Fair enough! And welcome to FreeRepublic. I enjoy differing points of view that are respectfully presented.
Here's a bit of evidence against soaking the rich. Around the world, a higher standard of living correlates with a lower level of governmental interference in the economy. The main way governments interfere with economies is through taxes.
For example, Hong Kong is a tiny island with few natural resources and a relatively (to its land size) large population. They have a low flat tax and a very high standard of living. Africa is a large continent rich in natural resources with a relatively small population. Governments take a huge portion of the wealth, and they enjoy a very low standard of living. In between we find Europe (higher taxes, higher unemployment) and the US (lower taxes, lower unemployment).
In this country we enjoyed economic booms after Kennedy and Reagan lowered the top rates. Russia instituted a low flat tax a few years ago. Some much more revenue came in that they lowered the rate again. Their economy has been booming.
I honestly think that top Democrat politicians know all this, but argue for taxing the rich anyway. They believe the American people are stupid, and that stirring them to envy will get them votes. If they really believe that the effect of a high top tax rate is more humane than the effect of the rich investing that money instead, why does Ms Heinz-Kerry shelter most of her income and pay the lowest rate (only 13-14%) she can?
"Tax the rich" is a cynical propaganda ploy disguised as prudent public policy.
Hi and thanks for the welcome :).
Around the world, a higher standard of living correlates with a lower level of governmental interference in the economy.
Ok, if you're right then there's a correlation -- but is there causation? Or can we show that there likely is? <--I don't know, that's just what I'm rhetorically thinking.
For example, Hong Kong is a tiny island with few natural resources and a relatively (to its land size) large population. They have a low flat tax and a very high standard of living.
Alright. How much of their high SOL do you think is a result of that low flat tax and why?
Africa is a large continent rich in natural resources with a relatively small population. Governments take a huge portion of the wealth, and they enjoy a very low standard of living.
But, while Africa may be rich in natural resources, obtaining those resources is very difficult. Its just like the food crisis in this world -- there is plenty of food, its just hard to get it to where its needed most.
In between we find Europe (higher taxes, higher unemployment) and the US (lower taxes, lower unemployment).
I have heard that the unemployment in europe is higher than in the U.S., but I have also heard that they use a different measure, and when that measure is used in the United States, our unemployment is actually higher. I don't know if that's a bunch of liberal spin, however. As always, I think there's at least a little truth in everything.
In this country we enjoyed economic booms after Kennedy and Reagan lowered the top rates. Russia instituted a low flat tax a few years ago. Some much more revenue came in that they lowered the rate again. Their economy has been booming.
If we can isolate the low tax rate as the primary cause for the boom, or one of the major contributors, then I'll be agreeing with you that we ought to go for the same here in the states.
I honestly think that top Democrat politicians know all this, but argue for taxing the rich anyway. They believe the American people are stupid, and that stirring them to envy will get them votes.
Really? Why do you think an entire group of people is so evil? I mean, I would consider what you're saying evil. I'm of the opinion that people are generally good and try to do what they think is best -- though it might not always be what's best. Why do you think the dems are so evil?
If they really believe that the effect of a high top tax rate is more humane than the effect of the rich investing that money instead, why does Ms Heinz-Kerry shelter most of her income and pay the lowest rate (only 13-14%) she can?
Well, while they may understand something is better for the country, they could still be personally selfish. They could try to get everyone else to do their work for them, which I wouldn't consider "evil" (its not purposely harming people) but rather irresponsible and selfish, which of course is still reprehensible.
"Tax the rich" is a cynical propaganda ploy disguised as prudent public policy.
I know that's at least partially true, but I just don't know how fully true it is.