[twblalock]

> Most of the wealth == most of the taxes. This is justified in a basic arithmetical sense.

No, most of the income == most of the taxes, and that is the situation we are already in. My point is that it's hard to justify asking for even more money from the group of people who already pay more than half of the taxes.

[deathcakes]

You're quite right, my apologies, I saw a thing and wrote a response to something you hadn't said.

I suppose I mean to say that this is the thing really - income tax on its own is not working, evidently, given that it is so easily avoided. Surely the idea is that everyone should want to commit as much as they can to the furtherment of their community, nation and species. The very fact that things like this, game-theoretic winner-take-all, tax "avoidance" (because it's legal, therefore morally fine), exist is enough to make me wonder if there is any point at all to my existence, let alone the existence of the poor sods who aren't fortunate to make even as much as I.

But then I strongly suspect I'm a lefty pinko communist and shouldn't be trusted in a proper discussion about actual fiscal policy.

[hueving]

There are many people that don't view the expansion of a government's budget as the 'furtherment of their community'. When you hold the view that governments are full of corruption and incompetence, then the moral thing to do is deprive it of as much income as possible.

[eli]

I think I could justify it just fine.

[twblalock]

> I think I could justify it just fine.

Do it, then. Don't just post worthless snark.

[eli]

Taxes on the wealthy are at historic lows and wealth inequality at historic highs at a time when we have many important but underfunded programs that would benefit all of us. What's the argument against it? That it isn't "fair"? That rich people will stop trying to earn more money? I don't find that to be credible.

[twblalock]

There are several arguments against it:

If you depend on a small number of people for the majority of tax revenue, you will end up with unstable revenue. Look what happened to California's tax revenue during the 2008 recession. It dropped because the small number of rich people who pay more than half of the taxes got hit pretty hard by the recession.

Besides, do we really want to live in a society where only a small group of people has a financial stake in the funding of the government? Voters would probably be a bit more informed if they had some skin in the game. We really don't want to live in a society where the majority of voters will always approve spending increases because they know their taxes won't increase, and the cost of the increase will be borne by the top few percent. That will get us a runaway train of government spending.

[pkaye]

Since the top 1% continue to accumulate a vast percent of the wealth, they are the best ones to tax to support the rest. It is unfortunately that things are so unbalanced that the poor don't have much to tax. We could choose to do nothing about it and let the rich keep more of the money. Eventually it will result in more of the poor and average people falling behind. Where will Walmart gets their billions when none of their workers and customers have money to spend? At the worst the whole economy will stagnate or people will revolt. The super rich could afford to take and "us vs them" mentality and bunker down somewhere safe.