I need credible sources for why its a bad idea to tax the rich

[Wolverine302]

I've gone into countless debates why taxing the rich super high does not work and is anti-liberty in nature. Its not enough that you're entitled to what you earn. No. That doesn't phase them. You cn tell them that you can tax 100% of all revenue created and it still doesn't fix the economy, nope.

Need something more..

 

[thoughtomator]

does the math for you, hard to argue with math (although some do)

 

[paulpwns]

It is immoral to use force to take something that doesn't belong to you.

 

[green73]

Taxes don't create wealth they only destroy it. The government is not the economy, it is only a parasite that preys upon it.

 

[phill4paul]

I've gone into countless debates why taxing the rich super high does not work and is anti-liberty in nature. Its not enough that you're entitled to what you earn. No. That doesn't phase them. You cn tell them that you can tax 100% of all revenue created and it still doesn't fix the economy, nope.

Need something more..

I think you pretty much covered it. Move on.

 

[emazur]

The rich are ALREADY being taxed:

 

[kylejack]

Laffer Curve, i.e. raising tax rates does not necessarily raise more money. Taking their money kills the economy and rich people flee to other economies.

Though frankly I wouldn't find it compelling because I think we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve right now.

 

[thoughtomator]

Arthur Laffer was recently arrested for running a Ponzi scheme. I wouldn't rely too heavily on him.

 

[kylejack]

Arthur Laffer was recently arrested for running a Ponzi scheme. I wouldn't rely too heavily on him.

The principle itself is fine regardless. Increasing tax rates will increase government income to a certain extent, then fall off as it stifles economic activity and pushes wealth out of the country.

 

[mport1]

Because taxation is theft, no matter how rich a person is.

 

[kylejack]

Because taxation is theft, no matter how rich a person is.

but

Its not enough that you're entitled to what you earn. No. That doesn't phase them.

 

[mport1]

but

Ask them if you should be forced, at gunpoint if necessary, into prison if you do not pay taxes despite having moral qualms with what the government does (aggressive wars, drug war, etc.). If they think violence should be used against you, and that you have no right to the fruits of your labor, then move on.

 

[QWDC]

They are thinking about it the wrong way. Why should taxes be going up at all? Why is spending continuing to rise? Need to stop with the class warfare propaganda and realize that EVERYONE'S taxes need to go down dramatically, and spending needs to also see a dramatic cut.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

I've gone into countless debates why taxing the rich super high does not work and is anti-liberty in nature. Its not enough that you're entitled to what you earn. No. That doesn't phase them. You cn tell them that you can tax 100% of all revenue created and it still doesn't fix the economy, nope.

Need something more..

Here is your explanation:
The money that the rich have left over and which they save is the money that the poor people use to invest in new businesses.

Some liberals don't like the idea of a sales tax because the rich don't spend all their money... But that's the point. The money they spend is enjoying their money on themselves.. The money they have left over is the money that benefits the rest of us.

When somebody goes to the bank to borrow money, there has to be someone on the other end of that transaction. There has to be something in it for the lender in the name of return or interest.

Right now its hard to gauge whats proper because the federal reserve comes in with created money and artificially keeps down interest rates.

But in an honest money system the rich people help the economy because their savings becomes the money we use to invest and grow the economy.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Replace the word "rich" with "people, regardless of their wealth," and the question would be rid of class warfare oriented question-begging and therefore much easier to answer.

 

[MJU1983]

 

[Boss]

Most economics textbooks explain this very plainly (Although they often support the Fed, so theres a lot of bad also)

 

[Paul Fan]

Because the 'rich' will just arrange their affairs so they don't have 'income'. Look at Romney. He only pays about 15%. Same with Buffett.

 

[archangel689]

"*Successful* entrepreneurs aren't the concern. They have already made money and already created jobs. In economic terms, they are kind of a sunk cost. What matters are the entrepreneur wanna-bes. These are the people who will create new jobs. They aren't yet rich, so they don't show up among the "rich entrepreneurs" who say that taxes don't matter. They also haven't yet taken on the risk that leads to job creation. In deciding whether or not to take on entrepreneurial risk, they will balance the risk against the expected after-tax return. The higher the tax rate, the less likely they will be to take on risk and so the less likely they will be to create jobs.

In short, when it comes to creating jobs the "don't tax the rich" argument is less about the effect on the existing rich and much more about the effect on the might-be-in-the-future rich." -- http://www.antolin-davies.com



Anyhow he's got a whole bunch of stuff on his website. Raising taxes doesn't mean you raise more revenue, either.

 

[unknown]

This is probably one of the most difficult arguments IMO.

Ron Paul's position has to do with the whole idea of the government spending more than it takes in, then borrowing and taxing, forcing us to pay for their deficits.

But he always talks about the middle class, those who spend the first four months of the year working to just pay their tax burden.

I suppose if there is an income tax, it only makes sense that its levied against those earning the most. :o