I was recently in a discussion with some liberal friends, and I brought up the fact that the top 10 percent of wage earners in this country already pay 80 percent of the taxes. It hardly seems fair to think, hmm, we need more money for all these things we want to do, lets just take more of their money--they've got plenty.

Well, their response was that the problem with this argument is that it assumes that the top 10 percent of wage earners are only making 10% more than the rest of us, and that's simply not true. The difference between the top 10% (90-100) and the second 10%(80-90) is, in fact, enormous.

Well, I don't see how that makes much difference or that that assumes that, but I am having a hard time with this one on my own.

I am a student of music--not economics. Can someone please help me articulate some of the more conservative arguments of this debate?

An interesting post. Before you can ever reason with people like this, it might benefit everyone to first read "I, Pencil" by the late Leonard E. Read of the Foundation for Economic Education (www.fee.org).

To truly appreciate how the rich are paying for more than their share of the tax burden, it is important to first understand how one (tax) decision affects the nation and produces consequences that may be unintended.

Remember the butterfly effect? Well, taxes (and minimum wage, for that matter) work a lot like that. One seemingly insignificant (and perhaps well-meaning) action (increasing minimum wage or taxes on the rich/middle-class/poor), may produce no immediate cause for alarm, but down the road and across the nation, the intermediate or long-term impact of such can be devastating.

I would suggest that you state how the tax burden of the rich has increased by a little over 10% for the rich even with Bush's tax cut. In addition, the top 1% or so of taxpayers pay about 96% of the total income tax. These liberal friends have probably used the argument that this tax cut didn't help the economy and that the Kerry plan (had he been elected) would have helped. As an undeclared Econ. minor I know that if you tax the owners of the means of production (the rich) that the economy will more than likely shrink as the rich will have less money to invest in their companies for things like new machinery for increased output, which would also mean new jobs. These liberals do not understand that when taxes are cut those who pay the most will gain the most back and that it will eventually trickle down to the poor. They also do not grasp that we are relying on a mixture of the Keynesian and Monetarist theories. The Keynesian theory utilizes either increased government spending or tax cuts or both to grow the economy and is most concerned with the issue of unemployment. Monetarist on the other hand believe in the power of the market and the money supply in regulating the economy with their biggest concern being inflation. If anyone says that the Bush economy is the worst in 75 years, first they are fools and completely forgetting the Depression. In addition, Jimmy Carter ran double digit inflation and interest rates in the late 1970s. I know that this is a lot to take in, but I hope this helps. In addition, if you can, take some Econ. classes as they are quite helpful (I am a History major). Best of luck in your discussions.

quote:

As an undeclared Econ. minor I know that if you tax the owners of the means of production (the rich) that the economy will more than likely shrink as the rich will have less money to invest in their companies for things like new machinery for increased output, which would also mean new jobs.

This is called "supply side economics".

Hint: Despite your unquestioning acceptance of it, a very large portion of economists consider supply side economics to be bunk, at least in terms of its real-world implementation. One Reagan aide even admitted as much, after the end of the administration.


Of course, that's not even really relevant to the argument.


Even if one takes it as a truism that there are some negative effects on raising taxes, one can easily argue that this is worth it to advance broader societal goals such as the redistribution of income.

The goal not being that everyone 'end equally', but 'end in a way that they're content with'.


Because if you hold that the government should have no role whatsoever in the redistribution of income, you've essentially tattooed 'Let them Eat Cake' on your forehead.


There's also the essential dilemma of, "When is a tax cut a bad idea?". If you hold that tax cuts are always good, then the ideal government would collect no taxes whatsoever. Arguments against such a form of government are legion, and so you're rather reduced to "sometimes tax cuts are good and sometimes they're bad".

Reagan, for all his lack of intellect, understood that -- which is why, at some points, he chose to raise taxes.

quote:

Originally posted by Joe McReynolds:

Because if you hold that the government should have no role whatsoever in the redistribution of income, you've essentially tattooed 'Let them Eat Cake' on your forehead.

Or, perhaps you have studied all examples of redistribution that you can find, and you have found them to lead to abuses of government power and to not even be in the long-term interests of the parties who supposedly benefit.

But, you decide, Joe. Tell us all what our deep, dark motives are.