The rich will always spend less of their total than the poor. That is a no brainer. What is a mistake, in my opinion, is to care about it and to consider it wrong. What is the purpose of being rich? Why try to be rich? What is the penalty for being poor? Why try to work your way out of being poor?
The left solves the problem by taking from the achievers, the rich, and giving to the non performers, the poor. That minimizes the advantage to being rich and it aleviates the burden of being poor. That is not natural. The government has no place deciding who should have what.
You keep saying you don't begrudge the rich their success but at the same time you bemoan that they have more money than the poor. What is with that?
It is a well known axiom that if some higher power took all the money in the world and distributed it evenly among the population, in short order 20% of the people would have 80% of the money. That is with no cheating, stealing, or double dealing. That is the difference between the doers and the others and natural human commerce.
Shortly after than the 80% of the money owned by the 20% would be redistributed so that 20% of that 20% would own 80% of that money. So at the end of that short cycle, 4% of the population would own 64% of the money.
That is with a hypothetical fixed amount of money. We know that is not true in the real world. That hypothetical pie grows so that even though the money is redistributed all, even the p[oor, are able to do better. Henry Ford paid his workers a high salary for the time. He didn't have to, he wanted to. He wanted them to buy his cars. Smart businessmen do that and only the smart survive.
That is a natural progression among human beings of different talents and different desires. What makes the pie grow is that the people with the bulk of the money put it to work to make even more. That makes more money available to the others. They get their share according to their ability, how hard they work, and how lucky they are. Same with the rich folks.
Why should the government interfer with that?
Dear Mind-numbed Robot,
"The rich will always spend less of their total than the poor. That is a no brainer. What is a mistake, in my opinion, is to care about it and to consider it wrong."
I never said anything regarding the morality of the situation.
I'm looking at the practical consequences. The bill is revenue neutral. If the poor continue to pay nothing, if a few more folks near poverty level pay less than they do now, and the rich get a big tax cut, then someone's gotta pay for all these winners. If some income groups - the poor and the rich - see drops in their tax liability (and for the rich, it will be a very big hunk of the total taxes collected, as these folks pay the bulk of taxes now), then someone's taxes are going up.
Guess who is going to get socked?
sitetest