Should the super-wealthy pay more taxes?

forums.intpcentral.com

3 points·indiejade··5 comments

"Tax the Rich" seems to be a popular sentiment (probably because the majority of people aren't rich and would rather anybody but themselves pay more in taxes), but is it effective? The richest 1% of the population already pays for 40% of the US's total Federal Income Tax revenue, and the top 5% pays for over 60%. (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6). And because of the Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve), increasing taxes to the rich could very likely result in LESS revenue.

I have no opinion on the matter, since the subject of how to use other peoples' property is none of my business.

There is no developed society on earth in which there's not taxation for public services. No serious suggestions have been made on how to have a society remotely resembling our own without taxation and redistribution of wealth. The only question is over how to do it. Thus it's a perfectly valid question and, in a democracy, the business of all of the citizens.

I would like to see society evolve to a point where people interact on a purely voluntary basis, without the threat or use of force. That's my vote.

You should read this comment (which quotes the same stats as you) and the response to it, really good stuff:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1125225

Where that comment differs from the linked image in the post is talking about income vs wealth. I think the graph makes things look fairer than the are. I'm pretty sure that if you take account of all taxes then the US has a regressive tax system, and he's claiming it's progressive, so clearly something has been missed out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com