It's really this simple... the rich benefit more from our stable regulated

[WCGreen]

society and are able to amass a whole lot of money, pass it on relatively easy to their off spring.

That's why they should pay more than the average citizen.

Think about it this way:

Our courts are basically there to protect property and the accumulation of wealth,

The armed forces are there to protect trade and private property and the accumulation of wealth,

The police are there to protect private property and the accumulation of wealth,

The fire department is there to protect private property and the accumulation of wealth,

Welfare programs are there to stabilize the country and protect the value of private property and help people accumulate wealth,

Public health is there to protect the overall environment and to protect the value of private property and the accumulation of wealth.

This fantasy about striking out on your own and making it big is just that, a fantasy. Oh sure it happens but the vast majority of people who are wealthy benefit greatly from, for instance the Interstate Highway System which allows for the fast and easy flow of goods to and from consumer and producer.

So on tax day 2010, I say get off your duffs, rich guy, pay your fair share.

[bridgit]

1. Yeah, its to their greater benefit that our infrastructure works and has no pot holes too...

[Oregone]

2. The rich aren't brilliant. They just have rich Dads (and gardener DNA)

Of course they benefit long term from a nice balanced society with stable, prosperous marketplaces and an able worker force. But, despite inheriting wealth, they are most normally not intellectual powerhouses; they only look for the short term grab (but who can blame em, as it mostly works out and the government steps in with seconds left on the clock to save everyone--themselves included). Since the rich have moronism as their fatal flaw, it is the lawmakers who are supposed to promote the balance here. The problem we often see today is when the moron buys off the politician, and the blind is leading the blind into a big gaping hole in the ground.

[BeFree]

3. yep

The government is for those who need it the most: those who have more.

A homeless person, otoh, doesn't need much government.

[Robb]

4. I like the sentiment, but it's a bit of a bomb-thrower stance.

Yes, the rich may benefit more from a regulated society. They also benefit more from lack of regulation. They simply benefit more, more often than not.

Linking their success to things like public health and fire departments denigrates public service. Everyone benefits from a stable society, except fantasy anarchists.

[WCGreen]

9. It stabilizes society so the engines of commerce can operate.

[Robb]

12. Among other engines.

[AngryAmish]

5. Police and fire don't protect poor people?

Those folks would differ. Most of their interactions are with poor people.

[WCGreen]

10. I didn't say that, I said they stabilize society...

Make it easier to operate for everyone. But who benefits more...

[AngryAmish]

15. Ever live in a shitty neighborhood?

I have. You would be glad to have public services then.

[WCGreen]

18. that wasn't the point and I have lived in shitty neighborhoods....

You personalized my statements. That's okay but I was speaking of the general stability of our society due to a funded and professionally staffed safety force.

[AngryAmish]

19. k

[WCGreen]

24. I feel exactly the same way....

Think outside the box once in a while...

[CTyankee]

6. This is essentially Warren Buffett's argument against repealing the estate tax

on wealthy individuals. It's a good solid argument IMO. That tax has been relaxed for the rich more and more over the years. And until the latest Iraq war, it has been imposed or re-imposed whenever the U.S. fought a war because back in the day the people in the government knew we had to pay for our wars and it was important that we do so. I guess W never got that memo...

[BuelahWitch]

7. k&r (for what it's worth)

Looks like the free market gimmee crowd is out en force today.

[hedgehog]

8. Just compare the security and freedom of a rich person living in the US

to a person with very moderate income in Brazil or Mexico. True, many of the rich live in gated communities, but when was the last time someone here was kidnapped and held for ransom?

[Robb]

11. To be fair, when that happens to genuinely rich people

...it ain't in the papers. :shrug:

[pitohui]

13. that is ridiculous and untrue...hearst not in the papers? getty not in the papers?

when genuinely rich people are kidnapped in the usa it's bigtime news, hell, it's news even if they're "merely" middle class

it's when the poor kid or woman disappears that nobody gives a flying

kidnapping for profit is not common in the usa because it is not profitable, it's too hard to get away w. making the hand-off/pay-off

the rich in the usa enjoy a substantially greater degree of freedom than they do in latin america, as only a few minutes of travel and observation will tell you -- how many genuinely rich people need to have their city house surrounded by razor wire and broken glass, a common sight to see around homes in many latin american cities? here rich people can indulge in driving their own autos, as we all know from the drunk driving reports, instead of having drivers, a fleet of guards etc

i had a friend from colombia where it took him several months to relax and let his body guard go instead of shadowing him even in the middle of a casino in vegas!

[Robb]

16. You have two examples from the 1970s.

...And there hasn't been a kidnapping for ransom of a rich person in 40 years in this country?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

14. That is certainly true...

And believe me, we did pay our fair share!

:P

[Greyhound]

17. And the inheritance tax should be dramatically increased.

As long as we allow the unreasonable accumulation of generational wealth, we all pay too heavy a price for those whom produce nothing but consume excessively.

[mainer]

20. So it's impossible to get rich in Brazil?

What you're implying is that only with a stable, regulated society will the rich get richer.

But clearly there are rich people in corrupt and unstable societies as well. And the gap between rich and poor is even wider there. It turns out that unstable, corrupt societies foster GREATER wealth disparity.

So a stable and regulated society actually benefits the poor more.

[WCGreen]

23. It's a hell of a lot easier to get rich here and keep your money....

Look at the tax rates in Brazil, for instance.

A stable economy that is backed by a stable government operating in a stable society will always win out in the end.

90% of what goes on in our court system is about people keeping their money and protecting their property.

People here believe they can, at least until recently, get a fair shake from the government and thought that the government, again until recently, that the government was protecting us from the excesses of the business cycle.

Not so much in other countries.

[mainer]

25. I'm confused about what you're advocating

First you're saying that a stable government and society is primarily there to BENEFIT the rich, not the poor. i.e., the poor get shafted by a stable government.

Then you say that a stable government and society HELPS people (everyone included) BECOME rich. In which case the non-rich could actually get ahead.

If a stable government/society is only a rich man's tool, then are you advocating we get rid of it?

And what about stable governments like Sweden and Switzerland? Are you saying it's easier to get rich there? Are the poor suffering in Sweden? Maybe the poor are better off in Colombia?

[WCGreen]

28. I never once said that the poor were getting shafted....

I said the tax system benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.

I'm not advocating getting rid of our system but a hell of a lot of wealthy people sure are.

I'm calling for a higher rate of tax for the wealthy because they benefit most from a stable society. They also have the most to loose if things turn ugly.

[mainer]

21. Welfare systems are there to help rich people accumulate wealth?

Wow. Just wow.

[WCGreen]

22. That's not the major intent but it sure is a by product....

Look, if you have a whole mess of people running around with no way to get money no way to get food no hope what so ever...

That is a scenario anyone who looks at say the French Revolution would see.

Think outside the box for a moment.

[mainer]

26. So if the rich advocate welfare just so they can get richer

How come so many rich folks want to get rid of welfare?

[WCGreen]

27. I never said they were sane people did I...

But look who championed the social change back at the turn of the last century.

It was people who were wealthy who saw that the country couldn't keep going if all we did was run our people down, grind them into submission and wait for the next boatload of serfs to take their place.

The wealthy now feel as if, to quote Molly Ivans, they were born on third base but believe they hit a triple.