How does society get anything out of low taxes on the rich?

In theory, lower taxes on higher income encourages people to become richer since they will have increasing returns.

In practice, it just results in the wealthy having some pocket change to put in their nest egg in the Cayman Islands and results in the poor being poorer.

Well the rich would say that they do pay plenty taxes and that's a valid argument I think. It comes down to opinions but what they don't want to hear is that in times of need we need them to pay more.

It understandable they don't want to give the Gov more of their money but stop being cry babies and just do it.

Why should the rich have to pay more than the average citizen

Flat tax

Low taxes is a form of supply side (trickle-down) economics. It often comes into play when taxes have grown oppressively high. Here's a history. Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge cut the highest income tax rate from 70% to 29% and cut government spending 50%. The result: the Roaring 20's and unemployment of less than 2%. JFK's posthumously passed income tax cuts (90% to 50%) also had a good effect on the economy, creating the revenues for LBJ's Great Society spending.

Reagan cut the highest income tax rate from 70% (again) to 28%, plus 15% across-the-board tax cuts. He also had the courage to tough out reigning in the money supply that was causing the crippling stagflation. Both of these policies created a new, a solid foundation for the country that supported a 17 year booming economy. Revenues during this time also doubled from $500 billion to $1 trillion. Unemployment dropped from 10.4% to 5%. Inflation dropped from double digits to about 2%.

Clinton cut the Capital Gains Tax. The already good economy went into overdrive. After implementation of the Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 (part 2 of the Bush Tax cuts), unemployment dropped from 6.3% and kept on dropping into the 1st quarter of 2007 to a low of 4.4%. The increase of revenue this generated made each of his 2nd term yearly deficits step down significantly (to a low of $200 billion in that same year), on track with the projection of a balanced budget in 2010. This, when Bush spending did not decrease. All of Bush's gains were blown out of the water by the mortgage meltdown, unrelated to the tax cuts.

Internationally, Margaret Thatcher lowered the highest tax rate from a stifling 95% to mid-thirties, creating an economic boom similar to Reagan’s economy. Post Soviet Russia’s economy was a shambles for years until Putin lowered the corporate tax to 13%. That is when it started to grow into a powerhouse. China flat out eliminated its capital gains tax to spur investment. Now, everyone wants to invest there and there is capital for all sorts of business. The economy is growing at 7.6% (it’s been as high as 13%).

Even trickle-down spending works as FDR found out. When he came into office, he proceeded on a Progressive socioeconomic spending/restructuring (fundamental change) campaign. He distrusted big-business, thinking they should be more like employee support centers, taking their cues from government policy, rather than profit centers. All this kept the depression lingering on for seven more long years. Then, despite himself in 1940, he was forced to buy planes, tanks, ships, bombs, bullets and beans. This was trickle-down economics aimed straight AT business. The depression was over within a year.

When implemented correctly on a business environment that is fundamentally sound, tax cuts work well. It's like shot adrenalin the company needs to expand. This expansion creates real, sustainable jobs not paid for by taxpayers. This increases revenues to the government. These tax cuts makes it easier for start-ups to flourish, adding additional revenue.

The economy is like a racehorse. Taxes and regulation are like a jockey. Although taxes and regulation are needed, too much and the economy slows down and no longer wins any races. If lowering taxes didn't work to boost the economy, we'd be stuck with 90%, 95% or higher taxes on the rich (the job creators). What would be the next move, 100%? Would YOU have any incentive to do anything, other than to find tax shelters, if you were taxed at these rates? Simply thinking that raising the taxes on the wealthy is a flawed misunderstanding by those who aren't wealthy that the rich are simply made of money. A very few manage to achieve this stereotype, but the rest fall short.

This attitude of simply taxing the rich more compensates for government inability to stop it's addiction to spending your money. Right now, about 47% of Americans don't pay federal income tax. This helps drive the push to continually treat the rich as pack mules. European Social Democracies have bought into this mindset of tax and regulate. They have perpetually sluggish, mediocre economies with high unemployment. This is where the US is headed now.

Society shouldn't be getting anything out of taxes other than the jobs and opportunities presented to them when taxes are kept low. Who is more capable of using and spending this money anyway; those who know how to grow and manage money (the rich), or those who only know how to squander it (government)?

How did the socialist, in just four years, turn so many stupid people into anti-American, anti-captiolist, anti-freedom, anti-success.....

Well, I guess I answered my own question. This nation was founded by brilliant men, and Obama was elected by stupid people..

its called trickle up economics