• The rich have to much money.

    There are many uses for that money, more than 20% of the USA's money belongs to the rich(1% of the population). That money has many more uses that for their leisure. Many are in the streets in poverty while the rich make money. Do the rich need all this money? No. Some may ask, do we have the right to take off the rich, yes! They took money off us. With flat tax, everyone has to pay an equal amount, it suits the rich, but many will not be able to afford it. Proggresive tax is much better. It allows everyone to be taxed according to their income. Much fairer!

  • Absolutely, as they have been given more.

    You are referring to the idea of a progressive income tax, meaning tax rates increase as a person's income increases. This is the tax system utilized by almost all developed countries, and for good reason. The moral justification of the rich being obligated to give back more to society lies in the fact that generally, the rich have taken more from society. While individual effort is no doubt a significant aspect of a person's ability to amass wealth, there are background factors which play a much larger role. Economic exchange, the route to wealth, is only possible due to a strong community and economy. In a ravaged, third world country, a man could work as hard as any other, but still fail to become as prosperous because they suffer from a lack of advantages such as inadequate education, fewer economic connections, etc. Even here in America, your capability to get richer than the next guy is in part influenced by an upper hand you have been given at some point in your life, one you may not even see or understand. Therefore, we can assume that to some degree, those who achieve have benefited from these advantages that the poor have not. Thus, it makes sense that they should carry a greater responsibility to contribute to society.

  • Practicality over principle!

    We need to tax the rich more because it is one of the sure ways that we can put our economy back onto a stable and sound path. Republicans constantly bash liberal ideas for not working logically on paper. Since most of their economic policies fail, their only argument is that liberal systems may not work in theory. What most people don't realize is there is a huge difference between what works on paper and what happens in real life. On paper, it doest look right to tax certain people more, but in real life, it works, affluent people still have tons of money to spare, and at the same time, small businesses bloom, jobs sky rocket, people are confident enough to invest in the stock market, and the government can pay off its debts and move in a forward, rather than backward direction.

  • They Have the Money.

    Everyone says that the rich worked hard for their money and shouldn't have to pay more. So does that mean they are saying that the lower class people aren't working just as hard, if not harder? Last time I checked, a film star pushed into cereal commericals as a child who somehow magically climbed the later without even bothering to go to college and try to earn a degree or whatever the heck it is didn't work nearly as hard as the first generation college graduate who is working as a single parent and barely scraping by enough money for food and to keep the roof over their heads! Being lucky has nothing to do with working hard. Besides, if they have SO MUCH money, what's the harm in paying just a LITTLE BIT more?

  • The Invisible Hand vs Difference Princple

    The theory of the Invisible Hand which states that when individuals try to amass wealth they do so by doing trading, disbursing and employing others which leaves society better off as a whole. While this may be true to some extent, the current stagnation of wealth amongst the very few seems to contradict it. This is where tax brackets come in, an embodiment of the Difference Principle. Imposing higher taxes on the wealthiest and using that money to boost infrastructures that benefit the poorest will help in closing the burgeoning gap between the rich and the poor

  • Why shouldn't they?

    The rich are paying a big majority of federal taxes, but there are so many poor that they pay most of taxes, and it may support the government, but all it does is keep the poor, poor; and the rich richer. As Izazovnog said at the top of the page, "there are more uses for money than for leisure".

  • More Income = More Tax

    Preferably I would have a flat tax, but given the current tax system I believe it makes perfect sense to tax the rich more. In the United States tax system there are several people who do not pay tax because there wages are low. This works out well, however, it needs to be balanced out so the government makes up those revenues elsewhere. Since over taxing what little is left of the middle class would only cause them to fall into the lower group, it make more sense to tax the wealthy who can afford to live without the extra money.

  • They Posses More

    I believe the rich have so much to give but they only use it on them. What I don't understand, is why the government would try and take tax money from those who have nothing, like the lower-classes, when the rich have so much to offer. I don't doubt that the rich work hard to get what they have, but so do the middle-classes; the lower-classes take all the jobs that no one ever wants to do. The rich have way better connections than others do, so why not give back? It's not like they would miss a little money from their massive bank accounts anyways.

  • Wealthy over poor

    Only one percent of the U.S is in the upper class. The upper class is the top layer of

    society in the United States, consisting of those with great wealth and power and may also be

    referred as the rich.They are 100x more wealthy than the average American, compared to where twenty percent of people polled last month said they sometimes didn’t have enough money to put food on the table. The wealthy should have enough money to take care of the poor, and a way that can be done is if they are taxed.The poor should not pay more taxes than the rich, because the poor do not have enough money to maintain the engines of capitalism, so the poor need help from the wealthy to support that.. The rich, being the wealthy have majority of the money in the United States. They must be charged with higher taxes to not only be fair but to help close the wealth gap.

    The wealthy upper class have well enough money to support the poor. There may be a small amount of billionaires in the world but they make up a lot of the money in the world, they have a lot of extra money that can be put to a good cause and help the poor with wealth problems. There is a very big difference between the wealthy and the poor, the wealth can support their self and others like the poor, were as the poor can barely support their self, the poor need lots of help from the wealth to get back on their feet, and a way that can be done is if the rich have higher taxes. The rich will still have plenty of money after higher taxes. Sixty eigtht percent of millionaires say they support the tax increase for those earning $1 million or more, according to a survey by The spectrum group.

    The poor have been trying to support the engines of capitalism, but are just getting buried in more taxes, the only way out of their wealth gap is a little help from the wealthy, the wealthy have been able to support their businesses, themselves and still have extra money to spend on whatever they like. One of the best things their extra money could go to is the poor, that will not only help close the wealth gap but help Americans live an equal life to others.

  • Yes, though not through increasing tax rates...

    A fundamental myth of economics is "trickle-down" theory. Supposedly, if you give the rich more money, they will inevitably spend it on products boosting the entire economy. As nice as this is in theory, in actuality, it rarely ever works. Most of the time, the rich actually sit on their wealth, hoarding it. Or, they put it into securities, which have some benefit to the economy as a whole, but little benefit to the lower classes. Yet some negative votes have brought up the theory of the rich fleeing the country and placing money in tax havens. This is true. Thus, the best option is to close significant tax loopholes, such as repatriation (putting money from your company in a foreign branch/department), giving the government the revenue without driving the rich away. A simpler tax code is what the US desperately needs.

  • No they should not

    Just because they have more money, doesn't mean anyone has a right to that money, whether it be the government or the poor. We are not a socialist country who takes from the rich to give to the poor. It doesn't work and should not be attempted. We need to redo the tax brackets, remove at least most maybe even all tax breaks, have everyone pay a fair amount and that's it. If you're still poor, well that's your problem. It may sound callous and mean but it's the truth. Your life is your own responsibility. Not anyone elses.

  • Look at the evidence.

    Raising taxes actually gets the government less money because he rich will move their money to tax havens. That means they will also have less money to spend in their business. This means less economic expansion. If you like at times when taxes has been cut dramatically (Harding-Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan) then you will see far more rapid economic growth and more revenue. This is because less taxes means more people can move into higher tax brackets and then get taxed at a higher rate assuming we are not under a flat tax. A flat tax however, is also good because it encourages fairness and simplicity with only one rate in everyone. More simplicity means that rich people will take more money out of their tax shelters and use it for economic expansion.

    Send me a challenge if you want to debate this topic.

  • YES and NO, really depends on what we consider as rich.

    For example:

    - A doctor who busted his butt, going through 4 years of undergraduate, 4 years of med school, 2 years of a medical specialty and a 3 year internship, DESERVES EVERY PENNY OF HIS 300k SALARY.


    - The son of a wealthy CEO of a Fortune 500 company does not deserve his money, because he simply inherited it.

    In summary there should be no new taxes for doctors, lawyers, engineers, and entrepreneurs. But the US should implement Silver Spoon taxes on those who inherit their money.

  • No rich shudnt be taxed more

    It has been several years that this topic ha been wandering in people's mind, but never has it come to a conclusion. In my opinion, the rich should not be taxed more. Tax is A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits. High-profile rich guys, like Warren Buffet and Mark Zuckerberg,comment that they want to pay more in taxes. However, raising taxes on the wealthy is the wrong approach that will hurt everyone.
    Tax hikes on the rich are unjustified from a moral and a pragmatic perspective. All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their own labour. People should be free to spend or donate their rightfully earned money as they please without government coercion. It is unjust for the government to forcibly take money from one person to give to someone else in the name of “fairness.” well if I talk about fairness, no matter what society, culture, country you go to or come from there will be corrupt people that only seek personal gain. Government and people are judging on to make rich make more tax just because the hard earned money is indirectly going to the corrupt government . As in India, the mind map of the politicians is to make rich pay more taxes on the sympathetic note that all this money will go in development of the nation and in help for the needy , and actually manipulate them and snatch into their own pockets.
    One simply becomes rich if they get educated, have the will power for doing something benevolent .It is education that can make the difference between rich and poor. It is the poor who haven’t taken education seriously
    I would like to question my opponents on the note that why should the government help the poor where they don’t want to get educated and become affluent. Why should the rich give more taxes to help poor. Why should they let go their hardships? Today's world is a unsympathetic virtue.

  • What in the Sam Hill

    Why in he world would we tax people more just because they make more money? That is like making a guy pay more for gas because he drives a Mercedes instead of a Camry. That is like charging a person more for sunscreen because he is pale. It is segregation. I would sure hate to have mountains of student loan debts, debts I took out for food, gas, and other basic necessities, and have a ridiculously high tax rate. I don't disagree that people can work equally as hard and get different salaries, but life comes down to choices. I didn't have a golden spoon feeding me when I put myself through medical school. I just chose to get debts, bust my but, study, and eat baloney sandwiches for 7 1/2 years to get by. Sorry to the people who chose to work somewhere else. I am not saying your less of a person, my dad was a rancher who worked in a factory when money got tight, so I have respect, but just because I chose a more prosperous path doesn't mean you can rob me, and give my money away. If we all have to pay for a sickening government then we all pay the same.

  • The poor do not have a right to the money of the rich

    Any more than the rich have a right to the money of the poor. All money that is not inherited is earned, and nobody has a right to that money except the person who earned it. It might be moral for wealthy people to give some help to those who are less fortunate, but taxes are mandatory, not voluntary. The government should not enforce morality in this case any more than it should enforce "morality" in marriage.

  • No, the rich shouldn't be taxed more

    Taxing the rich more nurtures a culture where ambition is suppressed and instead of promoting "the pursuit of happiness" Such a country would instead be acting contrary to such a principle. Another factor is that such a principle would be (infact it is) vague. At what point can one be regarded as rich

    Posted by: Emmo
  • The rich have already paid

    I made 1 million dollars last year and paid 100,000 dollars in taxes. Another individual made 20,000 and paid no taxes. Who did not pay any tax? It is about PAYING YOUR FAIR SHARE OF THE TAX. 100,000 dollars is more than 0 dollars paid. Why should I have to pay more in "TAXES"? It's not how much I made - it's about how much I paid!

  • The rich already ARE taxed more.

    I remember when Mitt Romney ran for president, It turns out people were mad because he only paid 5% of his income in income taxes, By some calculation. It didn't matter that the amount turned out to be 20 million bucks or something, It was the proportion that made people angry.

    I think that corporations should be taxed according to a flat tax, And should be regulated so that fixed proportions of profit go to employee bonuses and fixed portions go to owners as dividends. This would allow the owners of companies to ride the same winds as thier employees, But still be able to profit greatly depending on thier equity in the company. And, Once a corporation occupies a space too big for real competition, It should be dismantled or broken up, And not allowed to use it's size to eliminate competition by selling below cost or other unfair practices.

    Even Amazon started as a small company, And Jeff Bezos took financial risks to get it going. For every Amazon there are 10 companies no one ever heard of, That failed to make it, And cost the original owners thier homes or put them in deep debt. Extreme profitability is the reward for taking risks and should be honored.

  • No, The poor have no right to seize money.

    Think about it. More than not these "rich" people became this way through their own brilliance, Own ideas, And own hard work. And many of these people already do donate, Or at least have non-profit or charitable funds for the poor. And while you were working 6 or 7 hours a day, They were loosing sleep building their business. Its merely a matter of entitlement. Therefore the rich should not be taxed more. As a matter of fact, A large percentage or the lower income economy do not have working mothers of fathers, And only rely on the money from YOUR wallets to get by. Now, I'm not saying this is true for everyone, But I am pointing out a legitimate point. Plus, A lot of the money from the rich is used to run the company/business they are in.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
chriswalczyk55 says2013-09-29T21:13:11.653
What people have to understand about increasing taxes on the rich, which is one of Obama's major plans during his second term, is that it will not promote any stimulation in our economy. The basis of Obama's plan is to increase taxes on the rich, and give to the poor, without strengthening any type of industry that may lead to the stimulation of our economy. Taxing the rich will not decrease the unemployment rate, and it will not strengthen the U.S. Economy. All it will do is put money in the hands of people who either cannot find work, or who are satisfied with an extremely low check from the government every week. On the other hand, using government income to strengthen major corporations and industries in the U.S., which was one of Mitt Romney's major plans for America, would have had a much greater chance of creating jobs, and putting unemployed American's back to work. This is plan that democrats have absolutely no understanding of. All they care about is making the middle and upper class satisfy the financial needs of the poor, which will not promote any stimulation in our economy. This is a system that has to change in America if any economic success is going to occur over the next four years.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.