I have been reading in many places that the answer to the economic problems in this country is to raise the taxes on the "rich", and force them to pay their "fair share". I have seen propositions ranging from a flat 25% tax rate on the "rich", all the way up to a 60% tax rate. People that make this much money don't need that much. It's extra money.
I have seen the income level of the "rich" defined as $100,000 per year, all the way up to $400,000 per year, but the number most commonly thrown out, both in articles and by the President, is $250,000.
I have read articles, blog postings, and comments that anyone who makes enough to support 3, 4, 5, or 50 families will not miss the money that is being taxed away from them. It won't hurt them. They have enough. That's more than it costs to raise a family. They should have the excess taxed heavily for the good of the country. It's extra money.
It's easy to make these types of statements when we are talking about OPM. (Other People's Money)
But, how about if it wasn't OPM? What if it was YOUR money that was being taken?
What if some else decided what it takes to support a family? What if someone else decided what was an acceptable lifestyle? And what if, after making these decisions, they came to you and told you that anything above and beyond this was "extra money"? What if they told you that your tax rate just went up to 40% or 50% because you made more than you needed, and had extra money?
Also, all of these statements about taxing the "rich" keep raising more questions in my mind than they answer.
Here are some of the questions that come to mind when I read these stances on taxing the "rich".
People who own sole proprietor businesses report the income from that business as personal income, so that $250,000 is the number that their business brings in. See, we are talking about taxing small businesses and their owners, not "rich" people. These people have taken the initiative to build a small business, and create something from nothing, taking all of the risks and personal liability that comes with it. Is the owner of a shop or a store or small manufacturing job shop that makes a $250,000 profit "rich"?
Why is it that someone who has joined a company, worked hard, progressed through the ranks, and years later, finds themselves making $250,000, suddenly owes the government a substantially higher portion of their income than someone who is just starting out, and has not had the time to achieve this level of success?
Am I the only one who finds it interesting that the number being tossed around as "rich" is $250,000 per year, avoiding the salary level of the Senate Leadership at $193,400 and the Speaker of the House at $223,500
The last question that comes to mind is brought about by an article that I read stating that anyone who makes enough to support 3, 4, 5, or 50 families should be taxed more, and would not miss the money.
My last question about this is this:
How many who support this have, at the end of the year when all the bills were paid, the Christmas presents bought, and another year was ready to be put in the books, just gone ahead and sent the rest of their Christmas Bonus to the IRS?
After all, it's extra money.