Taxes should be progressive

Pamela says:
“…yes, a tax cut for the wealthy is immoral.”

Some argue that tax cut for the rich would encourage them to invest in equipment and personnel which will in turn drive up productivity and employment.
I am curious to know what is her take on the excessively large head tax called the Jizia. This so-called tax is imposed by her Sharia (Muslim religious Law) on conquered people for no reason other than them having a different faith. How does she classify that tax?

Dear Ms. Taylor,

It is not the place of government to take money from one group and give it to another. Government is a terrible mechanism for determining those for whom society must aid. The federal in particular is hardly able to act in this manner.

I do not wish the federal government, which is fundamentally a wasteful, ill run organization substituting its judgement for mine. Of course, liberals rely upon the state to do just that.

And how much do you annually donate to your mosque and other NGOs that aid people? Is it 5%, 10 % or more? Generally, liberals are the least generous amongst us.

And finally, it is poor policy to have nearly 50% of those who file tax returns not paying anything while the other 50% send money to them. All filing tax returns should pay something no matter how modest .

However, as the WAPO said in a headline, Obama is a socialist president.

Walter

Pamela, government does not "maintain and support" our society except when it represents the people and when it enforces our laws. Ours does neither of these faithfully. Government exists to provide services for the benefit of the whole society such as roads, the courts, and the military. Our society is supported by the unity of our people, or undermined by the lack of unity. Today, our government undermines our unity through its support of special interests and taxes about half of the population to pay for it. Interestingly, the poor and non-citizens are better represented and supported by government than taxpaying citizens. Is that moral?

The issue is not that the rich haven't benefited. They have. They've benefited from government investments in infrastructure, education, police, and defense (not offense).

These are investments which millionaires (I think) would be happy to support at higher rates.

Instead tax dollars are wasted in the trillions on useless things like offensive wars overseas, payments to countries around the world such as Israel, and massive new (and existing) entitlements.

Additionally, taxes these days are touted by the left as a means of "social justice" that is, take the rich down to bring the poor up. Instead of using tax dollars for sound investments, they're used to pay people not because they are deserving, but merely because they are poor.

This encourages the wrong thing. This spells the end of the uniquely American concept of "from rags to riches". What's the point of striving for greatness if you can sit happily in rags?

I agree completely. No one is a success alone. Those who do well have an obligation to help others. Telling the poor to go without so the rich can have more is obscene.

I agree with the premise of the article, provided the rich have a 'say' on deciding what happens to their personal wealth.

Thank you for one of the most thoughtful and insightful articles I have read in a long time. Opinions that rest on true thought instead of politics always resonate greatest. Ghandi would be proud.