Alright, for the longest time I didn't have an opinion about this but now I want to better understand the issue and see if this system is acceptable. Also, lucky's sonfession that he changed his mind made me better want to understand this. I have no doubt in my mind that this discussion will spin out of control into a debate about the current system v. fair tax v. flat tax... and I'm prepared for that.

Alright - first I have some background.

I used to understand why the rich were taxed more. My understanding was that if a family earns 6-figure salaries and get taxed, say 30%, you can still afford the cost of living... and afford it rather comfortably. But a family making only 50K a year might not be able to afford the cost of living which is why their taxes are lower.

But on the flip side, unfairly taxing the rich just seems... unfair. I mean, why should the succesful, most of which EARN that pay check, pay more into a system they may not actively benefit from (cause chances are good they don't have medicare, rely on SS after retiremtent or need welfare to survive)?

I just wanted to start a conversation about this in order to help me form an opinion.

Okay, some general points here.

* A good tax system is a fair one. One that encourages people to earn more without penalising them, whilst at the same time, ensuring that wealthy income earners contribute their fair share towards public spending.It also means that people who are sick, or fallen on hard times are provided for in a common sense fashion.

* A good tax system is a practical one. For example, if a government adopts a "Tax the rich until it hurts" philosophy and puts a crazy tax rate at say 60%, no problem wealthy income earners just establish tax residence in an offshore country, and the government gets nothing.

* A good tax system should be a good indication of what you are trying to get people to do.

If you want people to invest in the country and set up businesses, then tax breaks for new businesses may be the way to go.

If you are wanting to promote a hard work ethic and for people to strive for success and financial betterment, then a fair tax system rather than an archaic one, is the way to go.

If you want to encourage people to stay on welfare the majority of their life and become totally dependent on the government, then have an unfair tax system.


Wealthy people are just like everyone else. They are happy to pay our fair share of tax. They just don't want to be taken advantage of and discriminated against because of the tall poppy syndrome which is unfortunately pre dominant in many western countries.

There are less rich people hence less people that vote for people that will lower taxes on rich people.

There are more people that are not rich that will vote for people that tax the rich more.

See what I am saying???

If the Dem's came out and said "OK poor folks we will make you actually PAY taxes" (30% or Americans pay zero federal taxes) they would loose their base. 

Its like raising taxes on cigarettes and not gas... everyone uses gas so you piss off too many people.. But with cigarettes...

Ya, following me here?

I agree, it's a bad idea to set the upper brackets at too high of a rate. 60% is way too high. Out of general principle I don't think any income tax rate should ever be more than 50%. The concept that you should give the government more money than you take home is absurd. I'm not as knowledgeable about the economic effects of tax policy as I should be, so I really can't say exactly what percentage the top bracket should pay.




As far as the OP goes, "why should rich people pay more?"

I do think a progressive income tax structure should be maintained. In our case, America is a good place to do business, even if that business is just selling your labor. This is no accident. It's the result of, among other things, massive investment on the part of the taxpayers. Without the infrastructure, security, freedom and substantial resources provided by tax funds it would be considerably harder to make money. Earners in the upper brackets are receiving more benefit from the taxpayer's investment, and I don't think it's at all unreasonable to have them contribute at a higher rate.

The system is a political point. [insert rant here] seriously, to understand the reasons for the current system would require analysis of hundreds of compromises of hundreds of competing theories.

When I want more money I work to get it. That I have to work longer because of taxes is annoying, and working more than twice as long because of them would piss me off, but not having money generally pisses me off worse. They could boil this frog a far sight worse before I tried a John Galt.

that's an interesting way of looking at it. I'll think about it.

The European leftist approach is roughly based upon social contract -those who profit more from society must pay back more.

An instance (JUST AS AN ANALOGY):

Let's say that a fire threatens your home. Firefighters come and extinguish the fire before it reaches your home. You are paying for firefighters through your taxes. But, how much should you pay? It would be sensible that it was according to the service they may offer to you. And then, saving 300,000 $ worth of property is not the same as saving 3,000,000 $ worth of property, right? The more expensive the property, the greater benefit you get from the existence of firefighters. And thus the greater benefit you get from your taxes. And so it's logical that you pay more taxes for this greater benefit.

And this is why the ones wiht more to lose should pay more for the means to keep it; the ones who profit more from society must pay back more.

Of course all this si in the context of social contract. It may be different if you fel you would be millioanire the same without society (a very convenint self-deceit). It helps a lot to keep this nonsense alive that the society rarely will flex its muscle to show you how wrong you are, and to which point the individual owes to society...

I'm bad with the math today, because I can't remember what this sliding scale is called (exponential?), but a few years ago I had a boring job filing in a doctor's office and every week I would calculate my paycheck and how many taxes would come out of it (because of the boredom). I would make less money each day, because each day more taxes would come out of the paycheck. Some weeks I would say to myself "Well, there's no reason to show up on Friday because I will make about the same as if I didn't come in at all".

I know that you can't just increase taxes the higher the payscale in a way to where everyone makes the same amount of money, but I understand a system where those people who are no longer struggling can afford to pay a little bit more than the guys at the very bottom. And as far as I know, the only people who don't pay taxes are illegals, some construction workers, busboys, and maybe waiters.