Because they make the laws on WHO to tax, so often they will not want to increase their own taxes.
In the US, the wealthiest 1% of pay 37% of the income tax , though they earn just 19% of the income.
The top 10% pay 68% of the total. The bottom 50% earn 13% of the income and pay 3% of the taxes. So it doesn't seem that difficult.
When you place heavier taxes on the upper class, it does not give people any incentive to work harder. Why would you want to work harder and make more money and end up paying more taxes? There needs to be a balance.
Let's ask a different question: why do the rich have the obligation to bail us out when our politicians spend recklessly?
Since the New Deal, politicians from both parties have used deficit spending to fund the programs that generate political support from their chosen constituencies. Rather than spending based on the total annual tax revenues (or even projected revenues), our "leaders" in DC decide what they want to spend first and then look at how much we'll have to borrow to make it happen. Of course, the realization of how much we must borrow does not slow down their spending plans.
Because the "rich," from one perspective, "can afford to pay a little more," we expect them to serve as the coffer for us to draw from when we are out of ideas. Rather than completely reform federal spending into a manageable and balanced approach, the politicians choose a minority of Americans that are easy to demonize with the rest of Americans ... the "rich" (of whom most politicians are members).
I understand that they are able to pay higher taxes, but the question we should be asking is this: even if the rich pay higher taxes, what will change with the way government spends our money? I don't see the rich as having the obligation to bail out politicians who manage money poorly. It's a convenient and romantic notion to suggest they should, but according to the Constitution, they shouldn't. Every citizen should have dual representation under the law, and that includes the Federal Tax Code. The "rich" already pay 80% of the federal taxes collected in a year. By that standard, they are already paying more than their "fair share." They don't have an obligation to pay more just because we want them to take our burden from us.
by John Holden3 years ago
Looking for this for ages, finally found it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g
by Barefootfae5 years ago
Here comes carbon taxation.Maybe we will have to wear masks to measure the carbon dioxide we exhale.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-0 … -says.html
by Jesusjohn782 years ago
Everyone hates the "rich" and I do not understand why. I was always under the impression the American dream was to become successful and stay successful? SO why are we always trying to punish the...
by Billy Hicks5 years ago
Why should the wealthy pay more in taxes?I posed a question this morning asking what people thought the "fair share" should be for wealthy Americans; specifically, what percentage they should pay in taxes, and...
by SolutionC4 years ago
Why do politicians think we are all dumb?Do we really need more laws? More government control? More Government Spending? So tired of Nanny State politics from all sides let the police protect & serve not tax...
by ptosis7 months ago
federal income tax rates history, During the eight years of the Eisenhower presidency, from 1953 to 1961, the top marginal rate was 91 percent. (It was 92 percent the year he came into office.)What does it mean, though?...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.