Taxing the rich (even more than they are already which IMHO is a lot) is just punishing success and rewarding failure.
1) have you traveled to a developing|third-world country? 2) if you haven't, you should. if you have... 2a) what price tag do you put on first-class infrastructure that makes your business run smoothly, not to mention make it safer to deliver? 2b) what price tag do you pay to ensure that you have a well-nourished and healthy work-force that is more intelligent, stronger and efficient? 2c) what price tag do you pay to ensure that everyone has access to a world-class education (again, compare to a third-world country, I know ours sucks compared to others') that is again, more knowledgeable, more creative, etc and will one day help you boost margins, compete globally, etc?
And I could go on...
You see.. safety goes hand in hand with: 1) economic stability 2) health (ever wonder why some people risk their own lives to cross borders? their families are starving/dying!) 3) education 4) and much more than just a strong military, uncorrupt/just police/court system
And those things cost money. If you'd rather grow wealthy in another country, I dare you to try! And if you're already wealthy and you think taxing you more is unfair, I dare you to move to countries like Mexico where many business owners now have to pay "taxes" to drug gangs or else, they just don't go to prison, they get killed!
I'm not arguing that our tax system doesn't need reform or that current rates are fair, I'm arguing that if you want to be wealthy one day or are already, it's in your best interest to contribute more. Consider it an investment where you can. Yes, surely there is waste, but focus on that, don't whine about the fact that you're getting punished because YOU ARE NOT... you were rewarded with all these great opportunities and public goods and services you seem to take for granted, that's all (again, see my first question above).
And yes, the whole problem with our health care system isn't so much that we're paying (we have to no matter what, either by premium increases or footing the bill for emergency patients). The problem is that it sucks at preventing major health problems that later cost more if undetected and not treated early.
I think you're off your rocker with this one.
Edit: 2e) comfortable enough not to wage revolution against your ass.
The rich already contribute more. Where's the line? 90% tax rate? 99.9999%?
That my friend is the central question of domestic politics. Right now 'the line' is at historically low levels, and we're facing massive budget deficits. And fresh from a US election year where everyone agreed the deficit is the most important issue facing us, the first thing the government did was vote to extend those historically low rates.
They want to take property from people who have earned it precisely for having earned it! It's theft, it's looting, and it's slavery!
You cannot take one man's property and give it to another based on need.
To complain that you're taxed too heavily after you have already become wealthy and secure strikes me as akin to looking back on your healthy, illness free life and complain that you should get a refund on your insurance payments, since they didn't do anything for you.
The above is not to argue that one system is superior to the other, but rather that you're in one, and very probably complaining about it now that you know you're well prepared enough that it's clear that you'll probably never be destitute.
In a perfect world, we might ask everyone how much risk they want. Unfortunately, so much is determined in your youth. You (I assume) grew up in a family that raised you well, and left you with reasonable earning potential. If we just asked everyone at 18, we would wind up with an upper class that would rarely suffer financial failures, and would accept risk, and those who know they won't get rich on their own, and accept no risk, and so for the most part, this system would be unfundable. As a compromise, and as many of us feel quite strongly that it's simply not acceptable to have people destroyed when they suffer financial ruin, we have some basic social services.
And having a tax rate above 50% for anyone is morally indefensible IMHO.
In the good ole days, taxation consisted of the lord owning the land (the means of production) and taxing the peasents.
This is pretty much what happens when you're employed - someone else owns the means of production, and you are paid less than the value that you create (hopefully for the company, anyway). For me this is a form of taxation - The main difference is that insead of being paid the gross amount and being hit for x%, you get the net amount.
On a macro level, it's similar. The country IS the ultimate means of production, and you pay a tax to use it.
And yes, that's extremely difficult to evaluate, but it seems to me that on average everyone has to be paid less than their contribution, otherwise there would be no profit or funds to pay salaries for people not directly contributing to production.
Nor was I passing judgement, by the way, so I don't go along with the "theft" thing. I do however think it is a form of taxation.
"Taxation" is not the best way to put it. It is a market exchange. In exchange for a fixed portion of your value output (which will be variable), the company guarantees a certain payment upon a fixed input (usually hours-per-week).
Thus the company is essentially taking on the risk that you will produce enough value to cover the cost and leave some space for profit.
If you or the company disagree about the values involved, the employment relationship ends.
The concept that a capitalist's profits come from the risk he or she takes to earn them is the other half of what is missing from the Marxist theory of economics -- following almost inevitably from the adoption of the labour theory of value.
There were institutions in the middle who weren't involved in the mess. See BB&T, as an example, they were actually forced by the government to accept a bailout, as to make it seem like the whole industry failed.
Several banks did fantastically, announced record profits etc. The industry as a whole didn't fail, some particular institutions did.
If the perfect world the rational rich person might realize this and protect and improve the system that allow people like himself to be possible.
None of the things you mentioned need to (or should) be funded by loot.
In fact, utilities and hospitals didn't used to be in the U.S., and only partially are now. The US education system is a stagnant cesspool that still uses a model developed in the Middle Ages. And the government expropriates more wealth created from non-government funded scientific research, than it generates from funding scientific research.
Look, nobody has a duty to serve as a sacrificial animal to anybody else. You do not have the right to demand that businessmen sacrifice for you or for society.
A corporation's rights and responsibilities just derive from the rights and responsibilities of those who own it. I think this is the premise behind "corporate personhood" and I think it works correctly almost all the time. (I'd be interested to see examples where that's not the case.) For example, a corporation can exercise free speech, because the people who own it can exercise free speech; so if you deny the corporation from exercising its free speech, you are denying those who own it their right to exercise free speech.
I'd think that in the case of personal injury caused by a corporation, if the corporation's full assets are not enough to compensate the victims, then the owners could then be held responsible to cover the difference. (Whether that is actually legally the way it works now, I don't know.)
It doesn't work that way, unfortunately; if it did there would be no reason to have 'corporate personhood' since the owners could simply assert their own right of free speech. A corporation can assert its own right of free speech completely apart from its officers or owners. In theory a corporation with no living officers and only the estate of a deceased person as a shareholder could nonetheless legally assert a right of free speech based on computer generated messages. Not that it's ever been tested. Angry mobs, on the other hand, are not generally viewed as persons, nor are parades, crowded beaches, or book clubs.
I'd think that in the case of personal injury caused by a corporation, if the corporation's full assets are not enough to compensate the victims, then the owners could then be held responsible to cover the difference.
It doesn't work that way, either. In the case of big liability, a corporation's owners frequently try to shuffle as much of the corporation's assets as possible off the books and then declare bankruptcy in the face of the liability. The personal assets of the shareholders are generally untouchable. Turns out that when you tell people their only responsibility is to create shareholder value, they take it pretty seriously (particularly if they're the shareholders in question).
I propose that we charge everyone an equal dollar amount, that's surely the only way to be fair - after all, if you go out to dinner with five people and rack up a $200 bill, everyone pays $40, that's "fair".
Right?
Imagine company, which has 10000 shareholders. You own 10% of company. Company needs some financial helps, e.g. $250M. How much you should pay? $100? $250M/10000?