Is it ethical to tax the rich more than others?

Sounds plenty logical if you get more you should pay more equivalent to the amount you earn. So the burnden is spread evenly amongst each person. So yes I would be saying the same thing if I were one of the "rich" I believe in fairness if everyone taxed evenly then I have no right to complain. You have every right to not care, I'm pretty nuetral to this issue myself I'm just giving my opinion on the matter.

Tax is not ethical in the first place. At least, not the income tax.

Shouldn't we deserve the fruits of our labor?

Rich people who earn their money legitimately had worked hard for their money. Why should the government take it just for it to be wasted on the war in Afghistan or stuffed inside the politician's swiss bank account?

Now, when we talk about rich people who earn their money ILLEGITIMATELY (I'm looking at various politicians, "bailout" banks and corporations, and Monsanto) who exploit the law and bribe politicians, I do not believe they should possess the money they have, mostly because it came from the tax payers in the form of bailouts, for example.

Taxing the rich does not resolve the problems in society or the social class inequality. It just steals money by force, where it has the chance to ending up in the hands of an even more corrupt entity.

"Democrat" politicians in the U.S. don't really hate the idea of being rich. They just hate the idea of other people being rich. What comes as a result is rich entities who are not part of the "establishment" are being kept unable to exceed the powers of companies like Monsanto.

My opinion is that we should ABOLISH the income tax, and instead focus on the land value tax. With the land value tax, we charge people based on the cost of occupying public property, as opposed to stealing their income. And the rich will still pay high taxes if they choose so because the rich tends to occupy more expensive estates.

The difference being the land value tax is a lot more ethical than the income tax, because the income tax assumes the government owns your money, and you could simply keep a percentage of it.

As a result, we could see the land value tax is a lot more ethical once we remove that from the equation and give citizens the choice how much they wish to pay based on our nation's borders.

But don't you get the money back from what they take in regard to income tax?

Get it back how? You're trusting people like Mitt Romney to give you back your own money they stole from you?

How about we don't steal in the first place?

that's it, that's the point

So why don't these people actually put their money to good use? Why do they ask the government to take everyone else down with them? :S

Also, isn't Bill Gates a Bilderberger and large investor in Monsanto? With all that considered, there is probably some other motive for wanting more "tax".

We're asking about what's ethical here. Is it ethical that sombody who does not have enough to eat should go hungry so that somebody who has more money than they know what to do with can have even more? Fucking no, give me a break. But if you wanna keep playing the world's smallest violin just for the filthy rich, by all means, go ahead. Meanwhile, back in reality, we have larger problems to deal than not being able to buy another BMW this fiscal quarter because of goddamn taxes.

PS - Harder working? Many of the richest people I know don't do shit.

Cracked has weighed in.

Inequality hurts nations. No, I'm not talking about failure to comply with communist visions of society. I'm talking about this:



While the economy was growing and expanding, the wages of the common worker were falling... and not just blue-collar worker's! Everyone, but the top 20% (management) came out worse for it.

I personally think the rich people shouldnt have to pay more taxes for 1. it just goes to welfare to people who dont even try to get a job just want to live off of it and make more children so they can put it in there names and earn more and more 2. some of the rich people dont work hard I will agree there but thats because the do investments which means they had to study and do good in school or college etc. now if i were paying more taxes I would only not mind paying more if it was to a person who needs food and is trying to get better in life like charity but thats what charity is for. All in all it doesnt matter I just wish we didnt have to pay more taxes are goverment is allready in debt to china no point not like the little money from all the taxes will make this place better lol.

Are you really this deluded? Did you actually look at what state/federal budgets are made of? It's rich libertards like you who do the work for the super-rich and prevent common folk from earning a decent wage for their toils.

1) Taxes pay for police, fire-fighters, hospitals, roads, bridges, defense (military), consumer & environmental protection agencies, libraries... and yes, welfare. (As well as foreign aid, university R&D, etc., etc.)

2) The rich are busy sucking the government teat, while they preach austerity for the rest of us, they get handouts in the forms of subsidies. I'm all for stopping the *REAL* government handouts... which are NOT welfare, but WEALTH-FARE for these fucks.

3) Charity *CAN'T* work. Look at no.1. Those are all areas of life where we found through hard experience that capitalism doesn't work. Charity can't discharge all the obligations I've outlined.

Charity doesn't have the oversight, know-how or the resources to affect the real problems afflicting our societies. Government can, and while it *CAN* be co-opted and corrupted, it still remains a necessary institution.

Most importantly, charity can't enforce any form of justice.

There used to be a time when people understood that our society was based upon Social Contract, that we had obligations to one-another as citizens. The government is the elected body that discharges these duties on our behalf and maintains our freedom.

Any and all short comings of government, are in the end, the shortcomings of the populace itself, for without its consent, without its complicity corruption and negligence wouldn't be possible...

...which has. The general populace has allowed all of that to happen, then we "blame THE MAN", we blame politicians, we blame the rich, we blame anyone but who's primarily responsible: ourselves.

We allowed the rich to displace us as the real policy makers of our nations (one could do worse than read up on Chomsky's thoughts on this matter). Unless the people take back, what's theirs by the Constitution and natural right, things won't ever get better.

• Get the rich out of politics! Our governments are so corrupted *BECAUSE* the rich can throw around all that money and *BUY* our officials for spare change.

• Make the rich once again accountable! Have Wall Street criminals prosecuted for their crimes!

• VOTE! Speak up! Politicize! Unless you take it back, the power over you will forever be vested in others!

Don't know if there is really an ethical problem with it. Have more money, could be taxed more. Though of course wouldn't expect the wealthy to be happy about it.

The problem isn't taxing the rich more, the problem is the rich aren't paying as much as the poor toward taxes.

Actually, when talking about Bill Gates one can put into consideration that he alone does about as much to help underdeveloped countries and places stricken by disease and starvation as many major organizations. The three biggest fnanical aids are UNICEF, msf, and the. Gates family. Many of the very,very rich families hang on to their money like a Jewish bankman, but there's also a Ltd of generous and helpful ones.

To me, taxing the rich more than the average joe may make sense, but it's still pretty unfair. Taxes are precentage based, so they automatically pay more to begin with, why make them pay even more? Really?

1) Because right now, the rich pay less, as a percentage of their income, then middle-class. Que Warren Buffet pointing out, that his secretary pays more then he does. (This is because the rich/super-rich earn most of their money not as wage, but as dividends).

2) Because a flat-tax rate is abhorrently unfair, for the simple reason that a loaf of bread costs the same for everyone, rich or poor. There's a fixed cost of living. You have to eat. You need shelter. You need water. These things are not negotiable and there's a price you pay for them.

In America add health-care, mortgage and student debt costs or petrol (try and live without a car in America and you're in for a nasty surprise!) and you'll quickly realize, you can't lay the same tax on the poor as the rich when they're already under so much burden.

3) Let's not forget the *regressive* parts of taxation, like payroll tax (not the same as income! This is your contribution to medicare and your pension) or sales taxes! The later is directly tied into consumption, and when added up once again shows that the poor pay a lot *bigger* portion of their income as tax than what the IRS statistics (tracking *only* income tax) would lead you to believe.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/

http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htm

To be honest, I don't know what to think about Bill Gates. He's too... Neutral <_<

I would link a futurama video on the subject, but I can't find the clip of Zapp Brannigan disgusted by the 'neutrality'...

I do agree however that the rich should pay more taxes. At least, they should not be paying less taxes than the middle-class/"proletariat".

We should all pay the same incoming tax in my opinion, and thus' all have equal opportunity.

Although if we could simply abolish the income tax and instead resort to the idea of the Land Value Tax, that would be much better in my opinion...