Although I was a trader at a hedge fund for just over a year, I'm not rich. I probably will be, in the future. The Republican argument is that liberal economics

Although I was a trader at a hedge fund for just over a year, I'm not rich. I probably will be, in the future. The Republican argument is that liberal economics are worst not for the already rich, but for the middle-class people who are trying to get rich. Well, I'm one of those: middle-class background, likely to be wealthy one day on account of my talent and work ethic. I'm also liberal, and will vote for Obama tomorrow, and although I suspect he's center-left, I secretly hope he is somewhat of the socialist his detractors accuse him of being. Why? I want a fair society, and a stable one. I don't want high levels of crime and unreliable health coverage. Nor do I want to feel guilty about enjoying my relative level of privilege. I don't want to be destroyed in the off chance that I'm unable to work due to illness or injury. I definitely don't want to see a violent revolution (much more probable than anyone wants to admit; given 20 more years of the 1980-2009(?) neofeudalism, I'd lay even odds on that one). Frankly, whether the upper tax bracket is 35 or 39.6 percent is of little interest to me, given the much larger issues at stake. I'll gladly pay a few more percent in taxes, contingent upon positive fortune on my part, in order to live in a better, fairer, and safer society. Also, here's why redistributive taxation fundamentally makes sense. Poor and middle-class people, in general, spend the bulk of their income on commodities-- food, clothing, consumer goods-- whose prices are set by material supply and demand. Doubling the incomes of the poor is going to enable them to purchase more of these commodities. The growth factor isn't 100%, since there will also be an increase the prices of these commodities (inflation) but it's fairly close-- no worse than 50%, I'd bet. So the poor peoples' standards of living increase if their incomes are doubled. Likewise, a 50% reduction in income will destroy many of them. On the other hand, wealthy people tend to purchase status goods, such as jewelry, rare (usually shitty, but that's beside the point) art, and trophy real estate. If the wealthy are suddenly made twice as rich, the prices of all the Manhattan apartments and paint-factory-vomit "modern art" works would instantly double. The same would be true if their income were halved. As long as these individuals' relative rankings were unchanged, their standards of living would change only slightly. One exception might be for those who wish to purchase a rivate jet, since a major expenditure in that pursuit is oil, a commodity. So private jets might become less affordable. Boo-hoo. The truth is that you could increase the tax rates on the very rich ($2.5 million+ per year) to 80 percent and, although they would feel intense pain due to the numerical changes and perceived loss of status, their lifestyles wouldn't change substantially, due to price reductions for most of the things they care about.