[gprisament]

"Tax the Rich" seems to be a popular sentiment (probably because the majority of people aren't rich and would rather anybody but themselves pay more in taxes), but is it effective? The richest 1% of the population already pays for 40% of the US's total Federal Income Tax revenue, and the top 5% pays for over 60%. (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6). And because of the Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve), increasing taxes to the rich could very likely result in LESS revenue.

[ZeroGravitas]

You should read this comment (which quotes the same stats as you) and the response to it, really good stuff:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1125225

Where that comment differs from the linked image in the post is talking about income vs wealth. I think the graph makes things look fairer than the are. I'm pretty sure that if you take account of all taxes then the US has a regressive tax system, and he's claiming it's progressive, so clearly something has been missed out.

[fexl]

I have no opinion on the matter, since the subject of how to use other peoples' property is none of my business.

[glhaynes]

There is no developed society on earth in which there's not taxation for public services. No serious suggestions have been made on how to have a society remotely resembling our own without taxation and redistribution of wealth. The only question is over how to do it. Thus it's a perfectly valid question and, in a democracy, the business of all of the citizens.

[fexl]

I would like to see society evolve to a point where people interact on a purely voluntary basis, without the threat or use of force. That's my vote.