with their time and energy, why should Family B support Family A's income--unless it's a dire financial situation? (Don't get socialism or Robin Hood mentality.)

That's fine, but not all people who make a lot of money work hard, and not all who work hard make a lot of money. For example, my husband doesn't work 100+ hours a week, is home every weekend, and most days after an 8 hour day. He doesn't even have a degree. But he makes six figures. My FIL only has an associates and makes over a quarter mil a year. My husband was lucky in that he had family connections that got him his first job as a programmer at age 16, so he has a hell of a resume. My parents on the flip side were both college educated, my stepdad had a masters degree but barely made ends meet. My mom was working 2 jobs for awhile, and my stepdad was working the 100+ hours a week for a lousy 30K a year job. It wasn't until he decided to be a truck driver he started making any real money. So I disagree with the premise that everyone who makes money works hard for it, or that all who work hard will be rich.

[Plucky]

I'm with you on this one. I think the super wealthy get away without paying their fair share of taxes through loopholes and creative accounting. I'm for getting rid of loopholes. Will the politicians get rid of loopholes or just promise more taxes on the rich without actually changing anything?

[5kidsforME]

But this is assuming that everyone has exactly the same playing field and it just isn't so. Yes, sometimes hard work and sacrifice can get you the American dream, but more often than not, you are already starting with a leg up. There are some that are truly just "born" into the most dire disadvantages and that is what I am referring to. And there are others (think Kennedy's, Hilton's, etc.) that with no effort whatsoever will live very privileged lifestyles.

 

I find it hard (and naive) to look with indifference at those that are in a very real poverty trap, with the attitude along the lines of ..."if you just worked harder..."

 

Kim

Kim

 

I think it is really naive to think that anything will ever be fair. Fairness, to whose (gosh I don't know if that is grammaticaly correct) definition should it be? What I think is fair may not be what you think is fair. So should I be ticked that Paris Hilton has done nothing with her life and she is a millionaire while my DH works his butt off to provide for us? No, that is just the way it goes. Life isn't fair people!

[5kidsforME]

I'm with you on this one. I think the super wealthy get away without paying their fair share of taxes through loopholes and creative accounting. I'm for getting rid of loopholes. Will the politicians get rid of loopholes or just promise more taxes on the rich without actually changing anything?

 

 

I agree with this, I don't think anyone should be able to shirk their tax responsibilities.

[Tracey in TX]

I'm with you on this one. I think the super wealthy get away without paying their fair share of taxes through loopholes and creative accounting. I'm for getting rid of loopholes. Will the politicians get rid of loopholes or just promise more taxes on the rich without actually changing anything?

I would love to see a flat (or fair?) tax, provided tax deductions could be counted for small business owners (revenue does not equal profit).

[wulfbourne]

I would love to see a flat (or fair?) tax, provided tax deductions could be counted for small business owners (revenue does not equal profit).

 

Fair tax is a bit different.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

I personally like the idea of the fair tax rather than income tax.

[bkpan]

I think it is really naive to think that anything will ever be fair. Fairness, to whose (gosh I don't know if that is grammaticaly correct) definition should it be? What I think is fair may not be what you think is fair. So should I be ticked that Paris Hilton has done nothing with her life and she is a millionaire while my DH works his butt off to provide for us? No, that is just the way it goes. Life isn't fair people!

 

But that's just it. We can't have a truly "fair" society, can we? I also think that it's easy for those of us who have a pretty comfortable lifestyle to see the problem of the poor and the severe inequality in our economic system as someone else's problem. After all, no one said it was fair.....

 

Kim

[5kidsforME]

But that's just it. We can't have a truly "fair" society, can we? I also think that it's easy for those of us who have a pretty comfortable lifestyle to see the problem of the poor and the severe inequality in our economic system as someone else's problem. After all, no one said it was fair.....

 

Kim

 

 

:confused: So you and I agree?? The thing is you think it should be fair for people. Where does it stop?

[Tracey in TX]

Fair tax is a bit different.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

I personally like the idea of the fair tax rather than income tax.

Someone used the term earlier and I like the idea of a fair tax, possibly in lieu of a flat tax. Maybe we should just tax goods and services and forget income tax altogether. Great way to encourage people to save, but I guess that's not really the American Way.;)

[Mommy22alyns]

I get really angry when I see this type of reasoning. People make *choices* in life. Some people choose to spend 10 years working their butts off in university while also working minimum wage jobs to support themselves through university. Then, they make the choice to put more than 40 hours a week into their jobs - they sacrifice vacations and weekends, they bring work home with them and they go the extra mile. There's nothing "lucky" or "circumstantial" or "inborn" about where these people got to - it boils down to making sacrifices, working hard, and getting less sleep than the next guy.

 

We know tons of people who are all concerned about their "rights". They want to take their vacation, go to every hockey game, have weekends completely free of any thought of work, and leave their cell phone behind. Why on earth should those people benefit from the sacrifices made by others? Why are people who are willing to put in huge work weeks punished by having to pay a higher percentage of their hard earned income?

 

I'm sorry for venting. We live in a city where "lifestyle" is a buzzword. There are far too many clock-punchers here who think it's "unfair" for others to be earning more - but they're not willing to put in what it takes to get there.

 

 

 

And I get really angry when I see this type of reasoning.

 

Just because someone works hard doesn't mean they're going to get promoted, get a raise, whatever. It doesn't always work out that way. Yes, Virginia, there are people who bust their tails and *still* struggle. What an insult, a slap in the face, to assume that people struggle because they're lazy.

[Jann in TX]

Choices, luck, circumstances...where do we draw the line?

 

DH and I paid more in taxes last year than my sister's family made. Both DH and BIL have college degrees. DH just choose to use his and BIL chose to clean floors and toilets (does not like 'pressure' or bosses). My sister and her DH paid ZERO in taxes last year. They also received a nice 'rebate' check--(it baffles me how one can earn a 'rebate' on something one does not contribute too)--we did not get a check. Both DH and BIL work HARD as providers--but their CHOICES have made a HUGE difference in how well they have 'provided' for their families.

 

How many people would stay in their current home if the chance came and they could AFFORD to move into something better?

 

Our constitution does NOT guarantee that everyone will have health care coverage or a mortgage they can afford--it does guarantee us the right to PERSUE happiness. When our country was founded EVERYONE paid their share of taxes for the 'common good'.

 

I'm happy to pay my fair share of taxes--but I do not believe that 30% is fair. 30% vs ZERO....

 

Just my thoughts and yes, I'm voting for McCain.

[LilyK]

Yes, Virginia, there are people who bust their tails and *still* struggle

 

 

And there are people who make a lot of money, but still struggle to pay the bills. They should not be taxed at a higher rate.

[Plucky]

If all our taxes are paid through goods and services then the poor would pay a much greater percentage of the taxes because they would have to spend all their money. I don't want the poor to carry the biggest burden. Is this what you meant or did I misunderstand?

[5kidsforME]

If all our taxes are paid through goods and services then the poor would pay a much greater percentage of the taxes because they would have to spend all their money. I don't want the poor to carry the biggest burden. Is this what you meant or did I misunderstand?

 

 

Why would you think the poor would carry the biggest burden?

[bkpan]

:confused: So you and I agree?? The thing is you think it should be fair for people. Where does it stop?

 

It never stops? It seems to me that we should be consistently working toward a more just and humane society always. My original post was about my ambivalence. I do see the inequity on having no limits on how high you tax those who are "wealthy". BUT, the bigger problem I see is all of us working our way into our corners with our individual sense of entitlement and having indifference toward REAL people struggling.

 

I am not referring to you - Megsmachine - just the corporate "you", myself very much included!

 

Kim

[Mommy22alyns]

And there are people who make a lot of money, but still struggle to pay the bills. They should not be taxed at a higher rate.

 

 

 

As was pointed out elsewhere, if one makes a LOT of money and still struggles to pay the bills, "one" needs to take a second look at their priorities.

[Plucky]

Well, if taxes were only collected on goods and services and people with less money had to spend every penny they made they would carry the biggest burden. Say there was a flat tax of 10% that would be 10% of everything, but people that make more money could save and invest and lower their tax burden percentage substantially by not spending as much. Does that make sense? I swear I learned this in Econ 101, but I may not be explaining it well.

[5kidsforME]

Well, if taxes were only collected on goods and services and people with less money had to spend every penny they made they would carry the biggest burden. Say there was a flat tax of 10% that would be 10% of everything, but people that make more money could save and invest and lower their tax burden percentage substantially by not spending as much. Does that make sense? I swear I learned this in Econ 101, but I may not be explaining it well.

 

You may be explaining it fine. I just think that the less money you have the less you are going to pay in taxes. The more money you have, more money is oging to be spent on extras and then they will be paying more taxes. :tongue_smilie: That is so not clear!

[Tracey in TX]

If all our taxes are paid through goods and services then the poor would pay a much greater percentage of the taxes because they would have to spend all their money. I don't want the poor to carry the biggest burden. Is this what you meant or did I misunderstand?

Ok, that was clearly not a well thought argument...;)

I don't know what the right and correct solution is for taxpayers. SOmething has to be better than our current method. I might be opinionated, but know what I have flawed ideas. THIS was clearly one of them! :)

[Zelda]

It never stops? It seems to me that we should be consistently working toward a more just and humane society always. My original post was about my ambivalence. I do see the inequity on having no limits on how high you tax those who are "wealthy". BUT, the bigger problem I see is all of us working our way into our corners with our individual sense of entitlement and having indifference toward REAL people struggling.

 

I am not referring to you - Megsmachine - just the corporate "you", myself very much included!

 

Kim

 

But can we legislate or tax people into being more compassionate? Is that appropriate?

[Stacy in NJ]

I find it hard (and naive) to look with indifference at those that are in a very real poverty trap, with the attitude along the lines of ..."if you just worked harder..."

 

Kim

Kim

 

 

I think that by refering to it as "a.....poverty trap" you're rationalizing and marginalizing the behaviors of those in poverty. I think by holding them to a different standard you're condescending to them.

 

We could justify the behavior of Paris Hilton by saying she lives in a "wealth trap", meaning her circumstances explain away her poor behavior.

 

I don't mean to say that everyone that lives in poverty deserves to live in poverty. I do mean to say that all people need to be judged by the same standards of behavior whatever their birth circumstances.

[Mama Lynx]

As was pointed out elsewhere, if one makes a LOT of money and still struggles to pay the bills, "one" needs to take a second look at their priorities.

 

Golly. Let's see. Two failed businesses. One business partner who ran off with the money. Six months of unemployment. Large medical bills while self-insured.

 

Now we're making what many would consider a lot of money (not 250K, but still, good money), but because we dug ourselves into a hole with the business, we now have to climb out of the hole. We are doing it with hard work and a budget, but things are so tight they squeak. Raise our taxes and it would kill us.

 

Please don't assume you know anything about my priorities.

[PariSarah]

. . . has at least something to do with latent Christian and Jewish values in our political system.

 

One of those values is concern for the poor. In Christianity and Judaism, those who have are supposed to care for those who have not. It's supposed to be voluntary. But so are values like not murdering and respecting property. We have laws where people don't do what they should. And the majority faith(s) in this country put "caring for the poor" under that category of "should"s. In both Christianity and Judaism, the implication is that how a person came to be poor is less important than the moral (divine) imperative to help the person.

 

Since that "should" is also present in most other religious and belief systems in this country, it's reasonable to argue that a "should" shared by the vast majority of the country deserves to be part of the law codes of the country.

 

You also have Rawlsian political theory, which is basically liberal Protestant ethics dressed up in secular clothes. The way they get Protestant ethics without protestantism is by saying that a just system is one that you would be willing to be subject to, even if you got to be the least "favored" person in the system. So, it's the Golden Rule on a political scale.

[Stacy in NJ]

This is just false. The wealthiest 5% of Americans pay something close to 50% of federal income taxes collected on individuals.http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

 

I'm uncomfortable with the gap between rich and poor in the USA. I think it has negative effects on our democracy. But, we need accurate information, not just, "those greedy rich guys" kind of arguments.

[joannqn]

I get really angry when I see this type of reasoning. People make *choices* in life. Some people choose to spend 10 years working their butts off in university while also working minimum wage jobs to support themselves through university. Then, they make the choice to put more than 40 hours a week into their jobs - they sacrifice vacations and weekends, they bring work home with them and they go the extra mile. There's nothing "lucky" or "circumstantial" or "inborn" about where these people got to - it boils down to making sacrifices, working hard, and getting less sleep than the next guy.

 

 

:iagree:

 

Everyone makes choices that affects...well...everything in their life. For us, that means we live in a bad neighborhood in a tiny old house and have no nice vacations so I can stay home with the kids. We're poor by choice.

 

On the other hand, we are making choices that will hopefully change that. My husband has been working a regular 40 hour a week job. His spare time is spent starting his own business in the mornings, evenings, and weekends. He's working his butt off to change our circumstances. Meanwhile, I've been looking for ways to cut expensives so we can live on less if we need to and getting strict about extras and treats. Most people aren't willing to make sacrifices.

 

There are plenty of stories around, if you look, to prove that you can go from poverty to wealth with hard work. A local tv show had a story recently about Mr. Earl. Mr. Earl built a stock portfolio worth over $500,000 even though he was supporting a family on $20,000 a year as a parking lot attentdant. Back in the 70's, he supported his wife and three children on just $80 a week and still found ways to invest. Despite being poor, uneducated and dyslexic he overcame his "lot" in life with hard work and determination. As the link article says, "You don't have to be born rich to end up that way."

[Plucky]

I'd need to do more research. I know that 50% sounds impressive but I suspect it's not, and don't jump on me because I don't believe in "wealth distribution," but I do believe in making taxes as equitable as possible. I'm not sure the richest shouldn't pay a little more, although I'm not on board with the cut off being $250,000 as wealthy. I don't have an answer or any argument I can support with facts at this time. I do feel the answer is somewhere between the two though. I think perhaps the extremely wealthy should pay more and have less loopholes, but I worry with wealth distribution that more middle class people will feel the pinch.

[Stacy in NJ]

. . . has at least something to do with latent Christian and Jewish values in our political system.

 

One of those values is concern for the poor. In Christianity and Judaism, those who have are supposed to care for those who have not. It's supposed to be voluntary. But so are values like not murdering and respecting property. We have laws where people don't do what they should. And the majority faith(s) in this country put "caring for the poor" under that category of "should"s. In both Christianity and Judaism, the implication is that how a person came to be poor is less important than the moral (divine) imperative to help the person.

 

Since that "should" is also present in most other religious and belief systems in this country, it's reasonable to argue that a "should" shared by the vast majority of the country deserves to be part of the law codes of the country.

 

You also have Rawlsian political theory, which is basically liberal Protestant ethics dressed up in secular clothes. The way they get Protestant ethics without protestantism is by saying that a just system is one that you would be willing to be subject to, even if you got to be the least "favored" person in the system. So, it's the Golden Rule on a political scale.

 

Yes. I've had conversations with libertarian friends regarding the legalization of drugs and prostitution that end up in secular, but similar arguments. We shouldn't legalize (or de-legalize) them because their WRONG. It's hard to dress that up than in anything other than a Judeo-Christian thing.