My sister emailed me this:

[The Silence and I]

The problem I have with the "Tax the rich, they can afford it better than we can" stance is that not all of them inherited their wealth from family members without doing a damn thing. How many of you people can tell me that--after putting all your energy for most of your life into creating your wealth from the ground up--you will happily send more of it to Uncle Sam than anybody else, simply because you can afford it? You won't feel at all cheated out of your "life 's work?"

Certainly there are rich folks who don't deserve it, just as there are poor trash who don't deserve their lot. Do you claim to be judge enough to determine who should be taxed for how much? Or would you simply tax all the wealthy to hell and back, the hard working ones be damned, and elevate all the poor, even the ones who will never work even if you throw a job in their face?

The fact is neither the Republican view or the Democratic view is correct alone. Both parties need the other. I'm of the viewpoint that total repulican control would eventually result in an environment where everything comes down to the haves and have nots, and total democratic control would result in better quality of life for most with a steady increase in government control, until it becomes hard to seperate from socialism, with many "happy" people who don't know any better, and resulting in stagnation of society.
Now I may not be correct on the particulars, but I think it is hard to argue total control by either party is good in the long run.

So what I am trying to say here is if I do something I want to be safe in the knowledge it is mine; I worked for it I want to own it, claim it. If it is wealth, I want the decision to spread it to be mine and mine alone. If I eaned as a millionare every cent I have I most certainly would not want Uncle Sam to take as much as I can afford simply because others don't have as much as I do. To that extent the email is very correct; I know democrates who are all for capping income and spreading wealth everywhere. They don't yet understand that people need incentive, something to motivate them. Philanthropic ideals are not going to motivate the majority of people towards bettering society.
Bottum line: I support letting the rich have their bone, because it helps keep the balance between the parties, and what we have today is better than an extreme control of either party.

[Darth Wong]

I don't give a flying fuck whether they inherited it from their parents; the point is that it's POSSIBLE, and the idiotic story in the OP acted as though it was not possible.

If we're going to argue about the injustice of wealth redistribution, then you should keep in mind that equity is NOT the sole measure of the ethical value of a decision. Indeed, if it was, we would not even have human rights, since there is nothing about equity that implies human rights. Nor would our legal system require any concept of mercy, since there is nothing about equity that implies that either.

If you are filthy rich, you can afford to pay more. Don't think it's fair? You really NEED to have that third Lamborghini Diablo? Well too fucking bad; it works better for society, and a healthy society is what people want and need, even if they're too goddamned stupid and shortsighted to figure out what has to be done in order to keep it healthy. An ever-growing gap between rich and poor is NOT healthy for society, folks.

[Enigma]

<snip>

If you are filthy rich, you can afford to pay more. Don't think it's fair? You really NEED to have that third Lamborghini Diablo? Well too fucking bad; it works better for society, and a healthy society is what people want and need, even if they're too goddamned stupid and shortsighted to figure out what has to be done in order to keep it healthy. An ever-growing gap between rich and poor is NOT healthy for society, folks.

Do you really think that highly taxing the rich would make the poor a bit richer? Do you really think that the government would give that kind of money to the poor? Sure, maybe in token amounts like a small increase in welfare or old age pension. Maybe put a bit into pet projects to "help" the poor. But in reality, he government will just hog most of that money and sink it into shitty ideas like (for example in Canada) the multi billion dollar gun registry that is GNDN (Goes nowhere, Does nothing), the sponshorship scandal, the one billion dollars that Human Resources "lost", etc.... It would be nice to balance the extra money gained from the rich by reducing the taxes imposed on the poor to middle class and increase funding for Health Care (and also fix it). But in reality, the governments will just take the money, piss a bit of it on the poor and then say that they're broke.

[Darth Wong]

Do you really think that highly taxing the rich would make the poor a bit richer? Do you really think that the government would give that kind of money to the poor? Sure, maybe in token amounts like a small increase in welfare or old age pension. Maybe put a bit into pet projects to "help" the poor. But in reality, he government will just hog most of that money and sink it into shitty ideas like (for example in Canada) the multi billion dollar gun registry that is GNDN (Goes nowhere, Does nothing), the sponshorship scandal, the one billion dollars that Human Resources "lost", etc.... It would be nice to balance the extra money gained from the rich by reducing the taxes imposed on the poor to middle class and increase funding for Health Care (and also fix it). But in reality, the governments will just take the money, piss a bit of it on the poor and then say that they're broke.

Did you find your brain in a Cracker Jacks box? The government is going to spend whatever it pleases on its various programs regardless; if it doesn't tax the rich, it will just take the necessary money out of the poor and the middle class. Either that or just use the US Republican solution and bill our children for it.

[Enigma]

Do you really think that highly taxing the rich would make the poor a bit richer? Do you really think that the government would give that kind of money to the poor? Sure, maybe in token amounts like a small increase in welfare or old age pension. Maybe put a bit into pet projects to "help" the poor. But in reality, he government will just hog most of that money and sink it into shitty ideas like (for example in Canada) the multi billion dollar gun registry that is GNDN (Goes nowhere, Does nothing), the sponshorship scandal, the one billion dollars that Human Resources "lost", etc.... It would be nice to balance the extra money gained from the rich by reducing the taxes imposed on the poor to middle class and increase funding for Health Care (and also fix it). But in reality, the governments will just take the money, piss a bit of it on the poor and then say that they're broke.

Did you find your brain in a Cracker Jacks box? The government is going to spend whatever it pleases on its various programs regardless; if it doesn't tax the rich, it will just take the necessary money out of the poor and the middle class. Either that or just use the US Republican solution and bill our children for it.

What you don't understand is that taxing the rich DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE POOR WILL BE BETTER OFF!!! It just means that the government has gained more money for themselves. They'll make a token effort but not enough to make a real difference.

[Darth Wong]

What you don't understand is that taxing the rich DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE POOR WILL BE BETTER OFF!!! It just means that the government has gained more money for themselves. They'll make a token effort but not enough to make a real difference.

Given fixed government program spending, taxing the rich DOES mean the poor will be better off, because their share of the tax burden will drop. Do you know how to operate a calculator? Your theory only works if we assume that government program spending always increases by exactly the same amount as wealth taxes, and 100% of this spending goes into programs that do not help the poor in any way.

[Enigma]

What you don't understand is that taxing the rich DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE POOR WILL BE BETTER OFF!!! It just means that the government has gained more money for themselves. They'll make a token effort but not enough to make a real difference.

Given fixed government program spending, taxing the rich DOES mean the poor will be better off, because their share of the tax burden will drop. Do you know how to operate a calculator? Your theory only works if we assume that government program spending always increases by exactly the same amount as wealth taxes, and 100% of this spending goes into programs that do not help the poor in any way.

I do not know much on U.S. politics but here in Canada, despite the massive surpluses, I have yet to see my wallet get any fatter. How many times have you heard the federal government say that they have no money and yet somehow manage to cobble together a few million or more on some stupid idea? Remember the GST? The increased cig taxes? They were supposed to be for health care and reducing the debt. But yet they went into general revenue and they've decreased their share of the health care spending from 50-50 to something like 80-20.

My "theory" seems to work in Canada. The feds always increase their spending (on things that are mostly useless) and any money they do spend on the poor is negligent. I understand what you are saying Wong, but in reality I do not see the poor really gain much. All that happens is that the rich lose more money. It's like the rich losing a hundred bucks and the poor gains a shiny nickel.

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

My brother got mad once when I said that they should tax the rich more (keep in mind he;s lower middle class) and said something to the effectthat the more the wealthy are taxed, the more they'll jack up the prices on the products they produce.

I remember thinking Products you are not obligated to buy. So it's better to have the government being guaranteed to take more of your money away than it is to pay higher prices on products you might not use.

[Mr Flibble]

I do not know much on U.S. politics but here in Canada, despite the massive surpluses, I have yet to see my wallet get any fatter. How many times have you heard the federal government say that they have no money and yet somehow manage to cobble together a few million or more on some stupid idea? Remember the GST? The increased cig taxes? They were supposed to be for health care and reducing the debt. But yet they went into general revenue and they've decreased their share of the health care spending from 50-50 to something like 80-20.

My "theory" seems to work in Canada. The feds always increase their spending (on things that are mostly useless) and any money they do spend on the poor is negligent. I understand what you are saying Wong, but in reality I do not see the poor really gain much. All that happens is that the rich lose more money. It's like the rich losing a hundred bucks and the poor gains a shiny nickel.

I love Americans, where do you think money goes when the government spends it? It goes to wages of government workers, spending on programs, it does not magically disappear from the economy, government jobs tend to at least be middle class. Which creates a whole group of people to spend their money, and redistribute it through the economy. Now i don't deny that governments waste money, however higer taxation of the rich does enable siome redistrubution of wealth. The fact is that rich people can afford to pay more. Image a scenario with flat tax rate of 50% to make it simple: one person earns 30,000 they lose 15,000 to tax that leaves them with only 15,000 to survive on, the other earns 1 million and loses 500,000 but they still have 500,000 left to live very comfortably on. Like it or not rich can affor to patyer higher taxes, because when you have little money, what you lose means more to you, than when you have lots.

Sorry if this is a bit disconnected, I am tired and in a rush.