Why Should the Rich Pay More?

Some say, for the same reason John Dillinger robbed banks: because that's where the money is. There is some logic to that, the richest 2% control in the ballpark of 40% of the private wealth in the USA.

Others say; "Because they can afford it." Others who complain about progressive taxes say it's because people want "revenge on the rich", or it's "class envy". Or they say, "Why should the successful people be penalized?" That is an interesting take on reality.

But there is one argument that is not often seen, the "follow the money", or follow the tax money argument. Simply put, it says you get what you pay for. It says that if you eat a gourmet meal, you have purchased an entire different meal (not just more of it) than for a McDonald's Happy Meal.

One could claim that progressive taxes buys Rich Boy toys, regressive taxes buy Poor Boy toys. We say fair is fair. To test this idea, we follow the tax money.

Progressive taxes (such as income taxes) pay mostly for Rich Boy toys: the War on Terror, Katrena, gunboat diplomacy, the Fed's infinite labor pool and any related poverty, NAFTA, GAT, free trade agreements, interstate freeways, National Parks, FBI, CIA, a hot-shot standing military, etc. And regressive taxes: (mostly local sales taxes and fees) go for Poor Boy toys: local roads, hospitals, schools, local parks, libraries, cops, city/county councils, fire fighting, etc.

If "toys" sounds too flippant, feel free to swap with a term that rings true for you, such as "tools of the trade", or "economic infrastructures."

To oversimplify a bit, a carpenter does not require the Rich Boy toys, and the CEO of General Motors does not require the Poor Boy toys. And progressive (mostly federal income) taxes soak the rich, regressive (mostly local sales) taxes soak the poor. We are going to talk about Soaking the poor and middle class.