670 ms·

(S)he also benefits vastly more (in an "absolute" sense) from the roads, police protection, defense expenditures, government's role in financial stability, and

by kgrin 16y ago

(S)he also benefits vastly more (in an "absolute" sense) from the roads, police protection, defense expenditures, government's role in financial stability, and many other significant government expenditures. Look at it this way: the "bottom 10%" don't particularly care if Canada invades and forcibly takes all of Donald Trump's real estate (nor, not to put too fine a point on it, do the "bottom 10%" care when there's a revolution elsewhere in the world and American-corporation-owned property gets appropriated).

anamax 16y ago
Canada hasn't invaded for over 100 years. Meanwhile, Trump pays for things that are used every day.
gaius 16y ago
I don't think that's necessarily true - if it were not for government services, Jo(e) Billionaire could hire a private security force - but most people rely on the police. JB could travel by helicopter - most people rely on roads. Etc etc.
- Glide 16y ago
  If there wasn't mandated education there would be far less efficient workers for the rich for their businesses. Which would mean their output would suffer. Not having good public transportation infrastructure would mean there would be a higher cost of freight within a country thus cutting into profits or driving prices up. In my eyes, the rich benefit far more from a society's systems than the poor do and thus should be paying more into making it better.
  - gaius 16y ago
    They do pay more! That's the point!
  - bmelton 16y ago
    Since you don't specify whether you mean 'more' in an absolute or relative since, I'm assuming you mean that people who earn more should be taxed more aggressively. As has already been pointed out, a flat percentage tax does a good job of 'taxing the rich more', but many seem to prefer a progressive taxation, which is to say, almost the opposite of what we have now. As it stands, income taxes inflate as your income rises, which seems to be progressive taxation. For the life of me, I don't understand how this seems fair to its advocates, but so be it. That the top 1% benefit from greater tax loopholes makes sense (doesn't necessarily mean fair) in a lot of ways, but aside from the fact that they've bought a lot of legislation, the nation depends on the top 1% as much as they depend on it.
    - Glide 16y ago
      Sorry about not responding earlier to your comment back. I meant 'more' in the relative sense. And practically that does mean progressive taxation. Taxation is a complex subject. I just wonder where on the laffer curve economists think the USA is on regards to the wealthiest.

by kgrin 16y ago

anamax 16y ago

Canada hasn't invaded for over 100 years. Meanwhile, Trump pays for things that are used every day.

gaius 16y ago

I don't think that's necessarily true - if it were not for government services, Jo(e) Billionaire could hire a private security force - but most people rely on the police. JB could travel by helicopter - most people rely on roads. Etc etc.

Glide 16y ago
If there wasn't mandated education there would be far less efficient workers for the rich for their businesses. Which would mean their output would suffer. Not having good public transportation infrastructure would mean there would be a higher cost of freight within a country thus cutting into profits or driving prices up. In my eyes, the rich benefit far more from a society's systems than the poor do and thus should be paying more into making it better.
- gaius 16y ago
  They do pay more! That's the point!
- bmelton 16y ago
  Since you don't specify whether you mean 'more' in an absolute or relative since, I'm assuming you mean that people who earn more should be taxed more aggressively. As has already been pointed out, a flat percentage tax does a good job of 'taxing the rich more', but many seem to prefer a progressive taxation, which is to say, almost the opposite of what we have now. As it stands, income taxes inflate as your income rises, which seems to be progressive taxation. For the life of me, I don't understand how this seems fair to its advocates, but so be it. That the top 1% benefit from greater tax loopholes makes sense (doesn't necessarily mean fair) in a lot of ways, but aside from the fact that they've bought a lot of legislation, the nation depends on the top 1% as much as they depend on it.
  - Glide 16y ago
    Sorry about not responding earlier to your comment back. I meant 'more' in the relative sense. And practically that does mean progressive taxation. Taxation is a complex subject. I just wonder where on the laffer curve economists think the USA is on regards to the wealthiest.