Pity the rich, for they are very wet

I think Paul is holding a hose and dousing them as the Rich walk by the Tax Man who, in their moment of shock, reaches in and takes all that money, leaving them with...a lot of money left. How the rich truly suffer.
Hey Paul, why don't you come down and join the rest of us in reality, say teaching a class of children for less than 6 figures and tell us if its worth it?

The rich SHOULD pay more taxes than anyone else because they enjoy the fruits of our society more than anyone else. They don't have to serve in the military, have access to the finest schools and colleges (can always buy their children in if necessary - ex: Bush!)etc. I really don't believe they are taxed so heavily because a) if so, how come the rich are getting richer and the rest of us poorer?, and b) i don't see many of them moving to another (lower taxed?) country.

I read a post recently on the poverty line and what it should be set at, and the blogger suggested that the poverty line should be set at an income level that permits a person to participate in society.

I liked that definition because it gets at the root of the issue from a moral perspective. I don't feel bad for some villager in a 3rd world country making a normal living for his country, even though they don't have indoor plumbing and health insurance. (Of course, when a famine hits we all feel bad.) The reason I don't feel bad is because that persons life is meeting his expectations based on the world and people around him.

I think that attitude applies to the "rich". When someone is so rich that their life no longer intersects in any meaningful way with the rest of us, I don't think that is right. The poor are a part of "us" and the rich are too.

"Do they spill the water on themselves? Pour it over their heads? Bathe in it?"

No, I think it causes them to devolve into another species, let's say, something in the shark family.

Redux...

In case all of you missed my point, I will explain further. First, I find it interesting (yet human I suppose) how so many attack the "rich" whatever "rich" means. Chances are, they have their job because someone took the risk, worked hard and created a company that ultimately employs good hard working folks.

This only happens when there is the incentive to take risk, work hard and invest. Without a strong enough incentive, why do it?

I find it interesting how many people just assume that a rich person just started out that way. While I am sure many do, I believe more do not.

My father was a working class fellow born before the depression. I do not believe he ever made more that $25,000-$30,000 in his best year. Yet he managed to raise five sons, three of which completed a four year college degree (on our own dime I might add). We all hit the ground working at very young ages (shoveling snow, delivering papers, bus boys, lawn mowing, unloading trucks, construction labor, highway labor...you name it, we did it). We worked our way through college, forgoing spring breaks for work (while I suppose those darn rich college kids partied in Florida), but it did not cause me to become bitter.

I for one went to a junior college and finished at a small state school. I paid for all of it myself. I started my company in 1987 using a $750 cash advance from a charge card (as I did not have $750 to incorporate). 20 years later, after years of hard work, risk and sleepless nights, yes the company is now fairly valuable. But most of its value is bestowed on the 26 employees (full time) that have generous salaries, bonuses, health care, sick days, vacations etc. Most would have to take a pay cut to work anywhere else in my town.

It's just amazing how us "sharks" take advantage of the little guy.

Moreover, countless charitable causes are better off due to the significant donations from me and my company. This is true of all of my business owning friends.

Most "rich" folks did not start that way. Most followed a similar path than mine, one full of hard work, risk taking, sacrifice and sleepless nights.

It's time we stop beating on the rich (again, whatever that means) and begin to appreciate them.

President Reagan understood this issue. When the top marginal tax rate stood at 90%, what incentive did he have to make his next movie?

Finally, in answer to your question, well, President Reagan provided that answer more than two decades ago. No we don't bathe in it, or pour it over our heads. You got it, it trickles down to everyone and the rising tide raises all boats.

Hey, YMM...

1. You completely missed my point.

2. The rich never suffer (financially)...but the working man or women always will if the rich have too high of a tax burdern which can reduce the incentive to take risk, work hard and invest in new companies or equipment which employ people.

3. I would love to teach...for free actually. However, I am sure you would not want me to bring a dose of conservative reality to your students. You would rather have them live the (liberal)lie.

4. How would I know if it (teaching) is worth it for less than six figures? I presume you chose your career deliberately, so how come you seem so bitter earing less than six figures?

All the best YMM...

Thanks for the comments, Paul. I don't disagree with your point that the tax code should encourage risk-taking, and I certainly don't want to go back to 90% marginal tax rates.

My argument with Fleischer was simply that the tax burden (that is, the percentage of income paid out in taxes) for the wealthy has gone DOWN over the past three decades. So it's mendacious to imply that it has gone up.