...those are the
exact arguments conservatives use for keeping taxes low on the wealthy. I mean, are you suggesting that almost 30 years of trickle-down economics has been good for the country?
Your point is "This is my money, I worked hard for it, I earned it. Why should I pay higher taxes?" How about because you owe something to the country whose system allowed you to make all that money?
"But if the rich get taxed, why will anybody have any incentive to work hard?" Seriously? Again, I hate to keep pointing this out, but this is the stuff I hear from my right-wing still-defends-Bush brother-in-law.
Let's look at Japan, shall we? Their income tax system works like this:
- less than 1.95 million Yen = 5% of taxable income
- 1.95 to 3.3 million Yen = 10% of taxable income exceeding 1.95 million Yen plus 97,500 Yen
- 3.3 to 6.95 million Yen = 20% of taxable income exceeding 3.3 million Yen plus 232,500 Yen
- 6.95 to 9 million Yen = 23% of taxable income exceeding 6.95 million Yen plus 962,500 Yen
- 9 to 18 million Yen = 33% of taxable income exceeding 9 million Yen plus 1,434,000 Yen
- more than 18 million Yen = 40% of taxable income exceeding 18 million Yen plus 4,404,000 Yen
(Source:
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2206.html)
Now, the thing to notice is that the more money a person makes in Japan, the higher their tax rate is. Today 1 dollar is worth a little more than 100 Yen. The top bracket is paying mre than 24% on the first 18,000,000 Yen (US$179,131.86 at today's exchange rate) and then 40% on everything over that.
By your logic, nobody in Japan should be trying to succeed, because they have no incentive. I mean why bother trying hard when it just means you'll pay more taxes?
Because it also means you'll get more money. Yes, the government gets more, but you get more too.
Now lets look historically at the top brackets in the United states (
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php).
Throughout the 1950's, the top rate was 91% on incomes over $400,000. 91%. That's an awful lot, but of course $400K was a lot more money in the 50's. Anyway, did the economy stagnate during the 1950's? Was there no incentive to work hard? Because the way I understand it, the 1950's were the time in our country when we had the most prosperous middle-class we've ever had. A man could work as a baker and afford to buy a home (which he was actually paying for instead of just paying interest on), a car, and his wife could probably stay home and take care of the kids.
But oooh! We don't want any scary evil taxes! Why would anybody bother to work hard?
In 1964, the top rate was cut to 77%, then to 70% in 1971. Did things get better or worse? Better for the rich? Worse for the middle class?
In 1982 they were cut back to 50% Did things get better or worse? Better for the rich? Worse for the middle class?
By 1988 the top rate was cut to 28% (that's right, from 70% to 28% under Reagan). Did things get better or worse? Better for the rich? Worse for the middle class?
Clinton raised the top rates to 39%. Things got a little better for the middle class. Are you seeing the pattern here?
The bottom line (and the point I was trying to make, albeit humorously) is that tax cuts are not a panacea for our problems, although the right likes to pretend that they are. In fact, if one looks at history (and oh, I dunno, the rest of the world) it becomes pretty apparent that countries prosper at higher rates of taxation on the wealthy, and that the taxes are not a deterrent to hard work, success, or even building family wealth.