Do the rich have a moral obligation to pay higher taxes?

1. 0

   Wesley Clarkposted 12 years ago

   Do the rich have a moral obligation to pay higher taxes?
   
   Saw this question in an article today and thought...that's a great question, I should ask my fellow hubbers!

   replyreport
2. 0

   JThomp42posted 12 years ago

   Yes, The wealthy we are talking about here will never miss it. When is enough money enough?

   replyreport
3. 64

   soconfidentposted 12 years ago

   Yes everyone should pay their fair share, but sometimes it seem unfair when you have people who are looking for handout.

   replyreport
4. 60

   lostdogrwdposted 12 years ago

   no there do not but they should paid there fair share and they are not. fact former President Bush gave them close to a trillion dollars a year tax cut and took the country from a surplus to a 11 trillion dollars debt and in this tax charge to the people of the United State the rich DID NOT PAID  THERE SHARE of what they trying to make the people paid.  Congress borrow the money to run invasion, medicare b. and Wall Street Bankster bailout and the rich did not paid there share. President Obama continue the same unfair tax cut. we the people have to make congress or put people in office to make a SIMPLE AND TOTALLY FAIR TAX SYSTEM. the tax system is the way it is to confuse the people while corporation get lobbyist to put cut in for they paid no taxes. How a company earn 20 Billions Dollars  and get 3 billion dollars tax return. Exxon Mobil did and there plenty of business like this. while a person earning $100000 paid $20000 in taxes. sad

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Billie Paglioloposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Lostdog,  You nailed it - caught Mr.Clark in a LOADED question and turned it around!  If you haven't already read or heard Dr. George Lakoff, linguist from Berkeley, talk about how rhetoric affects our views, you might like to google him. Cheers!

      replyreport
5. 80

   Attikosposted 12 years ago

   It's a matter not of morality but of social ethics, and in this society there is a more that those with higher incomes should pay more of the tax burden than those with lower ones. In fact, they do. The highest 10% paid over 70% of federal income taxes in the most recently reported year. The bottom half paid 3% of them.
   
   That phrase "fair share" is so politically plastic it can mean whatever a campaigning pol wants it to mean. We should throw it out of the lexicon. It's a propaganda word, not a useful term when talking tax policy.

   replyreport
6. 0

   Garifaliaposted 12 years ago

   I would certainly think so, although it doesn't always work that way. The orthodox way is to tax each citizen according to income and general wealth.

   replyreport
7. 67

   LandmarkWealthposted 12 years ago

   They already pay nearly the entire tax burden collected by the federal income tax.  The top 1/10th of 1% pay more than the bottom 80% of income earners.  It's amazing that people actually complain about this.  "Tax cuts for the Rich" they shout.  Who shall we give tax cuts to, those that don't pay any income tax ???  Or maybe the few that are in the bottom half of the 50% that pay about 3% of all tax revenue. 
   
   The real problem here is that the already disproportionate amount of tax paid by the wealthy is never put to good use, and never gets to those who need it.  Tax revenue does not increase from tax rate increases. Yet even if it did, why should we assume that politicians will be more altruistic with any additional revenue from any additional taxes paid.  You would be better off setting the money on fire then giving it to congress.  At least it could kindle a wood burning stove and reduce your energy costs.  America collects more than it should need in tax revenue.  We have a spending problem !!!  You don't give a drug addict more money to buy more drugs.  Spending is out of control, and both political parties have had a hand in it.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Attikosposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Play it again, Sam!

      replyreport
   2. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Attikos...I am starting to think that maybe every American should be forced to pass a test in macroeconomics before they are allowed to vote.

      replyreport
8. 0

   ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

   I don't even understand the shallow  intent of this question ! Don't you realize that rich people pay more ......eveything than  you or I do !  Think!  ......If you have a .....  Factory! ...for instance .  property taxes, income taxes , local vendors , adverrtising ,  heating , utilities , ...........millions of incidential dollars passing throuugh the system !   They just plain pay more !  Already !

   replyreport
9. 0

   Billie Paglioloposted 12 years ago

   There's no question in my mind that the wealthy do have a moral (or as Attikos put it) a socially ethical responsibility. Why?  1. Wealth provides EXPONETIAL PRIVILEGE.  If you are running around the OC in your Mercedes and lovely shoes and clothes your credibility rises in a multipliable way - your contacts increase for your business - your opportunities increase.  If your parents were able to front you when you're young, let's say help you purchase a home, you are far ahead of the guy who volunteered to go to Iraq and spent 4 years there. 2. Conversely, not having money puts you in a downward spiral.  If you don't have money to take care of the noise your car is making, you wait until the next paycheck, gambling on hope. If the problem was indeed a serious one, you now have a huge bill that you have to put on a credit card at the rate of 24 to 29% if your credit is bad. You simply can't climb out.  3. How did the wealthy get their wealth? (By paying wages that are 1/4 of their own? NO. That would be the old days we're talking about!  When a Fortune 500 CEO is paid over 350 times the average worker, the deck is stacked. Chrystia Freeland in her recently published book "Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else" discusses what happens to the MINDSET of people who rise from nothing and get to the top.  They loose all empathy and have, what I call, the "Little Jack Horner Syndrome".  He stuck in his thumb and pulled out a plum and said, "What a GOOD boy am I."  Those of us down here would be HAPPY to pay taxes on the $250,000 we would make if given a chance. Hell, if I earned $250,000 I'd gladly hand over $125,000 of it, 'cuz guess what?  That income would suit me just fine.  "Oh," but you say, "Why wouldn't you give it to charity," Why?  Because whatever charity I give to might be biased.  It might even be biased against YOUR interests.  And please don't think those who willingly pay taxes as our obligation of a free society don't have our pet peeves, but guess what?  Our complaints are not about "entitlements".  Mine are about drones and the military.  But we're in a democracy and if the majority wants their drones, then I am obligated to either pay or change that.  I really don't know why so-called Christian ministers aren't teaching THIS kind of morality from the pulpit.  Not seeing the disparity is causing us to all "owe to the man who owns the company store," and I for one, hate to be duped in this way.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Your 3rd point defies the laws of economics. The wealthy get wealthy by creating capital.Their wealth has no bearing on what somebody else is paid. We are all paid what we are worth in a free market.Your worth is what someone will pay for your skills

      replyreport
   2. 59

      eternals3ptemberposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Dude, thats great but theres so many of us, barely anyone is worth their wealth... They made a profit, what they get affects what i get.
      Law of economics...

      replyreport
   3. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No everyone is worth what they're paid. If your skills are more valuable then sell them for more.  If you can't, then there not. Those are the laws of economics. In order to get hired you must produce more than you are paid or there is no point.

      replyreport
10. 63

    Anne Pettitposted 12 years ago

    A worker, a middle class person, or a lower socioeconomic person has no more hours per day than a rich person.  If a person works all the time helping to provide services and goods for everyone and still does not have enough income for safe and decent housing, nutritious food and healthcare, his/her wages need to be higher.  Its not only about morals, it is about the economy and well-being of a nation.  The free market has limits.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Billie Paglioloposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Exactly.   I totally agree, Anne, the free market does have limits and those limits are the exact point where the question of morality enters.

       replyreport
    2. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Your income is not dependent on hours worked.  It has nothing to do with it. Income is based on the demand for the specific skills your offer. If nobody is willing to pay for what you offer than you have to revist what you're offering.

       replyreport