How come liberals always want to tax the rich?

ended to avert the impending fiscal cliff. The plan was, quite literally, laughable. It called for $50 Billion in new stimulus spending, the end of Congressional authority to raise the debt limit, $1.6 Trillion in new revenues from higher taxes on the rich and a promise to try and find $400 Billion in Medicare savings at some, unspecified time in the future. Even the most hardened ideologue cannot possibly believe in the success of a “tax now, cut later” approach to deficit reduction – not based on the government’s recent track record, at least.

The Geithner proposal was obviously a Democratic wish list more than a serious offer. It captures a snapshot of what federal policy would look like if the White House were given fiat power and did not have to worry about that pesky Republican Congress. But why, exactly, does President Obama desire this policy prescription? Particularly, why do Democrats want tax hikes on the wealthy? It is, of course, part of the Democratic dogma and it is a very popular position in the polls, but from a policy perspective, it is unclear what motivates the president’s desire for higher taxes.

For the sake of argument, let us assume the liberal answer to a couple highly debatable questions. First, let’s pretend that increasing taxes always increases revenues. While this is the standard thinking in Washington, it is arguable that tax rates and revenue are, essentially, uncorrelated and that tax policy should focuses solely on maximizing economic growth (check out this graph).

The irony is that income tax was supposed to be for the rich alone. The reason Congress passed the 16th Amendment is that the government needed money to help bare the burden of the cost of the Civil War, and they agreed that a 2% tax on everything a person made over $20k would be fair. $20k back then is much like $200k or more now, so imagine having to pay 2% of everything over $200,000 every year.

Not bad, huh?

The 16th Amendment was called the "Soak the Rich" tax, and Congress made it clear that it was "not-so-hard-earned" money.

Administrations that followed allowed the tax to "trickle down" into the lower incomes, and now, everyone pays a percentage of everything they make. Our government spends trillions upon trillions of dollars, and recently, they've begun overspending trillions.

Something has to be done, and when you listen to Congressional budget experts, they can all agree that America's system is not supporting itself. It's a failing system in the way that we never have the money to spend within our means.

Tax the rich? We need to fix spending instead of raising taxes without a second thought.

Very few people are rich and successful as a percentage of the whole population. So to claim that ALL Republicans are hard working, rich and successful is a fantasy that you prefer to believe, rather than the reality, which is quite the reverse. As for liberals wanting to tax the rich - they want the rich to pay their fair share of tax like everyone else is forced to do through their employers. The rich get away with enormous amounts of tax by putting into tax havens and avoiding paying their fair share, placing the burden on the middle and lower income tax payer. You may scoff and sneer at this accusation, but it is absolutely true. Only those who refuse to believe it are so brainwashed by the propagandist lies from the right, that they walk through life blinkered and blind to reality.

Liberals Don't ALWAYS want to tax the rich, I think. Sometimes those liberals who have more political amibition than moral principle choose to coddle the rich - so they'll get larger campaign contributions for the next election.

But "how come" liberals often want to tax the rich is easy to see.

In the United States today, the income gap between rich & poor is HUGE. In fact the income gap between the super-rich and the so-called "middle class" is enormous as well.

In 2013, the "median" US family income was about $51,000. However, liberal billionaire George Soros all my himself had a fortune estimated at $23 BILLION. The rightwing libertarian billionaire Charles Koch had a fortune estimated at $43 BILLION.

In other words, Soros had a fortune that was about 500,000 times as large as the median household income in the US, and Koch had a fortune roughly 800,000 times as large.

If politicians want to raise money to run the US government -- to pay for Social Security, fight new wars, support the Pentagon and army bases around the US, and build roads and repair sewers and run the National Park System -- where does it make sense to look for it?

Should the government tax millions of Americans whose average family income is $51,000, or the big fraction of the population living below the poverty line?

Or should the government try to get much of its tax revenue from the Koch Brothers & George Soros and Warren Buffett and Bill Gates?

Only a dumb bell would say to look for money from the poor. And most middle-class families who have kids in college and mortgages to pay off have a hard enough time paying taxes as it is.

-- democratic socialist / not a "liberal," though many of my friends are

We don't, look up burden. We Democratic Party folks just want the burden to be appropriately distributed. If you look at that Keynesian system, it is inherently more fair. Fairness is what we want a playing playing field, not equality but the ability to earn it the same way. Do not measure this in money, measure it in burden. It's hardly a burden for a wealthy person to take on a higher percentage of burden, as they are the least harmed by this burden than are a a middle class family who pay less money but equal the same burden of that wealthy family. The Rich will still get rich. Just slower. If there is a profit to be made than there will still be folks hiring for new jobs as even with a smaller profit, a profit is a profit. The taxes have been cut on top brackets by 40% since Reagan and it is more than reasonable to raise those top brackets again or get a fairer system where burden, not cash is the overlying theme. A consumption tax might help?

The left views the rich man as a cash cow. Just pull on the teet and the money

flows to what ever phony BS social program they need to throw money at.

Giving them the edge during elections. But we are just a little bit smarter then

they are. That is why there are CPA's and Tax Law Firms. We give only what

we have to or want to. Tax revenue is generated by employment, And the

Obama administration has none. So there you are. Another fine failed

example of the Obama administration.

They may want to tax the rich because of the cave man arrangement. The stronger and more able bodied (the rich) brought home the meat and warded off the enemies. The weaker cavers cooked, gathered firewood, and cared for the young.(the more liberal types). As it always seems to turn out, the rich insist that their burden is greater and therefore they deserve more of the meat. They bully and ignore the liberals until the clan begins to suffer. The liberals claim a breach of trust. The rich say, tough. And here we are.

Democrats do like successful people for three reasons. In the early 1900s the democrats were the ones to boost the economy by raising jobs under Roosevelt's New Deal parts 1 and the Wagner Act in part 2. This also prevented big business primarily run by Mugwumps and other Northerners who now resided in the South. The Big businesses were taking over and the lower and middle class families needed tax money to boosts their lives against the tyranny of arguably unethical workers like Carnegie and JP Morgan. Democrats do like successful people because they want to keep small businesses and other workers who are successful in their field alive and well using tax money. Also to build the structures and pay for the wars happening in the 21st century the money has to come from somewhere. Still, where do you expect the money come from. College students tuitions rise when new infrastructure is being built. Still, with this hardship there needs to be money coming from somewhere where there is an abundant money. I covered the historical reasons and the logical reasons. The definition by Obama of middle class already shows the acts needed some barrier that Upper Class voters would still support.

Probably a slightly different approach here in UK, but the idea of paying taxes is to be able to support the all the services that Governments deem necessary to provide modern living standards to the general public. Police services, rubbish collections, education, Hospitals, social housing, and thousands of other amenities, some of which are completely idiotic.

In order to raise such taxes, it is necessary to source a supply where there is a surplus of cash (by normal standards) for this to happen. The well off or rich fullfill this requirement.

What would be the point of applying tax requirements where the cash was not available ?

Please try to be practical and down to earth in coming to understandings such as this. To look at it from a comfortable self-interested point of view is hardly practical, and serves no purpose at all in fully coming to an honest understanding of the question.

They don't. The republicans want to tax the rich. The liberals want to tax the poor and middle incomes and that's the big different in the Congress.