I'll take a quick shot:

While there certainly should be no penalty for being successful, I see it, as such, as an extended way of giving thanks...

Think about it:

When you're poor, you don't usually pay many taxes below a certain povery line, and you don't give to free will, you get.

Middle class, you tend to pay more taxes, and give back more in taxes, both because you ahve more to give and because, presumably, you have benefited more from the State's existence.

Hence the reason the Wealthy should pay the most:

Without the State, the Wealthy would have no protection for their goods, no public roads along which to spread their trade, fewer customers--as if there's an unstable state-of-nature about, no one is apt to be civilized and pay and be nice for necessities, to say nothing of luxuries--amd so on and so forth.

The Wealthy are Wealthy due, in part, to their ingenuity and use of the lower classes--please note I DON'T see tht as a terrible thing--but also partly because of the existence of the State, as the State gives them a market and security and the start-up civilization necessary for trade and commerce to begin with.

As such, as the Wealthy owe so much to the State, and they can afford to give more back, it seems fair and itting that they give the most back of any of the three classes.

That being said, PENALIZING them for being wealthy or instituting any sort of "wealth" cap, por redistributing their wealth to help the other classes directly is NOT supported by me; the increased taxes must help the State as a whole.

TC, in theory everyone could be an entrepreneur. (That wouldn't work because then there would be no employees, but that's not the point.) Anyone can easily create jobs. All you need is a little money. You don't even need a new idea; old ones are easily recyclable. The recyclability of old ideas is why companies don't have monopolies on products, and why there are so many brands of detergent, for example.

The rich are evil people. They dont help anybody but themselves. tettletons chew is a stupid ass who sits arround all day posting on a fucking game forum

The rich dont have any ideas!!!! They are using the poor!!!! Its not fair how some people are born into wealth and others arent!!!!

capitalism is wrong!!! it generally benefits the wealthy and needs to be ended!!!

1bru: I direct you to socialist 101, http://www.socialistaction.org/socialism.htm
Hopefully you learn some talking points, so you can stop spouting exploitation of the workers rhetoric.

1brucben, please tell me you're parodying a whiny communist over-idealist...

And you're NOT one yourself. (Not to say communism is a terrible idea--i think it is, personally, but i digress--but your posts take it to that nth degree of zealotry and whininess that's so disgusting about so much of it...)

i know socialism!!!! i dont need your shit. I hate the rich!!!! we need to tax them tilll they starve!!!

...

Well, you certainly are...what, 14 or something?

Seriously, sir, a grown adult generally doesn't have five explanation points after every sentence and say things like "starve the rich!" just to get attention.



If you want to be taken seriously, first you need to write seriously.

@theczech you have it all wrong. he may donate a lot but he has alot to donate. charity isnt about how much you give, its about how much you dont give. ipods arent steves "idea" ipods are a result of him using the lower classes. he deserves to be taxed back in his place

"I hate the rich!!!! we need to tax them tilll they starve!!! "

If this is your attitude I'd say you actually haven't a clue about socialism expect perhaps some basic rhetoric. That is if you are claiming to be a socialist. If you are claiming to be a communist then said attitude is pretty run of the mill.

I think you may be right on the parody element obi, I have trouble believing we actually have people this foolish who play diplomacy.

ITS NOT FAIR THAT SOME PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE RICH YET OTHER DONT!!!

+1 damian (hope you're right)

Also the idiot who posted that the rich and poor should have the same tax rate, look at these numbers. Bill gates total income was 176 million. say another person makes 20000. if we tax them or not the proportion of income is still the same under a flat rate tax. that means that bill gates would earn 8800 times as much as the other person. Are you dumb enough to say that he is 8800 times as valuable as this person?? That is rediculous. Hes probably not even over 10. There are people starving in the USA and cant even earn a living and even subtracting his current taxes, and all his charity, he still keeps for himself a huge sum of money. He owns a huge home that no one actually needs! You sir are telling me that he deserves to have this for one idea that any person with a computer degree could have came up with???

IT'S NOT FAIR SOME GET TO HOG ALL THE CAPSLOCK FOR THEMSELVES IN THEIR POSTS AND OTHERS DON'T!!!!!!!!!

THROW OFF THE SHACKLES OF NUM-LOCK OPPRESSION, EVERYONE!!!!!!

CAPSLOCK FOR EVERYTONE EVER-AFTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is why there should me no income tax, only a consumption tax.....just sayin.

*be*
You are posting too frequently, please slow down.
Shut up

I agree with a lot of the posts on here that advocate a flat tax system or a national sales tax. The current American tax system is so screwed up that we need to throw it out and start over.

Back to the original subject, I believe that heavily taxing the rich backfires. Not very many dumb people are rich. If the taxes on the rich go up by a lot, the rich will squirrel away their money in tax shelters, pay their employees less, or raise prices on their consumers. Taxes on rich people get passed onto everyone else.

Tax hikes on the rich sound good to a lot of people, and is the main reason why the Democrats are winning the budget battle right now. For that, I must applaud them. It is excellent political maneuvering on their part. Too bad it doesn't stand up to simple logic.

it does stand simple logic. if you people would just listen to me. the rich are smart and manipulative, they know how to use the poor. Everybody should be paid based on how much work they do. mental and physical. Most of the rich inherit their wealth which isn't fair. the ones that earn it shouldn't be earning that much in the first place. the government should tax that money and give it too the poor and starving. Their is no way bill gates works 10000 times as much as some people. it isnt fair. i dont see any logic in your arguments at all. gunfighter the taxes wont get passed on cuz the money is just moved to the poor. it wont hurt the economy at all and will help the many starving people.

Since Bru brought up the concept of the wage gap, and the way taxes can address it I figure this is as good a time as any to bring up my theory on wage gap economy.

Now while there are obviously other factors which influence the economy my theory is that as the wage gap increases you have a much less stable economy, it jumps up, and crashes at the drop of a hat and as the wage gap approaches 1:1 the economy gets more and more stable, however with the stability comes much slower growth,which can turn into negative growth in adverse conditions.

Gold: Why exactly? The arguments that stem from it? A desire to remove complications from life?

What is so wrong with the government receiving a portion of a citizens income to invest in the country.

Gun: The prime reason that these taxes are passed on to the workers and consumers is that, the works don't own the means of production. I know classic socialist talking point, but in this case very true. The only reason for passing on the costs to the consumers and workers is individual gain.

As for tax shelters, screw them. People who squirrel away their wealth like that should lose their citizenship, the country is better off without them.

Sure, the money is moved to the poor in some ways, but it's taken from the poor in other ways. You just said yourself that the rich are smart and manipulative. What is stopping them from raising prices or cutting pay if their taxes go up?

people arent gonna take pay cuts. companies should be run by the people that work in them

"The only reason for passing on the costs to the consumers and workers is individual gain."

They could pass on costs to compensate for losses, which is individual gain.

"As for tax shelters, screw them. People who squirrel away their wealth like that should lose their citizenship, the country is better off without them"

I agree. I'm just telling you what would happen (and what already does happen without a heavy tax burden. Why worsen the problem?)

In this economy, most people are just grateful for a job.

"people arent gonna take pay cuts."

So what are they gonna do in an economy in the state we're in? Quit and let the company have a pick from the 9.2% of the workforce right now that's out of a job?

President Eden + 1

Thanks for the backup

Gun: You make a fair point in regards to compensating for losses. I concede that. I wasn't happy with how I'd phrased it to start with. It would however be a non-issue or at least something that all the works agreed on if companies were controlled by the workers.

I know what would happen, and yeah what already does happen. I'm in favour of overhauling the whole system for something sensible. (In my mind) However that is unlikely to happen. In this case it'll either bring in more revenue for the government or a bunch more rich people will prove to be scum and it'll hurt the government revenue. It's a gamble, and with your country in the hole the way it is you've got to take a few gambles, hell you've got to take more then a few.

Pres: Totally agreed, not sure what bru has going through his head, but the workers don't get much say when it comes to pay cuts. (I don't like but it is true.)

@ damian

I didn't know bru had anything in his head for something to go through

"Anyone can easily create jobs."
What nonsense.