I'd support ditching the income tax. Won't happen.
However, while we have it, there's no excusing that the wealthiest indeed get the greatest benefit from a vibrant economy, low crime and relative peace abroad. We should probably adjust the upper bracket so mutli-millionaires and multi-billionaires pay a share more in line to the overall benefit they've received. At such levels, money is just making more money. It has little to do with their continued daily effort, nor even really what their contribution is worth to humanity.
Perhaps a special sportsman and entertainer tax is in order for all those nothings which contribute only to the decay of decency and morality to pay us for having to put up with them. And no more damned tax-payer funded ballbarks, too.
There was one op-ed in the local paper on Sunday suggesting, in essense, it wasn't fair that the poorest 50% don't pay 50% of all taxes. The writer, somewhere off in an alternate reality, neglects to realize any tax on the poor has a bigger impact on that person's or family's buying power. These aren't people of means. At those levels it can mean passing on necessary health care and I'm not talking about vanity or lifestyle indulgences like birth-control pills and viagra but full-time care for an dementia patient who is too dangerous to be cared for at home any longer.
To someone in the upper brackets, and yet they too can live beyond their means but who have the financial resources and management resources available to them to more easily avoid it, such costs are hardly an issue at all. Consider Limbaugh and his not bothering with health care insurance and HMOs, instead using his financial means to pay as he needs. Damned few are in his position. Most must wait two, three months in the HMO queue for kidney or liver ultrasounds, colonoscopies, and other tests.
We can't all be in the top 1%. The economy, from a business and consumer angle demands a majority of people at lower income levels to fill critical, if often menial tasks. We can't all be making $150,000/year. Businesses and conservatives already grouse at increases in minimum wage, imagine if we were all paid like lawyers (or, in some places, like teachers!).
Sometimes I wonder if Democrat's solution is to import (near) slave labour in the form of illegal immigration and the Republican solution is to rent near, or actual, slave labour in foreign countries all the while both are gleeful as our investment portfolios bloom and we drag on our health care system with habits of excess drink, smoking, and unhealthy diets. At least Rush, being able to pay in full, dodges the hypocrasy yolk by not being a drag on HMO costs and contributing to the need for higher premiums.
Or not.
The wealthiest, BY DEFINITION, are responsible for the "vibrant economy".
There is also no getting past the fact that, by and large, the wealthiest are the folks who created this vibrant economy. The richest folks you'll find are also the ones who took the greatest risk and succeeded by contributing greatly to the welfare of consumers.
Perhaps a special sportsman and entertainer tax is in order for all those nothings which contribute only to the decay of decency and morality to pay us for having to put up with them. And no more damned tax-payer funded ballbarks, too.
I'm with you on the ballparks. But a sportsman and entertainer tax? Are you serious? If you are serious, have you ever thought about the ramifications of government dictating "morally proper" versus "improper" jobs?
There was one op-ed in the local paper on Sunday suggesting, in essense, it wasn't fair that the poorest 50% don't pay 50% of all taxes.
Are you sure the suggestion wasn't that the lowest 50% would pay the same tax as a percent of their income? Only an imbecile would advocate the lowest 50% paying 50% of the actual tax dollars.
The writer, somewhere off in an alternate reality, neglects to realize any tax on the poor has a bigger impact on that person's or family's buying power. These aren't people of means. At those levels it can mean passing on necessary health care and I'm not talking about vanity or lifestyle indulgences like birth-control pills and viagra but full-time care for an dementia patient who is too dangerous to be cared for at home any longer.
While you certainly paint a sympathetic picture of the poor dementia patient being deprived of meds by "The Man", I remain unconvinced. Indeed, I would suggest if the poor paid as large a percentage of their income to the government as the rich do, taxes overall would be a far lower burden on everyone. "The Poor" would never shoulder the burden "The Rich" currently do.
To someone in the upper brackets, and yet they too can live beyond their means but who have the financial resources and management resources available to them to more easily avoid it, such costs are hardly an issue at all. Consider Limbaugh and his not bothering with health care insurance and HMOs, instead using his financial means to pay as he needs. Damned few are in his position. Most must wait two, three months in the HMO queue for kidney or liver ultrasounds, colonoscopies, and other tests.
What's your point? Rush Limbaugh discovered the public holds him, as a commodity, in high demand. He is well-paid for his talents. How is it that other people are morally entitled to HIS well-earned money?
We can't all be in the top 1%. The economy, from a business and consumer angle demands a majority of people at lower income levels to fill critical, if often menial tasks. We can't all be making $150,000/year. Businesses and conservatives already grouse at increases in minimum wage, imagine if we were all paid like lawyers (or, in some places, like teachers!).
No, we can't all be in the top 1%. Only the brightest and hardest working among us will achieve that status. Perhaps some will choose family over work (and that's a great choice, IMHO). Others are simply not as smart or diligent; that's just the way it goes. Others will be subject to bad luck, etc.
Bottom line: What right does Person A have to appropriate Person B's money? If you can explain how that is moral, you stand a chance of changing my mind. However, I would suggest you face an impossible task in doing so.
Arrgghhh! Perhaps you need some more information. Money "at such levels" doesn't just magically produce more money. Money is valuable, and can create more wealth if applied to proper ventures. What those horrible alchemist-millionaires are doing is lending their money to individuals and institutions for innovation and investment. In turn, these evil rich people are compensated in the form of interest, or dividends, or an increase in the value of the holdings for which they have traded their money. Believe it or not, even disgruntled non-millionaires such as yourself are completely entitled to this same process....
What is the evidence that taxes-any taxes-result in a "vibrant economy" which results in benefit to "the wealthiest"?
Think of how much more vibrant the economy would be without the drag of taxes.
In a free society the wealthy are wealthy precisely because they've made the greatest contribution in making the economy vibrant. The poor benefit most from low crime -- the rich can afford private security for their persons and property.
"At such levels, money is just making more money."
And a good thing too.
"It has little to do with their continued daily effort,"
So? Why should daily effort be the basis of anything?
" nor even really what their contribution is worth to humanity."
"Humanity" is not a decision-making unit. Nothing can have worth or value to it.
"any tax on the poor has a bigger impact on that person's or family's buying power."
So what? That's always true. The only way to make it not true is to forcibly equalize incomes.
"At those levels it can mean passing on necessary health care"
B.S. Many, many, so-called "necessary" procedures and services today simply did not exist until quite recently.
"Businesses and conservatives already grouse at increases in minimum wage, imagine if we were all paid like lawyers (or, in some places, like teachers!)."
If at some point in the future most people had the purchasing power of doctors today, they'd still be griping about how they couldn't afford the things tomorrow's Rush Limbaugh could.