Why do people vote for Hilary and Obama?

[Sqrl]

Kasz216 said:

Sqrl said:

takeru51 said:

There's yer problem chief... The top 1% have 33% of the country's money (as of 2005). Therefore, shouldn't they be paying 33% of our taxes?

No "chief" I don't think that is true at all. The percentages are irrelevant because just having money isn't and shouldn't be taxable. No tax system should penalize people for saving money, its just down right illogical.

As for whether or not 1% of the people should be paying 33% of the taxes. No and quite frankly it frightens me that people think this is logical. I cannot fathom what would make people think it is fair for one person to be forced to cover the cost of another person. The simple fact is that the entire idea is punishment for success. This is essentially socialism, and in reality this is a basic socialistic expansion technique...(promising the money of the rich to the poor and middle class to gain their support).

I'm sure there are a lot of people that like the idea of someone who has more money than them paying for them. Its a really great idea if you're the one benefitting from it. But it doesn't make it a fair plan.

I still think the best way I have heard to do a tax system is a sales tax. If you can treat everyone equal and still get the rich to pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes then I would call that a good system.

The Problem with that system is the rich don't spend proportially what they make compared to everyone else. As the saying goes "The Rich get Richer". Which causes a gap between the Rich and Poor, which when it grows too high is a giant destabalizing factor as there is less money, and less resources for those who arn't rich to get by... eventually there isn't enough... and then the poor get pissed off about... well starving and violence happens.

Hence why you tax total income... so you can somewhat keep the gap between the rich and poor equal. The rich are still rich, the poor are still poor, but nearly everyone gets their stomaches fed and nobody ends up being decapitated by Robespierre.

That's also i'd imagine a reason for the Death tax... to try and limit fortunes being passed on from one super rich person to another, creating a dynasty that works as a defacto "noble class".

It might not be "fair" but these taxes pretty much are meant to keep just the right balance between rich and poor to get political balance. Even then the rich are still getting richer, the poor poorer and the middle class disapearing.

It's the price we pay for living in a flawed world. I mean hey, ever think about how many unneeded abortions happen just because jackasses can't figure out that maybe they should be on the birth control pill and that they should wear condoms.

Sure they both fail occasionally but if you use one... or better yet both. You're pretty set.

 Answering paragraph by paragraph:

Conversely if you tax the rich an unreasonable amount, they begin leaving the country with that money in search of places that don't tax them to hell and back.  And this is something that is happening now and happens a lot faster than rich people hording wealth forever...which takes forever =P.  Most wealthy people understand that it is best to have their money working for them.  They generally invest and that money is constantly in the system which sort of kills your point here. By having that money invested they stand to lose and gain quite a bit which provides plenty of balance. And again I will say I have yet to hear a good argument for penalizing those who wish to save money.  

The number of rich and poor people by percentages is remaining relatively stable, although this doesn't mean these are the same people.  There is quite a bit of fluctuation in the rich side of things and not nearly as much on the poor side of things.  This rich turnover again provides a stablizing factor that prevents your scenario from happening.

As for the estate tax being a balancing factor, I don't think this is neccessary at all.   It is definitely a lot easier to make a bunch of money when you are rich but it is also a lot easier to lose a lot of money when you are rich.  History has shown that the richest estates in the world quickly fall from grace over the course of 2 to 4 generations or so.  There are probably exceptions to this but by in large it is true.  Most of the time a great deal of the money is left to charities, or split up amongst dozens of people.  I have a hard time believing that the problem you described is or would be anywhere near as big of an issue as you portray it to be.

Ultimately I think your argument deals far too thoroughly in generalities, it really is an oversimplistic view of what is going on and makes it seem as if the rich are just getting richer because they are rich.  When in reality only some are increasing their wealth and those are the ones who are investing and providing jobs and economic growth.  To tax them specifically for the reason that they are spurring growth and providing jobs is beyond ridiculous. It is once again a penalty for success.