Democrats Who Believe Taxing The Rich Can Save Us Are Wrong

People that believe taxing the rich and making them pay to fund the country have no idea how many people those rich employ and the fact that whatever additional monies they pay will surely take away from the money they invest in their companies -- the same companies that employ the middle and lower classes. They didn't get rich by being stupid and their lifestyles, that have been built on the wealth that they earned, won't change much. If you think taxing the rich will eliminate mansions, Mercedes, and summer homes -- you're in La La Land.

Further, what happens when the rich run out? Don't think it will happen? The government has spent an average of $1.17 for every $1.00 they have received in taxes throughout its history -- so even if the rich funded it all, we would still be out of money. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but now you are only talking about a temporary band-aide and we need a permanent solution.

Don't think we need the rich?
How many times has a poor person offered you a job?

You make it harder for rich to live, and they will simply leave. They can afford to live where ever they please, they will not stay here if they are feeling screwed. One of the reasons the economy is so bad is because too much regulation, taxation and such made it more profitable to outsource to third world countries, rather than employ americans. Plus slick willy and bush made it easier to outsource. Rich people will run their businesses where it is most profitable, and live where it is easiest to live. This is a luxury they can afford, unlike all of us.

reply to post by mnemeth1


You may boycott a corrupt company because you educate yourself, however most people do not, and don't bother to see if a company is corrupt. You are correct about regulation regulating behavior but it's regulating the behavior of business.

The problem in that lies in the corruption of businesses electing representatives and then lobbying them to pass regulation for themselves. Look at the FDA Treadary and Federal Reserve just to name a few parts ofgovernment that have histories working for mega corporations.

It always amazes me just how many people passionately defend the income tax. Most people actually want income taxation, but they seem to think that they should have some control over whose income is being taxed.

First of all, in the United States, the so called Personal Income Tax is not a direct tax upon income. Income is not the subject of the tax. For most people who assume their income is the subject of the tax, it is taxable income that is being taxed. This is not a subtle difference, this is all the difference. If the income tax is not a direct tax, then it must be an indirect tax. If one looks at how the income tax is measured and collected, it is clear that it is treated as an indirect tax, and it is uniform across the several states, just as all indirect taxes are Constitutionally mandated to be.

The point of that little paragraph lesson on Constitutional taxation is that if income is not the subject of the tax, and it is an indirect tax, then this means what is being taxed is some specific taxed activity. What makes being a janitor a taxed activity? What makes being a waitress a taxed activity? What makes being a shoemaker a taxed activity? What makes being an architect, doctor, teacher, or carpenter, a taxed activity? You will not find any section in the tax code that makes any of these specific activities taxed activities, and yet, a shoemaker, a janitor, a waitress, a doctor, architect, teacher, and carpenter will, in all likelihood, file a valid tax return, and that act is, in all likelihood, the only activity at all that made those people liable for any "income tax".

Of course, and this is the great tragedy, very few want to hear anything about that, and would rather argue over who should be taxed more. Americans! Americans arguing over who should be taxed! This is who we have become, and why? Handouts. The rich and poor alike want their "free" money, regardless of what it is actually doing to this nation. On 07/01/1912, before the passage of the so called "income tax" the national debt was 2,868,373,874.16. Today that debt is a staggering 14,187,056,345,332.32. This is what income tax has done for the United States, but don't let me interrupt a good argument, please go back to arguing over who should pay more in income taxes, the rich, middle class, or the poor.

reply to post by elfulanozutan0

You may boycott a corrupt company because you educate yourself, however most people do not, and don't bother to see if a company is corrupt.

So the system of government regulation is far superior because most people bother to see if a politician is corrupt and don't vote based on who is the most charismatic?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You know, 90% of the time, I dig your posts. You say things much better than I can most of the time. As you said, most people don't know much about income tax at all. I believe the first income tax was passed to pay for the world war, and after the war ended, they just kept it going. Powers are often grabbed during time of war and emergency, with people thinking, "Ok we all have to make sacrifices in these dire times." Yet after said dire times are over, they do not give the power back, and restore things to how they once were. That is why they love perpetual wars, like "war on drugs", and "war on terrorism". The wars don't end, and they keep grabbing more and more power in the name of keeping us safe from them wars....

reply to post by Azp420


I don't see how you got that out of what I side. Regulation could be a good thing if used properly, but like I said it's not. If most people were informed on who they voted in the country would t be in the shape that it is in.

Do you think Obama was elected for his political philosophy or his charisma?

I tend to think the latter.

reply to post by elfulanozutan0


Apologies, I may have interpreted your post slightly wrong.

I still think the free market's natural regulation is advantageous to any governmental regulation. Fair governmental regulation (still not as fair as a free market however) requires informed voters. A population of informed voters is much more unlikely and difficult to achieve than a population of informed consumers. This is because it is in the consumers direct interest to be informed about their purchases, especially for qualities sake.

As for boycotting corrupt companies, if consumers choose to remain ignorant there is probably very little difference between the effects of how they vote with their wallet and how they vote on election day. One would hope that most people however would realise they actually have to start thinking for themselves.

A problem I see relating to this, which is a big problem, is what the government does with the revenue it gains from taxes. Government in general, is the most innefficient, lazy, corrupt industry there is.

Sure the US government has problems. But so do state and local. None of them, none, allocate money responsibly. Even if we taxed the rich to death, government wouldn't spend that money responsibly. We all saw what happened with the Stimulus plan, where government threw away hundreds of millions of dollars, on things there was no need for.

I personally don't see why a lot of people are so confident in our governments ability to allocate money, if hypothetically they were to tax the hell out of the rich. Our government throws away money left and right, and one of the issues is it's damn near impossible to fire a government employee. There's no accountability. They all just look out for eachother. Raising taxes won't help, the money will just switch hands. It surely won't end up in my pockets or yours.

I have zero confidence in our government, and their ability to spend wisely, or even compitently.

reply to post by mnemeth1


You were half right...
it was simple.