Tax philosophy. Sometimes I truly wonder if people think about this, and why in the world they would so adamantly support larger taxes for higher-income people.
Why punish success?
Everyone talks so much of "shared responsibility", although the Americans who make the most money pay 90% or more of the tax burden. And in the name of "shared responsibility", the middle and low classes demand that the wealthy pay more. And I ask: isn't this a contradiction of the philosophy the lower classes hold so dear? Why is it, that, the more successful I am in my sales job, the more I have to give the government? If shared responsibility is the liberal dream, why do the leaders of that movement demand the wealthy be punished with higher taxes, so the lower classes won't be required to give as much? While I pay a small percentage in taxes, the owner of the company I work for must pay huge sums of money in personal and business taxes. Because of his hard work, he is smacked time and time again with larger taxes.
Is this the "shared responsibility" that is idealized? I understand the sentiment that, if a person can contribute more, he should. After looking at the percentages though, even with the current tax cuts in place, the wealthy are bearing so much of the country's tax burden. I'd be hard pressed to support a candidate that would increase that burden. It would discourage financial success and economic investment. And, of course, it would discourage the "shared responsibility" ideal that has become so prevalent.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
They can afford to. Their resources vastly outnumber that of the working man and the IRS, contrary to popular belief, is not stupid. They know where to go to get the government some dough.
Also, taxing the living crap out of the poor won't do anything but leave countless people without homes and stretch the income gap even further, which won't end pretty. While discouraging financial success is bad, civil war is much, much worse.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Tsukurimashou; tsukurimashou
sate sate nani ga dekiru ka na.
Hai! Dekimashita!
If you can translate that on your own, you have my undying respect.
I know they can afford to pay more than they are now. Does it make it fair, though? I'm not advocating changing our current tax system--as you said, it's logical. I'm just questioning whether they should be taxed at a higher rate than they already are.
If everyone paid the same percentage of their income as taxes (say, 3%), then that would be reasonable. It wouldn't be fair if the poor only had to pay 3% and the rich paid 10%. That, my friend, would be unfair.
[Edit] I probably shouldn't be replying to blogs about taxes, since I don't know jack about them. ^_^;
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Tsukurimashou; tsukurimashou.
Sate sate nani ga dekiru ka na.
Hai! Dekimashita!
If you can translate that on your own, you have my undying respect.
taxes are a must. how would roads be built and repaired. how would we fight wars. how would their be public schools and libraries. also you can not just charge the rich 10% tax and how would you classify someone as being rich enough to pay the 10% instead of 3%.
No one here is questioning whether or not taxes are necessary. Please read the blog and post comments pertinent to the discussion.
Mega-Corporations use the United States Commons (public airwaves for advertising, public courts when their products affect consumers) at a higher rate than other class systems. Thus, they are taxed to fit the bill. The justice for such excessive use is not a penalty... it's simply their payment to ensure that society functions (ie. social programs).
Sustainably yers, Green Underbelly
I know that, and that's why the tax rate is high for them right now. I agree. I believe that is fair, that our current tax rates are good.
My point is that an INCREASED tax rate on those high-income areas would cease to be fair.
It's not that simple. Not only is it an explanation for the current flat tax-- it also justifies the withdrawal of subsidization of profiting industries. Do you ever wonder why populist candidates wake up from their slumbers? We saw it during industrialization at the beginning of the 20th Century, the New Deal era and on into the Great Society, and this campaign season we heard the rhetoric of John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich coming out of the Democratic Party! It seems to me the pendulum shifts when there are times of social unrest, when we see large profiteering and a faltering middle class.
What we have at this juncture is corporate welfare in nearly most sectors of the economy. In the energy sector, PETROLEUM COMPANIES like Exxon Mobile, is posting record profits and remains heavily subsidized by taxpayers (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098458/). The COAL INDUSTRY, which is not in the best interest of a sustainable future, has been at the doggy-door receiving subsidies for decade--the latest being the 2005 Energy Bill-- at a time when renewable energy is is demand and desperately needed. (http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill...).
We have deregulation in the housing market that has brought us to the brink of recession. And what are we told to do? Shop?
Is this the American system you support? I'm curious--Is this the status-quo that John McCain supports?
Sustainably yers, Green Underbelly
"As the share of federal taxes paid by corporations has declined from 25 to 10 percent since the 1960s, the burden for funding government spending falls more and more heavily on personal income and payroll taxes," -- that's you and me.
--This quote, which puts your article to shame, has been brought to you by "American Government-Ninth Edition" by Susan Welch, John Gruhl, John Comer and Susan Rigdon
Sustainably yers, Green Underbelly