The longer suburbs sectioned off for the economically vulnerable are in existence, the more likely they will turn into real slums, creating long lasting problems such as the ones currently experienced in the cities of Latin America. Latin America contains 13 of the 20 countries with the highest intentional homicide rate (Global Burden of Armed Violence, Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, 2008). Brazil is one of the most criminalized countries of the world with roughly 23.8 homicides per 100,000 residents, muggings, robberies, kidnappings and gang violence (The Economist, ‘No End of Violence’, 2007). These areas have become a haven for criminals and drug lords, who both have a clear interest in keeping these communities poor so that they can continue to exert their influence on them and use them as a hiding and recruiting ground for illegal activities. Subsidies would help people escape poverty and as a result break the cycle of crime.
What is wrong with the rich paying more of the taxes than the poor? The rich have not built their empires on the backs of the poor, but they do live leisurely while the poor do not. If someone is homeless or poor it is hard to find a job and there for need the help of the rich. Even with the rich paying a lot of taxes, the poor stay poor, and the rich stay rich.
Even when people are born into wealthy families, they often owe their success to many impoverished people who worked hard beneath them or continue to work for minimum wage, or less, so they can reap in record profits. The rich have a subsequent moral obligation towards the poor, who helped them become rich.
I'd much rather see the rich voluntarily giving that money to the poor. Taxing them more means more money in the governments pockets and we are then forced to trust that that money will be well spent. Also, if rich people are being taxed more, they could easily move to places where tax rates are lower.
They should be donating on their own. What could anyone possibly do with hundreds of millions? If you listed 25 things to buy and calculated how much it would cost, no matter the physical objects, you could not spend even 1 billion. There is certainly a moral obligation, but the government should not be there to do it. Read "The Sovereign Individual," you'll understand the last people rich people trust with their money is the federal government, and they're totally right in this distrust.
No, the rich do not have a moral obligation to the poor to pay progressive taxes. The rich already pay higher taxes, because they have more income to tax in the first place. With a progressive tax system, people have a disincentive to work, because they know that their tax rate will be increased if they earn more. The rich should take care of the poor, but it should be through voluntary charity, not taxes.