What is the moral justification for "tax the rich"?

Question

Many liberals seem to have the attitude that the government should decide, through tax police or other method, what is an acceptable amount for an individual to earn in a year; anything above that amount should be "taken" by the government so it can get it's "fair share".

Where does the GOVERNMENT derive the ability to decide what is an appropriate amount for an individual to earn, as opposed to the customers and stock holders of the companies these people work for?

In addition, why is there a notion of, "someone else should have to pay for it" that is present across most liberal fiscal policy? We see it when liberals propose new programs when they stretch the costs into the future for the sake of spending today. It is the same for "cost cutting"; obligating politicians in the future to enact the "savings" (which may or may not happen).

In short: how is it that liberals derive a fiscal policy that seems to have a pass-the-buck attitude and how is it that they cling to thins notion after failures of liberal fiscal policies currently and in the past?

rod g · Accepted Answer

the top 5% of wage earners in America already pay 68% of ALL income taxes.  So tell me just what is their fair share. Also remember the bottom 47% of wage earners pay NO income tax at all.

Anonymous · Answer

What is not fair is the conservative idea that the rich should pay LESS taxes than the lower and middle classes.  Warren Buffett's maid pays more taxes than him.  Just by making the tax rates on the rich the same as the rest, it would add nearly a trillion dollars to the economy. The idea that giving the super rich more money because they will put it back into the economy and it will trickle down and create jobs is absurd.  All they do with that money is keep it and spend it on themselves.  Right now the 100 richest people in the country have more money than the lower 50% (over 150 million people).  Something isn't right there.

Anonymous · Answer

Can you prove a failure?

Through U.S. history we have always increased taxes in times of fiancial crisis that includes
(but not limited too) post WW1, The great depression, post WW2, ( graph below) in which we first put a lot of money into the economic system.

Finacial Problems=>More $ to lower/middle class=>Money goes to the wealthy=>Higher Taxes for the wealthy=>More money to federal Gov=>more jobs for the middle class.=>more $ for the poor/rich

This has been a proven system throughout history that is ALWAYS successfull. 

What the Tea Party fails to understand is eventually their "money markets" will burst think  housing bubble crash so it looks good for them now but they bring in revenue from people with no money. boA for example is cutting roughly 1/6 of its workforce.

So although short term they may loose money with higher tax brackets, they will get more reliable cash in the long run.

There is never been a time in a financial crisis where they blocked revenue so this is not a "liberal" stance as you put it.

Anonymous · Answer

To return the tax rates to what they were when our economy was healthy.  You know, before the Bush tax cuts lowered tax revenue way below spending which caused his debt to double from $5.7T to $10.8T.  The cost of his two wars didn't show up until Obama took office.  That didn't include the $1.3T deficit that GWBush gave Obama either.

xpatinasia · Answer

Morally, all companies and individuals should pay taxes.  As a conservative, you don't believe that.

Trending News

What is the moral justification for "tax the rich"?

5 Answers