Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Isn't the reason (and punished is the wrong word, IMO) that by taxing the 1% more, you get to tax 99% of the population less, which is better for society as a whole? Also by taxing the 1% at a high rate, it affects the super-rich less, as they likely value the money they're paying at their rate less than the bottom 50% if they were taxed at that rate? Felt like this was an obvious reason, but tec said there was no reason given. So tec, you can respond to this reason.
FWIW, this is coming from someone who knows less when it comes to these things as he thinks he is when it comes to sports, etc.
Find these conversations fascinating, btw.
That still comes down to "you have a lot of money, and we think you'll miss it less". Which is a poor justification for taxing the rich more.
A flat tax rate (lets focus on income tax, for the sake of argument) would be the fairest way to tax the population. If you're Richie Rich, the n% of income taxes that you're paying on your income is still a hell of a lot higher than the n% of income tax that's being payed by Joe Poorman.
BL loves the progressive tax, and wants to make it even more progressive by targeting the super rich. And in other threads in the past, he very specifically came right out and defended it with the reason "they have a lot of money, they can afford it". Which to me, is not a valid justification.