Ntang wrote:
This poster is clearly lives on the moon. Or something.
That said, I really do not have much sympathy for the argument that folks making seven-figure incomes are just exceptionally hard working or brilliant. While that might be true for a very, very small group, most of the folks who do so are either very lucky or just born into very auspicious circumstances. It's unfortunate that many folks in our socioeconomic subset tend to forget that, and have this delusion that they're all self-made (wo)men. Moreover, the conditions that allow for making that kind of money - or any money at all, really - rely on the framework of strong institutions and regulation by government. Progressive taxation isn't just fair, it's necessary.
For that matter, let's be careful about throwing around the term "socialist." Compared to the United States of, say, 1950, we're well into pinko territory now. Social security? Medicare/Medicaid? Unemployment insurance? Welfare? A highway tax? Free enterprise and capitalism are two of the strongest engines for economic growth in the world, and we obviously ought to respect that - but is it really "socialist" to insist that all people have access to basic medical care? YES, it is. Or that the uber-wealthy should have to pay more in taxes? When you're making seven (or eight, or nine, or...) figures a year, even after taxes, the incentive to make more is obviously going to remain.
And two million is very, very rich. If you don't see that... uh, I dunno what to tell you.
Just my two (or three) cents.
I believe that progressive taxation, like currently exists in the US is wrong. Each person should be asked to contribute to the tax base according to what each person is able to. If you make $10k a year or $10M a year, I think the same % should apply. (Otherwise known as a flat tax.)
Most of these debates all come down to a person's view of what role government should play. I believe that government is supposed to do for the people the things which the people (as a whole) cannot do for themselves.
This is not to be taken as "what a group of people cannot do for themselves". One example of this would be defending your property. Someone with a mansion and the means could hire private guards and security to protect his property while someone that has less could not afford to hire private security. It makes sense then for the government to provide for security for all. Safety is a basic need. Healthcare is not. There is no sense of community with healthcare as there is safety (but I do acknowledge that there is a counter argument to this such as with the plague. If many people get sick, and disease is everywhere, then even those with healthcare could get sick and die.)