Why tax the rich at all?

[FormerDittoHead]

I think that, once you make a certain amount of money, there should be no tax at all.

Don't the rich already pay more taxes than poor people?

Isn't it the rich who employ people?

Isn't it the rich to stimulate the economy?

Aren't the rich the ones who really produce things?

Aren't the rich the ones who invent things?

Don't the rich produce in proportion to their wealth and then have it all taken away by the government to give to carreer welfare moms?

Aren't the decendents of rich simply better than other people?

Without rich people, we'd all be living in caves!

I know it's a little late for April Fool's, but I'm getting tired of having the same "pro-rich" BS hashed and re-hashed.

I hope this message can hopefully thwart the NEXT "pro-rich" (flat tax, no inheritance tax, sales tax) message...

[trotsky]

1. Supply-side followed to its logical conclusion, dear friend!

Since the less you tax the rich, the more the economy will be stimulated, and the more taxes you're ultimately collect, if we put the tax rate to zero for the mega-rich, we should get INFINITE revenues! Great idea! :crazy:

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Full tax amnesty for everyone who makes less than 100k

or have less than 1mil in assets.

[KarenS]

3. besides all that,,,, The Rich are the entitled ones,,,, are they not???

and we should all do everything we can to protect/help/adore them, forever and ever.

:sarcasm:

[Inland]

4. If its bad to be poor, then tax poverty.

You want to encourage wealth and discourage poverty, so tax poverty like you tax cigarettes. The poorer one is, the more he pays in tax. That way, he will have an incentive to make more money.

[Strelnikov_]

5. This Post Needs To Be Deleted ASAP

Before it gives some intern at Heritage, Cato or AEI ideas.

Then again, it would be entertaining to hear them try to sell this concept.

[unblock]

6. if you want to shut them up, try "tax wealth, not income"

all their arguments are about how taxing income, especially for the rich, is bad. fine, but idle wealth is obviously not contributing anything to the economy.

theoretically (if you really buy all the "conservative" market logic), taxing wealth would give the rich the maximum incentive to put all their assets to work in the economy. this would be a huge boon for the economy. no more hoarding of assets. the rich would rent out their villas when not using them, and open up their private art museums to visitors, etc.

of course, they'd shoot that idea down immediately, because their true hatred is just plain paying taxes. they criticize the form of taxes just because that's the way they happen to be taxed. tax them any other way, and suddenly their logic would shift to oppose the new taxation scheme.

[GOPBasher]

7. I'm tired of those same worn-over arguments, too.

I wish the sheeple who believe that would pay attention to facts.

[mhr]

8. The Rich Reap The Greatest Rewards From Society

Hence they should contribute more to support that society.

[FormerDittoHead]

9. That's why I never understood...

why people seem to be so eager to INCREASE their benefits.

I mean, SOMEHOW, from listening to the rhetoric, you would think that society has treated them UNFAIRLY, and we need to "right the wrong" that has been done to them!

Yet, isn't it *intuitive* that it's the POOR which society has treated unfairly?

[mhr]

10. This Is The Way I Understand Things

I think the biggest part of the problem is that the ultra-wealthy control the message by controlling the media.

Hence the message of the POOR does not get told.

[camero]

11. without poor people, the wealthy would starve

since they need us to do all their dirty work.

[fasttense]

12. As you can see from examples like Paris Hilton, and brush's

daughters, the rich set such a moral and upright example too. This wonderful example should be rewarded not taxed. The idle rich got nothing better to do then go from party to party, sex partner to sex partner. Which in the end is really what all them repukes want.

[La Cienega]

13. What US taxpayers pay for?

The US Senate adopted a decision to appropriate $5 million to Byelorussia for support of democratic parties that are supposed to be the core of the 'cornflower revolution' (or whatever they call it. anyway it will be something like 'orange revolution' in Ukraine or 'velvet revolution' in Georgia).

That's all very nice but as history proves, the most of the money given by Washington for various revolutions are spent by political opportunists to purchase expensive autos, properties abroad, inessentials, etc. The same in Byelorussia. It happens that American taxpayers give their own money to let newly-made revolutionists bring to life their ambitious schemes.

Still, maybe the game is worth the candle? If revolution wins in Byelorussia, America will gain control of the biggest production plants. Byelorussia has nothing in common with beggar Georgia whose economy is ruined. One may call Lukashenko a 'dictator' but this is not likely to affect Byelorussian economy in any rate. The production of precision machinery industry, chemical industry and electronic industry gets exported to a number of EU states and even the USA.

[newyawker99]

14. Hi La Cienega!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: