Need Help - Why Should the Wealthy be Taxed More?

[trailrunners]

My wife has a friend at work who very emotional today about McCain losing?!?!?!!? O.K. don't flame me, I'm just the messenger. My wife didn't even know she was a McCain supporter. She's apparently very "conservative" and can't understand why the wealthy should be taxed more than they already are. If they've worked hard and earned what they've worked for, why should they have to pay more taxes than everyone else? Help me come up with a good answer for this woman. Apparently she's distraught?!?!?!?! Holy cow is all I have to say about that!

Hell, I work hard too, but I'm not wealthy. I think we should pay taxes to support the services we receive commensurate with how much we make. Please give me some arguments about why our tax system is fair and the basis behind it so my wife can have a cohesive argument when she talks with her next.

Thanks!

[Ian David]

1. Google "Thom Hartman" and "Taxes" and "Commons" n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. My thought is

that the wealthy have benefited more from our government (which has allowed them to amass their wealth), and should therefore be willing to pay more to the government.

[Johonny]

39. They also use the American infrastructure more

[firedupdem]

3. Also remind them that we ALL work hard and earn what we make.. n/t

[Doityourself]

4. Google is your friend...go forth and have fun...oh and tell your wife's coworker...get over it n/t

[Bread and Circus]

5. Because the progressive tax structure is what acutally works best to drive the economy

and make everyone wealthier, including the rich.

[Richardo]

6. "That's where the money is." - WIllie Sutton

[Waiting For Everyman]

7. Because they got cuts for years they never should've had,

shifting the burden onto the rest of the population. This is what they paid their lobbyists for, to change our laws to benefit themselves. That's why. This is fixing the level playing field.

[mrcheerful]

35. Doesn't work very well with the true believers they actually think their taxes were cut

When the top 10% got tax cuts. Sorry but thats the reality they live in, in their minds the reason their taxes went up was because of welfare queens in the public housing area's of big cities, not because they are paying for the top 10% tax cuts. I went around and around with one of these nit wits since 2002 and he still thinks when the top 10 get a tax cut so does he, To make it worse he then rants because his taxes went up. That freaking box thinking shit.

[nomorenomore08]

8. Simply because they have a higher proportion of disposable income.

Whereas a person near the bottom of the income ladder might have very little money to "spare," someone making six figures a year, unless they have a ridiculous mortgage/alimony/whatever payment, could likely afford to have their income trimmed a bit more by taxes, proportionally speaking.

[truedelphi]

9. Because the rich have disposable income, and the middle income earner doesn't

Reason One.

These days, millions of middle income people who live in pricey areas like Washington DC, NYC, Los Angeles and all other CA cities of any size. This group of middle income owners gets NO MORTGAGE DEDUCTION BECAUSE THEY NEVER COULD AFFORD TO PURCHASE THEIR HOME. So it is a truthful thing to state that for many in the middle class, they lost the mortgage benefit, and so their taxes are a FULL TWENTY FIVE PER CENT higher than their parents paid...
(You might add - Obama is talking like 3% - a small amount. Rich people own their homes and have soemwhere along the way seen a mortgage deduction. Thus their tax rate is similiar to what their parents paid back in the fifties sixties and seventies.)



Reason Two - It used too make sense to allow the wealthy to have the money they made, because they would invest it in things like American-based businesses and thius hire the Americans to work.

Now most businesses get located overseas.

If she can follow the logic of that argument - then explain that Barack Obama in his infinite wisdom, will indeed allow Americans who are wealthy to escape a punch up in their taxes, IF they base their business here in the USA. So that if some rich person wants a restaurant opened, or a carpet cleaning business to be created, or a mail courier service, etc - they will not see the increase in taxes.

[Doremus]

55. Their tax rate isn't similar to their parents' in the 50s, 60s & 70s....

The highest tax bracket back then was 90%+.

Obama is proposing a rollback of tax cuts and a small increase that will put top earners in the brackets we had back in the Bill Clinton years, i.e. 3% more than now.

[MISSDem]

10. IMHO, most wealthy people inherited their money or it was just

a matter of fate, ie, being in the right place at the right time. Not many people work harder than anyone else. And the fact that they are lucky enough to be in this country also greatly increases their chances of becoming wealthy and they should be happy to give back. The universal law says that you will get back what you give, ie, reap what you sow , anyway. Also, they probably use more resources since they are wealthy so should pay more. If you are rich why whine???? You pay more taxes so the government can do more for all of us. Keep prosperity flowing by passing it along. Haven't you even noticed that when you give a lot to charity or whatever you always seem to get money from unexpected places? It is a universal law. Don't fight it. (Sorry, I am rambling).

[Overseas]

11. 10% of $10,000,000 = 1,000,000. 10% of 35,000 = 3,500

Next question please.

[Atman]

12. When you make $25,000, any tax is brutal

When you make $25,000,000, the government could take half your income and you'd still be ridiculously wealthy.

That about sums it up.

.

[blondeatlast]

13. As a percentage of their incomes, the poor and middle-class drive the economy far more

by spending a higher percentage of their incomes than the rich.

It's quite simple, really. Allow the poor and middle class to spend more and they create far more jobs and tax base than the wealthy who spend a distressingly small protion of their incomes.

[BuyingThyme]

14. Allow me to offer an analogy:

Let's say you own a beautiful plot of land in the Sierra Nevada, with a beautiful trout stream running through the middle of it. And let's say that one day you discover that there's gold in that there trout stream. And let's say that you don't want to mine that there trout stream, but you do want to charge others for the opportunity mine it.

So, here's the question you have to ask yourself: How much do you charge the guy with the gold pan, and how much do you charge the guy with the backhoe?

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm thinking you should get more from the guy with the backhoe.

[JeffR]

15. Top marginal tax rates under Ike & Tricky Dick:

Eisenhower: 91%

Nixon: 70%

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Good thing your friend isn't living under one of those Socialists.

[TheKentuckian]

16. Tell her that McCain wasn't running on a flat tax

and has never supported one.

Tell her that she doesn't work harder than the many people working two or more low paying jobs trying to support a family.

Tell her to suck it and pack her shit for lovely Iraq. I'm tired of these self righteous assholes that dump on the 95% of us that are less blessed and are down to the bone just trying to make ends meet because they have to put off the third home or a new boat for a few months.

[maxsolomon]

17. because they can afford it.

tell her to get over her self-loathing calvinism & grow a spine. it's only going back to clinton-era levels, which are a freaking joke compared to the rates they'd pay in any european social democracy.

[JuniperLea]

18. They have zillions of tax cuts that are not available to us po' folk...

Those are going away, so the rich bastiges will have to pay THEIR FAIR AMOUNT OF TAX!!! Just like the rest of us. And those of us who have been struggling with a 30%+ income tax are going to get a little relief for a change. Not to worry though. We'll be spending that money, which means all those small businesses we are supposed to worry about will be getting their slice of the pie.

And when she gets to the redistribution deal, tell her it means people don't have to scrounge in the couch cushions that last week of the month before their next paycheck comes... yes, PAYCHECK! Nowhere in Obama's tax plan does it say he is taking money from hard working people and giving it to people who do not work!

I'm so sick of these idiots believing their own lies. Pathetic.

[treestar]

19. They cost us all more

They use more of what the government has to pay for - much of the criminal justice system is to protect property - they have a lot of property. They use the roads more - their investments and their money making requires travel and much use of the public domain. We even have wars to make them feel safer about their property.

They can still live well after taxes. Wanting to keep it just because they earned it on that principle is rather over-moral, priggish.

The poor would weigh on their consciousness - they would know they have the means to relieve the suffering of others but chose more luxuries for themselves.

Further, their "earning" it is not entirely and solely due to their wonderfulness. They were born into the middle class and had those advantages - why do they presume to judge those born into a poorer class? They had opportunties, better education, even luck. They inherit more. They were born white and had that privilege.

[MrCoffee]

20. Because it costs them less in terms of spending power.

[CANDO]

21. Progressive taxation goes back to the very beginning of the concept of taxation itself.

It's nothing new. It's fair.

[Juche]

22. Virtually all the economic growth since the 70s has gone to the wealthy

What that means is that since the 70s the US economy has become much wealthier and more productive, however almost all the growth went to the top 5% and corporations while the middle class floundered.







While the middle class has been treading water their expenses like real estate, healthcare, daycare, food, energy and higher education have shot through the roof. Healthcare doubles in cost every 8 years or so. Food has gone up dramatically recently.

Our economy is driven by consumer spending. If you have a situation where most of the nation's wealth is congregated at the top, then consumer spending drops because the middle class can't afford anything. As a result, you need to tax the wealthy (who have obtained 80-90% of the benefits of economic growth) in order to fund programs that make life easier for the middle class (tax cuts, education tax cuts, universal healthcare, real estate stabalization). This will give the middle class more breathing room.

Also, by taxing the wealthy at higher levels you will ensure we can afford infrastructure programs that'll increase economic growth down the road. Better schools, more fuel efficient vehicles and domestic energy production willg row our economy. Since the middle class is squeezed, we need to tax somebody to pay for it. Might as well be the people who have seen their incomes go up several hundred percent.

And we already have a flat tax basically. The wealthy pay higher income taxes but lower FICA, sales, fuel, alcohol, cigarette, etc. taxes.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0414/p03s01-usgn.html

FTR, an argument is that the wealthy earned their money. The reality is higher worker productivity earned their money. The reason the wealthy today are so much richer than 30 years ago is because worker productivity has shot through the roof. The only difference is the benefits of that productivity is given to the investor class rather than the worker himself. In 1993 workers produced something like $25/hr in wealth. Now it is $35/hr in wealth. But we are not paid more, the top 1% have skimmed our incomes of that extra $10.



Generally, trying to use a logical argument with a wingnut is a waste of time. BUt there you go.

[Cronus Protagonist]

23. Tax the rich or tax the poor... hmmmmm which is best?

"No brainers" are hard for the rich to understand, apparently.

[kestrel91316]

24. Because taxing them more won't make them starve. Taxing the poor more WILL.

Do the math.

[zarath]

25. The real answer.

Besides the obvious one ("that's where the money is") rich people have a greater stake in society and more to lose. People would not be able to become rich in this society without the many benefits society provides, such as court enforcement of legal contracts, infrastructure such as roads, ports, and the internet. Not to mention protecting your private property from enemies both foreign and domestic. It's kind of hard to enjoy your riches when an unruly mob rolls up on your house and loots it. It's kind of hard to make money as a business if all of your potential employees are uneducated and just trying to survive at a subsistence level day to day. It's kind of hard to get wealthy in the first place (assuming you're not born into it) when your society is unstable and resembles a third rate African dictatorship.

In my experience, most hard-line "taxes are theft" people either don't understand the above, or they do understand it and they're just selfish and want to accrue the benefits of society without paying the costs it incurs. Screw the consequences, I've got mine. Who cares if society falls into anarchy or civil war in 30-40 years, when my taxes could be lower today.

Any "internet millionaire" who whines about taxes needs to be punched in the groin repeatedly because the internet would not exist for them to make money off of it without some "pansy liberal" wasting his hard earned tax dollars on welfare checks for scientists (a.k.a. research grants.)

Even the old Roman aristocrats understood this at a gut level. Nobody likes to pay taxes, but a little free bread and circuses for the commoners is a necessary evil for a stable, functioning society.

[patrice]

26. Adam Smith, the Father of American Capitalism, in his Economics classic, "The Wealth of Nations"says

Progressive Taxation, i.e. higher taxes for higher incomes, is/are what a healthy capitalistic economic system needs, because more wealth costs the overall system more to produce.

Think about how more business uses more roads, more sewers, more airports, more of everything at a higher rate than would be used by just the individual wealthy (or otherwise) persons. Think about how the rich benefit, with educated employees, from public education at a higher rate than if they were not rich. You and They get benefit not only from being educated yourselves, but the rich also make money off of your education.

I don't know what the figures are, but not all of the wealthy work for it; many simply collect money made by investments which were themselves, at one time, just money made by other money. To see what this means graphically visit: http://www.lcurve.org/ and don't forget to zoom in and zoom out.

There is also a very good YouTube video about the history of money and banking you could look for. It discusses the sort of things that Ron Paul has been saying about monetary policy and what money REALLY is and it boils down to, now, without regulations to control when how money is "created", and no standard like gold or silver behind money, money has become nothing more than digital bits, 0s and 1s, manipulated by PRIVATE computers and created every time a banker or other lending institution gives someone credit. The money is literally created when the amounts are typed into the computerized accounting systems In other words, the wealthy have more of NOTHING than we do, because they say so.

If I were you, I'd begin by googling Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations", and Progressive Taxation.
You could also read this guy http://www.ravibatra.com/ he will tell you how Alan Greenspan did this to us. Thom Hartmann on http://www.airamerica.com/ talks to Dr. Batra frequently and he explains things simply. And, oh yeah, you could always also read the great Nobel Prize winning Economist, Paul Krugman http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=2qyJpnOrveIC&dq=%22Paul+Krugman%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=XaOY8xJLBL&sig=v2RV2YMtroRC-6fvP6Lz_Ye3u2s&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result

Good Luck!

:hi:

[Jed Dilligan]

27. Because Adam Smith said so.

[patrice]

28. Adam Smith, the Father of American Capitalism, in his Economics classic, "The Wealth of Nations"says

Progressive Taxation, i.e. higher taxes for higher incomes, is/are what a healthy capitalistic economic system needs, because more wealth costs the overall system more to produce.

Think about how more business uses more roads, more sewers, more airports, more of everything at a higher rate than would be used by just the individual wealthy (or otherwise) persons. Think about how the rich benefit, with educated employees, from public education at a higher rate than if they were not rich. You and They get benefit not only from being educated yourselves, but the rich also make money off of your education.

I don't know what the figures are, but not all of the wealthy work for it; many simply collect money made by investments which were themselves, at one time, just money made by other money. To see what this means graphically visit: http://www.lcurve.org/ and don't forget to zoom in and zoom out.

There is also a very good YouTube video about the history of money and banking you could look for. It discusses the sort of things that Ron Paul has been saying about monetary policy and what money REALLY is and it boils down to, now, without regulations to control when how money is "created", and no standard like gold or silver behind money, money has become nothing more than digital bits, 0s and 1s, manipulated by PRIVATE computers and created every time a banker or other lending institution gives someone credit. The money is literally created when the amounts are typed into the computerized accounting systems In other words, the wealthy have more of NOTHING than we do, because they say so.

If I were you, I'd begin by googling Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations", and Progressive Taxation.
You could also read this guy http://www.ravibatra.com/ he will tell you how Alan Greenspan did this to us. Thom Hartmann on http://www.airamerica.com/ talks to Dr. Batra frequently and he explains things simply. And, oh yeah, you could always also read the great Nobel Prize winning Economist, Paul Krugman http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=2qyJpnOrveIC&dq=%22Paul+Krugman%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=XaOY8xJLBL&sig=v2RV2YMtroRC-6fvP6Lz_Ye3u2s&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result

Good Luck!

:hi:

[MilesColtrane]

29. So the growing numbers of poor don't storm her house and cut off her head and put it on a pike.

Appeal to her instinct toward self preservation. When wealth becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, revolutions happen.

Some say that the only reason FDR was allowed to enact the New Deal was the fact that the powers that be were growing afraid of a violent uprising.

[Doctor_J]

38. .

:thumbsup:

[rufus dog]

30. Ignore her

In my experience those who complain the most work the least. This is not universal, I have had years with huge tax payouts, just kind of shook my head and figured out how much went to Iraq, then moved on. Now, I worked my ass off, didn't like paying it, but the difference we are talking about is minor. As an example do I pay 100,000 or do I pay 101,500. The extra $1,500 is minor at that point, sure 1,500 more sounds like a lot, but if you are making 400k it is a minor annoyance. The extra 1,500 can be consumed by increased gas prices at the pump. If you look at the exit polls from last night, those making over 250k went for Obama, I think it was 53 to 47. The issue is a shitty economy and the ability to make the money, not paying a percent or two more.

I really think she has other issues, sort of like Joe the Plumber.

[patrice]

42. That's exactly like the lady complaining about the 1/8th of a cent sales tax we just voted in for

a research and education development project that will include 3 area universities. She was an older, retired type and we were waiting for our egg-mcmuffins and she said this and I just had to say to her that if an 1/8th of a cent sales tax is that big a deal, she shouldn't even be in mcdonald's buying breakfast.

I had a bunch of pent up feelings from recently standing at a table in a local mall trying un-successfully to sell $5 coupons that got the purchaser 20% off in a large up-scale department store. I was thinking: what are these people doing here if $5.00 is that big a bite.

[Abugface]

31. Because the rich are going to hell.

Tell her hell is not a very nice place to spend eternity (or even an afternoon).O8)

[RandomKoolzip]

32. Because they HAVE more.

Here's an alternate question: why should the poor put up with the increasing cost of goods and services, gratuitous "fees" and "surcharges," and decreasing economic mobility while their wages never, ever go up? Are we just supposed to be okay with that?

It may be class warfare, but the rich started it.

[goodgd_yall]

36. I like your answer n/t

[Abugface]

40. They not only started it, they won it.

:(

[cameozalaznick]

33. Tell the missus to remind this woman that our

progressive tax structure began under T. Roosevelt. A Republican. And it's progressive because the higher your income, the more you can afford to pay in taxes.

[goodgd_yall]

34. You said it yourself

"We should play taxes...commensurate with how much we make." Wealthy people need to realize that the wealth they earn is completely arbitrary. They should ask themselves if they've truly "earned what they've worked for." They've been blessed and it's the right thing to do to "spread the wealth." But if one's philosophy is based on principles of Calvinism, then you're going to believe exactly what your wife's friend does.

[Doctor_J]

37. Allow me to quote Sam Seaborn (West Wing)

"because that's the only way to make it work"

[seemunkee]

41. We must lift all boats to be a great nation

It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.
Hubert H. Humphrey

[ericgtr]

43. The lower and middle class have been paying higher rates for years

Time to turn the tables a little bit for the people who can actually afford it.

[codjh9]

44. Don't most of those 'awful' (I'm joking here) socialist western European countries like France,

Germany, England, etc. have progressively-higher tax rates? And I always thought WE did, but I know W, Reagan, etc. have been flattening that...

[Motown_Johnny]

45. Progressive income tax.. have them go look it up

[jobycom]

46. Because they use more resources to get wealthy

Tell your "friend" that a progressive income tax is what allowed this nation to become prosperous and great in the first place. It's not a matter of making them pay more, it's a matter of charging those who use the most resources in this nation the most for the resources they use. If you go into a restaurant and order a ribeye, you will pay more than if you order Salisbury steak.

Same with the economy. Someone making barely poverty wages for an entry level job uses few resources. By resources I mean all the stuff the government spends money on, such as education, roads, bridges, an interstate system, law enforcement, fire departments, national security forces ranging from the military to the spies the idiot muthafucker in power now likes to out, the monetary system that sets and controls monetary policy and prints money and guarantees a stable value so that international and even interstate trade can be possible, electric power and subsidation of research into new forms of energy so that the nation's power doesn't dry up, to social assistance programs so that those unemployed or down on their luck or even unemployable have a source of income (thus making them consumers, which helps even the wealthy, though Republicans are too damned stupid to grasp this), to the tax breaks and incentives and special building projects communities provide for major employers to move to a region... Use your imagination, you'll see that this is a very expensive economy to maintain.

Now, if we went with the Libertarian approach of no taxation, businesses would have to band together to provide all the things that government provides, deciding how much each individual should pay towards providing those services. They would have to form guilds or community groups, they would have to tax their members, and they would quickly figure out that the local print shop cannot possibly provide enough money to build all that the require, so that the local mega-merchant who made ten times that amount would have to chip in more money, or else they would have to scale back spending plans. Scaling back spending plans would require the mega-merchant to scale back his business. Since he would then see that an extra tax payment on his part would yield a much greater return on his business possibilities, he would no doubt spring for the extra investment, knowing it would yield greater returns than anything he could spend the money on himself.

Well, that's exactly all that government does in the first place. It is simply the way we collectively do what needs to be done for the economy and society to prosper. So let's save money, skip the merchant's guild middleman, and let government do it for us--they are bigger so they can get better deals anyway.

Now, if we went with the flat tax method, we wouldn't get enough money to provide what we needed without taxing people 40% of their income, thus crushing those with lower incomes, removing them from useful consumerism, and sending the economy into a spiral ending in feudalism.

The money has to come from somewhere, so doesn't it make sense to charge those who benefit the most from our resources--meaning the wealthy--the most for the use of the resources? Obviously, unarguably, yes. Republicans don't want a pay-for-what-you-eat restaurant, they want an all you can eat buffet, and who can blame them? They eat the most, so they are mooching off the work of others. But we are most profitable, most successful, and most equitable as a nation and a society when we are a pay-as-you-use government, and that means a progressive income tax, exactly like the one that made us the greatest nation ever.

Here's the good news, even though the average Republican is too uneducated and too dumb to grasp it. Everyone prospers most from a Democratic plan. There was no accident that we were more prosperous under Clinton than under Reagan or either Bush. It is because Clinton followed the economic rules of capitalism far more closely than the Republicans, even if the Republicans don't grasp this. When you give more money to the poor, they spend it on the economy, and the economy improves more quickly and more thoroughly than when you give more money to the rich. Trickle-down never works--not under the Romans, not under Reagan, not under W. Never has. Never will.

As Kennedy said, a rising tide lifts all boats. As Truman said, to live like a Republican, you have to vote like a Democrat. The Democrats understand the economy, the Republicans only understand their daily business decisions. Republicans do not understand investing in the economy.

Now, one more thing, if you're still listening. Let's talk about who really raised taxes. If I give you a credit card with $20K limit, have I given you $20K? No. You know you will have to pay it back, with interest. So when the Republicans give you a tax break, then spend a trillion dollars on an unnecessary war, have they really given you a tax break? No, they've borrowed money in your name to finance the war. So don't blame the people who collect the taxes, blame the Republicans who spent the money and have nothing to show for what they spent. That's another difference--Republicans are lousy investors. Look at the stock market lately if you need proof.

So the short summary is that a successful economy needs investment, and that investment has to come from the people who use the most resources, and consequently have the most resources. Asking why the wealthy should pay more money for working harder is bullshit. My dad worked harder every day of his life than George W Bush worked on any day of his, but didn't get a fraction of the money. The wealthy are asked to invest more for their use of the resources this nation provides that allows them to become wealthy. Pay as you go, not all you can eat. That's the only way this nation has ever prospered.

Tell your friend that. They probably can't understand it, though, or they'd already be Democrats. Republicanism is Marxism--Democrats are capitalists, even if the Republicans (and some Democrats) get that backwards.

[Redstone]

47. Because they can afford it. I've had years since I started my business in which I made a LOT

(and I mean a ton) of money.

Those years, I paid a LOT (and I mean a ton) of taxes.

And it didn't bother me at all to pay those taxes. I was one of the fortunate ones, those years, and there was NO reason why I should have objected paying my fair share.

Redstone

[Rebellious Republican]

48. Throw some of these her way.....

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
--1 Timothy 6:10,11

Our interest lie where our money is invested.
"For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:21, NIV5

Wealth can give us wrong attitudes about material things.
"Then said to them, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." Luke 12:15 NIV

It is unwise to make financial success a priority.
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Matthew 6:24, NIV
"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction." I Timothy 6:9, NIV

While it is not impossible, it is difficult for the rich to become citizens of God's kingdom.
"Jesus looked around and said to His disciples, '...It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'" Mark 10:23,25, NIV.

The love of money leads to evil.
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." I Timothy 6:10, NIV.

Contentment is not related to amount of money or possessions.
"I know how to live on almost nothing or with everything. I have learned the secret of contentment in every situation, whether it be a full stomach or hunger, plenty or want; for I can do everything God asks me to with the help of Christ who gives me the strength and power." Philippians 4:12-13, TLB

Our interest lie where our money is invested.
"For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:21, NIV5



Jesus on Wealth

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Matthew 6:19-24


http://www.bibleinsong.com/Promises/Temporal_blessings/Wealth/Wealth.htm

You can search for yourself if you have not found one of the many I just posted. I am assuming your wifes friend must be a Christian Conservative. Taxes should be looked as a patriotic as well as a way to help the poor, the indigent, the meek of our nation. Why wouldn't someone who wants for nothing want to help create a nation of compassionate people. It should not be looked at as punishment for doing well, rather a means to help our nation to become greater and stronger.

:hi:

[Mz Pip]

49. Progressive taxation is nothing new

I don't know why this person has just figured this out.

Perhaps one way to look at it is that wealthy people are recipients of many more of the benefits taxes provide. They are more likely to be using the road, the airlines, higher education from the subsidies to public universities. There are other examples but I'm too tired to think of them right now.

[Lerrad]

50. Higher tax bracket but maybe not higher taxes...

Just because someone making over $250,000 per year may be taxed a higher percentage does not mean that they pay a higher percentage in taxes.

I make far, far less than this, I'm probably in the mid to lower middle class. I have a mortgage and a small retirement fund (did have), and my wife does not work. I only have two exemptions, myself and my wife, and I do not have enough to itemize my deductions. I always have to take the standard deduction.

Some one making over $250K per year will be making investments, and such, so they will definitely have deductions, and things they can right off. If that person and my self were paying a flat tax, say 20%, then after their deductions their percentage of tax could be much lower than the percentage that I pay.

One other point is that these are some serious hard times. People like me are already stretched so thin that we can not pay anymore taxes. If we did then we would have to quit eating or start walking to work.

Another way to look at this is getting the economy moving.

If I get a tax cut the government is guaranteed that I will spend it. Every penny of it, because I need it, to help keep me from going into debt. When I spend that extra money, I'm buying a product that helps generate business for manufacturer's, and then they can hire people that are out of work.

A person making over $250K per year would probably not spend their tax cut, because they don't need to buy another Mercedes, because they probably already own two or three. They will put their tax cut and put it in the bank, or invest it. If this is a business they could use their tax cut to help better their product, or invest in their company, but if people don't have the money to buy their product, than this gets them no where. They get their tax cut, but go out of business because no one has the money to buy their product.

The system is out of balance, and until it is back in balance the economy will be in trouble. The rich can only get so rich, because when the rich get rich the poor get poorer.

I didn't mean for this to be so long, I hope it helps.

[slampoet]

51. They pay more Because THEY ARE PATRIOTS if they don't like it kick em out.

There are more who got their money from mommy/daddy than have earned it anyway.

[meow mix]

52. ask king louie and marie...

let them eat cake!!


a stable society is in the best intrest of the rich. unless they enjoy losing thier heads.

[Rockholm]

53. Good Grief, You FReepers are STILL here?

[MarthaMyDear]

54. I was wondering about that too...why ARE they still here???

Election is over...no need to keep this up...

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Because I don't want to be left holding the bag to bail out their stock market. n/t

[TBF]

57. Most people work hard. Many people in the top bracket either

inherited a decent amount or were pretty lucky in some way. Did well in school, were in the right place at the right time or that sort of thing. They can afford to pay a greater share, proportionally.

I'm in that bracket. What Barack is proposing is not "socialism". I did the calculators on his site and McCain's, and I will pay only $2K more under Obama. That is a small pittance so that more people get student loans, unemployment, maybe some health care. My view is that it really should be more.

Print this and let her read it.

[casus belli]

58. You might start with telling her that Reagan signed progressive taxation into law.

Seeing as how they idolize the man so much, it'll probably come as a shock to her that he holds "socialist" values. The truth is, it evens out. On paper, the rich pay more than a fair share of the tax burden, but what the numbers don't show is how the Rich actually pay far less as a percentage of income when all of the tax loopholes, shelters, creative accounting, etc are factored in.

Conservatives love to remind people how the wealthiest 5% pay about half the tax burden. What they don't tell you, is that they also control around 80-90% of America's wealth. Nobody should be shedding tears for the wealthy. You'll never see anyone with money having to make a choice between food and heat.

[bridgit]

59. I'm with you on the infrastructure side of the issue: we/I may only need enough...

roadway to get to a job, assuming there are any; but an individual that operates, say, a delivery/distribution service will; I think have a larger concern for maintenance of infrastructure i.e. pot holes, paved roads, bridges, little reflective dots on the road, weigh stations, road signs, etc, and while we can drive round or bounce through such obstacles popping our tires at our expense; tiresome infrastructures would contribute ultimately to higher maintenance costs of a fleet of commercial vehicles. The rich are always saying that they shouldn't be paying my health insurance, that's fine, maybe fine we'll see. I say I shouldn't be made to pay for their infrastructure inordinately so,

It seems such a group would have a vested interest in seeing that infrastructure be serviced in such a way to enhance the flow of timely, and so profitable commerce. Registration fees are already set at levels acknowledging private & commercial usage. Taxes & fees are then able to be seen as considered and specific to levels of interaction; or with an 'each unto their need' way of looking at them.

If you've ever noticed the ETA of police services, as a further instance, into low rent districts vs. Brentwood, CA...you'll get another view of just who's receiving the biggest bang for their buck already,

If we look upon the busting of unions & collective bargaining since Reagan; then onto the time tested: No Taxation Without Representation, gambit...it may be the case that the higher end of the income bracket is responsible for a considered amount more than has been suggested thus far, more commensurate with their ability to request and receive redress from a government of and by the people. We The People.

In America 2008, money = monarchy. In Rome, aside from the grunt legion itself; people with property & holdings were invited into the command structure of the empire. Rich people don't want to pay higher taxes? Cool. Perhaps they should be fighting the wars that secure the scarce, far flung resources of other countries for their business models they don't want to pay taxes on. Perhaps they should be paying much higher taxes for the fighting of such wars. Could be a way to go.

Good luck with those conversations over taxes as I know they can be sticky :)

[trailrunners]

63. WOW! Thanks for all the great replies everyone!

DU Rocks! :headbang:

[bridgit]

64. Cheers!

:toast:

[ljm2002]

60. Conservatives generally give a lot of stock to Adam Smith...

...so give her this quote from Adam Smith: "The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State."

In other words, the rich should pay more because they benefit more. And he was also against taxing labor -- he wanted taxes on land, and on luxuries. So even if his "proportional" meant in direct proportion to how much they owned (rather than our current system of progressive tax rates on income), it would have the effect of the wealthy paying more as a percentage of their wealth than those on lower economic rungs.

[Naturyl]

61. Why engage with her?

Personally, I'd write her off. She has made her priorities clear.

But if you want, you can tell her that those who have benefited the most from the opportunities American society provides have the greatest obligation to give back to that society. It's only fair.

[TommyO]

62. Here's a wonderful quote that I found

here's what I really believe, that when you are -- reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.


--John McCain, Oct 12, 2000