Tom When you look at taxes you also have to look at how much disposable income people have. The wealthy may pay a higher percentage of taxes, but they also typically have more disposable income.  Even with their expensive homes and private schools and such, when they're done paying for the necessities they have more money left over than those who earn less, and have less disposable income.  Thus they can more easily afford to pay more in taxes than those less wealthy. And I think it's inaccurate to describe taxes as "theft"; a thief takes things and gives nothing in return.  A government takes money and provides a military, polices forces, infrastructure, education, etc... Not that I expect than anyone will agree with any of the above, given the heavy presence of libertarians on the Net.

Orson Buggeigh The so called progressives basically believe that they are entitled to  a better standard of living at the expense of someone else.  'What's yours is mine. ' Very simple, really.  Of course, when explained that plainly, a lot of hard workers find the progressives concept of 'fairness' is quite unfair, since it rewards sloth more than labor.  What the folks arguing for social justice in the form of socialism or communism overlook is the problem making either work effectively.  Repressive measures - very repressive measures often - seem to be necessary.  Human nature being what it is, most people seem to work harder if they believe they will personally benefit from it.  Personally, I think it would be in everyone's interest to simplify the tax code.  Some kind of flat tax might be best, with a floor - people earning less than the minimum would pay no tax, anyone earning more would pay taxes.  Yes, the people who earn more would pay more, and that's fair.  but trying to confiscate most of their money in the name of 'fairness' makes a mockery of the concept.  Except, apparently to the progressives. 

Tom "believe that they are entitled to a better standard of living at the expense of someone else" Oh, I forgot, because I'm a "progressive" the government directs all those those tax revenues directly into my savings account. And I'm lazy too. After all, it's not like non-progressives and "hard workers" ever use government services...

Interested

The wealthy may pay a higher percentage of taxes, but they also typically have more disposable income.  Even with their expensive homes and private schools and such, when they’re done paying for the necessities they have more money left over than those who earn less, and have less disposable income.  Thus they can more easily afford to pay more in taxes than those less wealthy.

 Back when the upper tax bracket was in the 90% rate, recall the poll that said those with lower tax brackets still felt that the rich should be taxed even higher.Liberals are about taxing everybody else.  Irregardless if you've taken risks, created jobs and stability for others or not.

Tom "...taxing everyone else."  So are you saying that liberals must all be poor, or that liberals don't want to be taxed themselves?  In regards to that second, I wouldn't mind being taxed.

C Stanley Tom, I don't think it's hard to understand that when the wealthiest taxpayers (top 1%) are paying 40% of income taxes, then they're paying a VERY disproportionate share of the cost of defense and infrastructure as well as entitlements and other govt expenditures. There's obviously redistribution going on there, particularly when a large number of citizens don't pay any income tax at all and some even get cash back from the govt via 'earned income credit'. For the record, I personally don't oppose some progressive structure to the tax system (for the reason you mentioned- more disposable income thus the effects of the tax are less) but it's the degree to which liberals take it that is absurd. Where would you draw the line, for instance? Should the highest earners go back to paying 90%, in your view? Isn't it obvious that that type of taxation stifles the economy and ends up hurting everyone, and leads to tax evasion and foreign tax shelters?

Jason, Managing Editor The question of whether wealthier people can afford higher taxes completely misses the point.  The goal of tax policy is to (1) fund the government while (2) maximizing positive economic impacts. There is a preponderance of evidence that higher taxes on the wealthy have only a marginal positive impact on (1) and are substantially suboptimal with regards to (2).  (1) is undermined because higher taxes undermine incentives to earn more (fewer people become wealthy because the payoff for doing so is reduced while the difficulties and costs of doing so remain the same) and because wealthy people are more adept at avoiding the increased taxes than the "soak the rich" revenue models assume anyway.  (2) is suboptimal because the "soak the rich" assumption that the alternative is that the wealth just sits around doing nothing is flatly wrong.  The comparison that must be made about higher taxes is between their investment in the economy mediated through government programs and the alternative of their investment in other areas of the economy.  Since private investment is almost always more efficient than investment mediated through government programs, higher taxes are a  suboptimal strategy for promoting economic growth. As long as the issue is cast as one of "fairness", pro-tax advocates will continue to present a rigged rhetorical game where purely emotional resentment of the rich works to promote public support for a strategy that is, economically and fiscally speaking, just foolish. This is not to say that ALL tax increases are bad or that the Republicans' perpetual meme of repeated tax cuts is any better (at some point, repeated tax cuts destroy economic health unless matched by spending cuts that Republicans seem to always "forget" about after the latest round of tax cuts passes).  But I think that it is time for our liberal friends to stop getting a free pass on the illogic of their claims about taxation.

Tom No, it's not obvious to me that taxes "end up hurting everyone."  It's obvious to me that without taxes we wouldn't have Social Security, Medicare, the military, most schools, etc... Not being an economist, I don't know about any "preponderance of evidence", all I can tell you is that it's not what I'm hearing over on the left side of the blogosphere.  If you want details you'll have to talk to Paul Krugman or someone like that. And does anyone else here the repeated implication in these comments regarding those who don't pay taxes?  The implication that they're lazy or undeserving?  Like the poor deserve their suffering? Most likely the debate will stall here; conservatives see money as good and those who create it even better, however they do it.  Liberals tend to be suspicious of money and those who make it.  Conservatives see money as some sort of right, almost something holy.  Liberals tend to see money as "filthy lucre". And there's no getting past that.

Kevin H The whole 'lower taxes lead to higher revenue' is bunk. At least for the US. It's clear that if there is a laffer curve (which I'd say the evidence for is good, but not conclusive) it's maximum is well above the current levels of taxation in the US. Europe may be a different story. As for maximizing positive economic impacts, well, it is imperative that we maintain a situation where as few people don't have to work as possible. It would be a disaster if we turned capitalism, which is supposed to be about individual accomplishment and ability, into a system like feudalism where once you become 'wealthy' it in nearly impossible to loose that status. I would say we are dangerously close to that reality already. Paris Hilton has probably been picked on more than is fair recently, but I'm going to do it a bit more. She has very little economically valuable skills. Had she not been born to rich parents, she would not be famous or wealthy now, yet it is an almost certainty that she will remain wealthy for the rest of her life, and that all of her decendents, regardless of ability or ingenuity, will also be wealthy. The same can be said of not just the super wealthy, but even the 'normal' wealthy in US society. That is flirting with danger. Finally, the tax rate of the wealthy is not really 40%, because very very few of them actually make the majority of their money through salary. The tax rate on captial gains is 15%. In reality, most of the wealthy pay few taxes as a % of their total income than middle class americans. That is, when they pay taxes at all. I agree that raising the income tax braket is unlikey to be a good solution to these problems, but dismissing them will only make them grow.

C Stanley Kevin, you are right to point out that where we are in relation to the laffer curve makes a difference if the goal is to maximize revenues. One thing that often gets mixed up in the discussions though is whether we're talking about income tax rate or capital gains; when capital gains taxes were reduced we did see a gain in the revenue at the lower rate (there is also room for debate about all of this- some of the increase in revenue comes about because of the expectation that rates are going up or down, so that people will sell or hold investments based on future expectations.) I don't know all the details or numbers but the take home point is that the direction of changes matters a lot, not just the absolute percentage. People's behavior changes based on whether tax rates are going up or down and sometimes there is room to increase the amount of revenue the govt will reap if rates are lowered; at other times there is not and the 'Club for Growth' crowd is wrong to insist that tax cuts always pay for themselves. One more quibble, Kevin- the 40% comments above were in regard to the total amount of US revenue from income taxes that comes from the top 1% of income earners. It wasn't a comment about what percentage of their income those taxpayers give over.

C Stanley And does anyone else here the repeated implication in these comments regarding those who don’t pay taxes?  The implication that they’re lazy or undeserving?  Like the poor deserve their suffering? Uh, no. I must have misplaced my liberal decoder ring.

Tom As I said, really what's the point of all this....

Jason, Managing Editor

Not being an economist, I don’t know about any "preponderance of evidence", all I can tell you is that it’s not what I’m hearing over on the left side of the blogosphere.  If you want details you’ll have to talk to Paul Krugman or someone like that.

It would probably be better to rely on economists that haven't sold their soul into partisan slavery.  :) I won't accept Krugman any more than I would expect you to accept Sowell. Political economy is not my specialty (only one graduate seminar), but I know enough to be fairly confident of the "preponderance of evidence" claim that I made along with the caveats that I included (which were, as per norm in the script-driven blogosphere, ignored).

Joseph Taxing the rich more becauase they make more totally goes against the princples of free enterprise.  So, let me get this straight.  My incentive to become wealthy is to pay more in taxes?  Why bother?   Fairness has nothing to do with this, and has everything to do with the thin difference between how the left and right want to spend the taxes.  As Jason said, spending cuts are necessary if taxes are to be decreased.  Unfortunately, I don't see much talk from either side other than vague ideas and quotes of economic principles.   As a voter, I would like to know which specific programs each candidate proposes to cut.  Anything short of that is just dodging the root cause of the problem, and possibly solving what could be the real solution to fairness in taxation.  THe candidates need to be asked these tough questions.

Joseph Liberals tend to be suspicious of money and those who make it. ... Ok Tom, sure...  Only half the liberals I know are very, VERY well off, and love enjoy minute of their money (and that's not a bad thing).  The left wants to control where tax money goes just as much as the right.  The only difference is where.

Interested

Not being an economist, I don’t know about any "preponderance of evidence", all I can tell you is that it’s not what I’m hearing over on the left side of the blogosphere.  If you want details you’ll have to talk to Paul Krugman or someone like that.

Do you really think you'll hear the left saying - "okay, this is meaningless and hurts the economy but we're advocating it anyway"  Why strike down the supply side argument without gaining knowledge first Tom?

The whole ‘lower taxes lead to higher revenue’ is bunk. At least for the US. It’s clear that if there is a laffer curve

(which I’d say the evidence for is good, but not conclusive) it’s maximum is well above the current levels of taxation in the US. Europe may be a different story.

So you - in the same paragraph, say the laffer curve is bunk, then say it exists, but then say we're not being taxed enough based on the laffer curve

Tom Why become wealthy?  Because, even with progressive taxation, you'll still make more money than someone less well off.  Though one could ask why you would want to become wealthy in the first place...though that's probably a too radical suggestion for people around here.

C Stanley Gee, how horrid to want to be productive. As I said before, Tom, taxation that's done in a punitive way ends up hurting everyone. Do you actually believe that a purely socialistic or communist society can be as productive as a capitalist one? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs? If you believe that, then why did the USSR collapse?

C Stanley And what's with the 'people around here' comments? What makes you able to decide whether commenters here are wealthy or not, or for that matter, to judge our morality? Why do you have such a hard time grasping the fact that moral views on poverty and wealth are not necessarily connected to political views, because many of us believe that we should freely give of our wealth to help those in needs but we do not believe it is morally correct nor efficacious to have that giving legislated?

C Stanley And one more, Tom. If all of those liberals have no problem paying higher taxes, who's stopping them? They can cut a check to the IRS for any amount over and above the required amount, any time they'd like, or for that matter they can give to private charities (which I'd recommend since they have to function in a much more efficient manner than govt bureaucracies anyway.)

Tom Productive isn't the same as wealthy. And to the best of my knowledge I've never advocated socialism or communism as you have suggested.   The fact that you've interpreted those comments that way is exactly the reason I said my comments would be seen as too radical by "the people around here".   To conservatives, who elevate wealth to a sacrament, suggesting that money isn't important borders on sacrilege.  And whether that's political or moral in origin, I don't see why I can't pass judgment on it if I find it to be wrong.

C Stanley Define wealthy. Now tell me who gets to define how wealthy is too wealthy, or what 'one's fair share' actually means. I realize that you aren't advocating socialism or communism to your own knowledge, but from what I can tell your knowledge seems to be lacking. If you believe that the people who produce wealth ought to be forced to pay a large portion of that wealth in order to raise the standard of living of those in the society who are not producing wealth, then you are advocating for a system that is much closer to socialism/communism than it is to capitalism. Why do you insist on presuming the morality of conservatives here? Now it's that wealth is a sacrament...what gives? You really can't fathom that wealth is important for a society in terms of productivity, in order to have a basic standard of living and jobs for all? And that the motivation of having freedom to earn to the standard of living that one pleases (which, again, could be given away to help others if one feels that morally that is the right thing to do) is what drives economic growth so that the pie will be large enough for all to have opportunities and ability to thrive?

C Stanley And whether that’s political or moral in origin, I don’t see why I can’t pass judgment on it if I find it to be wrong. Passing judgment on people about whom you know nothing other than their political beliefs isn't acceptable IMO because you are inferring a lot of things that aren't necessarily true. For instance, to turn this around on you, I can infer one of two things based on your expressions of your political and moral views here. Either you personally have no desire to be wealthy and instead you are driven by a desire to help others, or you do actually desire wealth just as many people do but you are a lazy failure at whatever career you've attempted and so you bitterly complain about those who are wealthy and attempt to convince yourself and others that you are morally superior because you just don't have the lust for wealth that others have. Now, wouldn't it be rather nasty of me to presume the second scenario?

Tom You could presume either one you want dear, it wouldn't bother me. And what we're talking about here isn't passing judgment on people's lives as a whole, or their motivations for holding their views.  It's a case of passing judgment on the views themselves, which I have no problem with. And maybe I can't fathom the importance of wealth...though maybe our definitions of "basic standard of living" differ.  Or maybe I have a greater concern for how money can constrain as well as free.  And maybe what I propose is closer to socialism than capitalism, at least from where you stand.  I have never claimed to be a moderate. And I'm trying to figure out where I "bitterly complain" about the wealthy.  Are you assuming that I must hate them because I expect them to pay more in taxes? Or is it the fact that I've questioned the acquisition of wealth?  Conservatives don't like people who rock the boat, and from their standpoint that's rocking it pretty hard...

C Stanley My comment about you complaining bitterly was my attempt to create the flip side of your ridiculous caricature of the statements made by conservatives here. Get it? The whole point of what I wrote wasn't to see if that would bother you (though to be honest, it should at least make you realize that some people are likely to be bothered by the negative stereotyping.) The point was actually to make you see the huge leaps of logic you make when you go from people espousing views that favor capitalism to saying that wealth is a sacrament to such people. Wealth is nothing more than the products of productivity. It can be used for good or for not good or anything in between. Personally I don't think that it's a good idea to have a political class which gets to decide what the 'good' is, especially when they tend to exploit class warfare mentality specifically because it furthers their own interest in getting elected or reelected. And personally I'm a bit offended by your assumptions, but what matters much more than that is that those kinds of assumptions are used as political talking points to deflect from a real understanding of economics. You even admitted this yourself with your handwavy reference to lefty blogs- if you're unwilling to study the economics but instead buy everything you read on a partisan blog, then you are providing the perfect example of the problem I'm referencing. Instead of arguing facts, the liberals that you are reading are doing what is much easier- impugning motives.

Tom And (my last comment on this topic) why would you assume that being a failure at my career would lead me to complain about the wealthy?  Are you again conflating productivity/success with wealth?

C Stanley And what we’re talking about here isn’t passing judgment on people’s lives as a whole, or their motivations for holding their views.  It’s a case of passing judgment on the views themselves, which I have no problem with. Well, you seem to have a major problem with telling the difference. If you're saying that there's nothing wrong with judging political views, I agree- we're almost obligated to do so in order to make informed decisions. An example of that though, would be to study the actual outcomes of different tax policies to determine whether or not you believe that a change in one direction or another would really provide a benefit. An example of the other kind of judgment which does cast aspersions on people's morality would be this: To conservatives, who elevate wealth to a sacrament, suggesting that money isn’t important borders on sacrilege. or this: Though one could ask why you would want to become wealthy in the first place…though that’s probably a too radical suggestion for people around here. or this: And does anyone else here the repeated implication in these comments regarding those who don’t pay taxes?  The implication that they’re lazy or undeserving?  Like the poor deserve their suffering? Oops, it looks like all of your comments were of that ilk.

C Stanley why would you assume that being a failure at my career would lead me to complain about the wealthy? I'll answer that when you answer why you assume that people who believe that free market capitalism generally benefits society overall more than progressive/liberal/socialism does must consider wealth to be a sacrament. Apparently you still aren't getting that I was showing you the flip side of your own caricature- instead of your cartoon of a conservative, I was giving you the standard line of a conservative's stereotype of a liberal. Get it now?

C Stanley Perhaps a better way to explain is to clarify that I DON'T assume those negative things about you. I know very little about you so I try not to presume anything other than that you obviously believe what you've stated to be the best policy. I happen to believe that you are wrong about that- so it would be a lot more productive if we'd have had the discussion that we started to have here (Jason's comment was excellent, for instance) instead of getting into whether or not people place too much importance on wealth. Not that that's not an interesting discussion in it's own way, but to me that is a separate issue which has to do with personal values rather than political ones.

Interested And maybe I can’t fathom the importance of wealth…though maybe our definitions of "basic standard of living" differ.  Or maybe I have a greater concern for how money can constrain as well as free.  Ahh the great debate - or rather, the great failure point of Liberals. Where do you define weathly?  What about someone who decides that your standard of living is too exorbinate?  Would you rather that you cannot buckle down, do good old American hard work and take risks and if the stars align - get lucky and benefit from it?  how much of your salary are you planning to donate to the needy when you become an RN?  50%?  80%?  You can get by with a smaller apartment - perhaps live with someone else to use even less space to give more.It's not your money - you should not be able to decide should you. 

Interested

And maybe I can’t fathom the importance of wealth…though maybe our definitions of "basic standard of living" differ.  Or maybe I have a greater concern for how money can constrain as well as free.

  Ahh the great debate - or rather, the great failure point of Liberals. Where do you define weathly?  What about someone who decides that your standard of living is too exorbinate?  Would you rather that you cannot buckle down, do good old American hard work and take risks and if the stars align - get lucky and benefit from it?  how much of your salary are you planning to donate to the needy when you become an RN?  50%?  80%?  You can get by with a smaller apartment - perhaps live with someone else to use even less space to give more.It’s not your money - you should not be able to decide should you.

Tully Where do you define weathly?  The classic "progressive" answer to that is "anyone who has more than the majority of the people we want to vote for us." And Jason? Your #7 above? In spades. Echo, re-echo, and affirm.

tonto Personally I'm for everyone paying the same percentage. We like to think we are all equal. Lets put our money were our mouths are. Everyone, every freaking one of us pays the same percentage. Why should the better off pay more then the less well off, only to be resented for it anyway. it is imperative that we maintain a situation where as few people don’t have to work as possible - Kevin H Why? Because this is not the situation that I want to find my kids in. I want my children to be able to make a career choice based on what they are passionate about, as opposed to how many people do know. Finding something that will allow them to maintain a lifestyle that they want, even though they hate their job. I want my kids to have the option that if they wish to work, be passionate and enjoy what you do. And if they don't, they are not forced to enslave themselves. But then I was raised under the motto, "to take a job is to enslave yourself, creating a job will free you (with all lot more responsibility)." I do understand that this is not to popular with most people today, but then again I don't find envy very productive either.

mgear What about the fact that it's entirely possible (and probable) that the wealthy get a better return on their government dollar than the poor?  How often does the government pay a lot of money to develop something useful, and then essentially gift it to corporations to make a lot of money off of it?  Pretty often.  I'm not even saying it's a bad idea for the government to do this.  Many of our most important technological advances are a result of this process.  I'm just saying that my guess is that wealthier citizens benefit disproportionally when it comes to a lot of taxpayer-funded activity, and if you get more, it seems fair that you pay more.  This is probably the case with infrastructure improvements as well.  While better government-funded transportation systems may result in lower prices for consumers, for example, my guess is that the economic benefits are skewed toward stockholders of the corporations that make the most use of these transportation systems to ship goods. While many Americans hold some  amount of stock in their retirement accounts, the actual volume of stock is highly concentrated in the hands of the very wealthy. Also, the idea that a flat tax is "fair" is pretty misguided if you ask me, especially if a significant inheritance tax is not in effect.  If you know the famous result from economics that markets are efficient, you should also understand that efficiency has little to do with what we usually refer to as "fairness."  Efficiency is certainly a good thing (as are markets), but it says nothing about initial conditions.  For example, you can have a perfectly efficient exchange market economy where one person has 1,000,000 units of goods and another person has five units.  Maybe the person with five units used to only have three units before market exchange, but this situation hardly squares with most people's ideas about "fairness" if the other person started with 999,000 units. Fact is, you can end up with a lot of money by working hard (especially if you, by random chance, happen to be more intelligent than average), but you can also end up with a lot of money by doing absolutely nothing if you happen, by random chance, to be born to an extremely wealthy family.  It's difficult to do a lot of hard work to earn that money when you're in your mommy's belly.  The playing field is certainly not level. Lastly, the conditions required to guarantee efficient markets are almost never met in the real work, and most of the deviations for these conditions -- especially externalities -- benefit the wealthy disproportionately.  This is not to say that real markets aren't still (sometimes) more efficient that government allocation, but as is the case with most things in life, the most reasonable solutions are to be found somewhere in between the extreme ideologies on either side of a given issue.

Jason, Managing Editor

this situation hardly squares with most people’s ideas about "fairness"

That is because most people do not know the difference between fairness of opportunity and equality of outcome. Without even being told the arguments on both sides, most people are taught in our schools to PRESUME John Rawls over Robert Nozick. I don't think that citing what is at its core an argument from popular ignorance does much good to your case.  If ever there was a bandwagon fallacy, this is it.