(January 22, 2013 at 11:41 am)Tiberius Wrote: That's simply not true at all. Firstly, because when has any tax ever all gone towards helping the poor? Never. An extra 25% tax on anyone would mostly go towards what the government sees as the most important priorities; namely, the military and themselves.
Secondly, it would be massively unfair to tax anyone just because they have the money to do something. If we allow that, why stop there? Why not continue to tax them to get rid of the deficit, or tax them to bail out "too big to fail" companies? Where does it stop? Clue: it doesn't. Give a government that precedent, and it will only end in abuse.
Thirdly, those people have already paid tax on what they earned. If you want the rich to pay more tax, start by closing tax loopholes, because whilst they are open, anyone (and I mean rich or poor) will try to avoid paying tax. Or how about this for an idea: encourage the wealthy to be philanthropic with their money. The top 100 wealthiest people presumably includes Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, who have both contributed vast amounts of wealth back into society to try and help the less fortunate. Taking an extra 25% in tax from them is pointless when they have more evidence of their philanthropy than the government could ever hope to achieve.
Your first point, I agree with, because when has a government ever been about anything other than supporting those in power? I used the term tax as illustrative. I would of thought any reader would be capable of seeing that.
Your second point, it would be massively unfair to tax anyone just because they have the money. What is Tax? The banks have been bailed out so to say a change would lead to it is daft.
I don't want to get into a silly your side my side argument partly because your seeming presumption of where I stand is not that accurate.
Think about this: why would people who know a system is not going to deliver anything to them support it? If the super-wealthy continue to support a system that is increasingly incapable of delivering they are going to be hard pressed to hold on to what they have. I would advise them to surrender a portion of there wealth now, leave it too long and it will not just be a portion taken from them.
You see to my mind to keep any system going those that benefit must put something back into it to maintain it, those that gain the most should give the most. The system it seems to me is not working well, if it is not maintained, there will be those who will put in another system into practice.