When you study political theory, it doesn't take long before you start getting uncomfortable with the advantages that wealth affords in American politics. To reduce the problem to its essence: Other things being equal, the more money you possess in America, the greater your opportunities for influencing politics, elections, and policymaking.
That's problematic in a republic in which we're all supposed to have equal political rights, and an equal opportunity to influence political outcomes. It just seems wrong that the wealthy should have more political influence than the rest of us, simply by virtue of having more money.
But if you follow that logic, doesn't it also seem wrong that the only tax increase anyone is talking about to deal with our debt/deficit problem is one that will be imposed solely on the wealthy?
Our debt--and the annual deficits that contribute to it--is a national problem. Every man, woman, and child in this country owns an equal-sized piece of it.
Ask yourself, therefore, why it's okay to say that the rich should pay more to solve the problem, simply because they have the means to do so.
Footnote: An obvious response is, "We're not asking them to pay more 'simply because they have the means to do so.' We're asking them to pay more because they're not paying their fair share. That's the way it's been since 1981. They get big, fat tax cuts while the rest of us get the crumbs. So let them do their part."
Okay, NOW you've got my attention. All you need to do is tell me what their "fair share" is, what "their part" of deficit reduction ought to be, and why--you know, should it be half of their income? three-quarters? should the wealthy account for 60% of total income and capital gains taxes paid? 85%? 90%? and whatever number you pick, why are you picking that number in particular--for example, what makes 75% fair, rather than being too low or too high?--and I'll be more than willing to give you a respectful hearing.
Comments