Just an Observation.

[Gunny]

Short answer: for the public good.

Medium answer: the legal and economic system of the United States places a high emphasis on the protection of property (physical and otherwise). Those with the greatest possessions reap the greatest benefit from the maintenance of this system. Thus, they should pay more to sustain it.

The short answer is the more compelling one, but it would probably take a team of sociologists, anthropologists, economists and political scientists to do it justice. Anyway, here are two answers.

Who decides what is "the public good?" I'd wager you and I draw very different lines in the sand where that is concerned.

The wealthy DO pay more taxes by sheer volume. They should not have to pay a higher percentage than anyone else. That amounts to penalizing them for being successful. The benefits they reap are irrelevant to the argument since they EARN those benefits.

It does not support "the public good" to penalize people for being successful.

And our legal system places the most emphasis on the TAXATION of property, not the protection of it. You don't pay up, the US government will "protect" your property about as long as it takes to toss you off of it and confiscate it.

 

[jillian]

Wal-Mart
McDonald's

Two of the largest corporations in the world, where most of the workers are vastly underpaid. Wal-Mart employs more people than the US Government, and most of those people are making less than $10/hr.

Just some information I found on the subject. I can't speak to its currency, but it addresses what you're talking about:

Wal-Mart Wages

Wal-Mart pays an average hourly wage of $8.23 an hour, according to independent expert statistical analysis, which falls below basic living wage standards and even below poverty lines.
Wal-Mart claims an hourly wage of $9.68 an hour is its national average, though that still equals poverty levels for workers. Since “full time” at Wal-Mart is 34 hours a week according to company policy, full-time workers make a mere $17,114.24 a year—below the federal poverty level for a family of four.
The most common Wal-Mart jobs earn less.
A sales associate--the most common job classification--earns on average $8.23 per hour ($13,861 annually)
A cashier—the second most common job—earns about $7.92 per hour ($11,948 annually)
Sales associates and cashiers combined account for more than a third of all Wal-Mart jobs.
The world’s largest and richest retailer—with more than $250 billion in annual revenue--can afford wage increases. Wal-Mart could pay each employee a dollar more per hour if the company increased its prices by a half-penny per dollar. For example, a $2.00 pair of socks would then cost $2.01. This minimal increase would annually add up to $1,800 for each employee.
A Wal-Mart spokesperson told USA Today on 1/29/03 that their pay is close to or equal to union wages.

http://www.ufcw.org/press_room/fact_sheets_and_backgrounder/walmart/wages.cfm

But, you know, you'll be getting a lot of people saying, well, heck with 'em, let 'em get different jobs... because they're so empathetic and all.

 

[ReillyT]

Who decides what is "the public good?" I'd wager you and I draw very different lines in the sand where that is concerned.

At some base level, the "public good" is determined by politicians elected by the people. However, it is clear that "public goods" are tied into the notion of "public good." Everyone feels that maintenance of the military, repair of the physical infrastructure of the nation, and general education are important. The questions are to what extent do these need to be financed by the public tax mechanism, and how much finance is necessary. These are the questions the elected officials answer.

The wealthy DO pay more taxes by sheer volume. They should not have to pay a higher percentage than anyone else. That amounts to penalizing them for being successful. The benefits they reap are irrelevant to the argument since they EARN those benefits.

It does not support "the public good" to penalize people for being successful.

It may. Let us start by assuming that good infrastructure, high levels of general education, a strong sense of civic duty, and high social mobility are important for the advancement of the interests of the United States. These things allow the country to compete economically, prevent traps of extreme poverty, and are generally the reasons that the US has a economic comparative advantage. Also, the idea of social mobility is a value cherished by most Americans.

Let us also assume that a flat tax is instituted, but that the only way to finance these important "public goods" is to set the rate relatively high to compensate for a less progressive tax system. [This is just a thought experiment - I am not arguing that this is necessarily the case] This might create pockets of sustained poverty as low income persons have to give an even greater percentage of their wealth to the government (hence social mobility (i.e., the "American Dream" suffers)).

Alternatively, we could cut back significantly on the social efforts to help the poor and to provide good education and infrastructure services. Either way, the US could suffer both economically and in terms of our shared values. In such a case, "penalizing" the wealthy is the way to advance everyone's (or at least the vast majority of persons') interests.

 

[Diuretic]

Who decides what is "the public good?" I'd wager you and I draw very different lines in the sand where that is concerned.

The wealthy DO pay more taxes by sheer volume. They should not have to pay a higher percentage than anyone else. That amounts to penalizing them for being successful. The benefits they reap are irrelevant to the argument since they EARN those benefits.

It does not support "the public good" to penalize people for being successful.

And our legal system places the most emphasis on the TAXATION of property, not the protection of it. You don't pay up, the US government will "protect" your property about as long as it takes to toss you off of it and confiscate it.

The public good is pretty easy to decide. It's how you want a society to look. There's no pre-determined model, it's usually achieved by consensus over some years. Your Constitution is a starting point. You can extrapolate from there.

The wealthy may pay more taxes by volume but if they pay the same percentage as as poorer people they are still immeasurably better off. If you're fine with that so be it.

In terms of the public good and successful people. Define "successful". If it's "rich=successful then it has to be that poor=unsuccessful. If that's your definition of the public good that's fine but don't whine about the behaviours of those that are poor=unsuccessful.

On taxation of property. It has ever been thus. Someone doesn't pay their taxes like everyone else, they suffer. Very straightforward I would have thought.