do rich people deserve their money?

like $2,000,000 is really rich and greedy, they most likely did something illegal to obtain that much American money. Meanwhile Joe the Plumber is starving and can't feed his dog because the fat cat is buying jets with our taxes. They still waste all their money on blu-ray disks maybe they should give 60% to the unemployed so they can buy just used dvds? it costs $1.50 to print a $1 bill now, we gotta think how we can stretch our dollar to pull out of this terrible economic crisis

all the country's must work as a team

If you said $2B, then yes that is pretty wealthy. $2M US currency is still a good amount, but not considered really rich. Again, the words you use and how people define will differ, and make this argument endless.

I disagree with the original post either way.

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? 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.)

Well, there is the concept of a social contract we must adhere to if we are to live in a civilized society.

For instance, I don't have kids, yet I happily pay my share towards school and library taxes because it keeps the kids in my community involved in constructive pastimes. And everyone benefits from that, whether directly or indirectly.

I completely agree with Ntang in that basic healthcare, among other things, should be accessible to everyone. This is hardly socialism. Access to basic preventive healthcare will for instance free up emergency room services for everyone, and reduce comprehensive healthcare premiums for everyone. People are invariably going to get sick and you can't imagine how terrible it must be to go to the ER with a serious ailment and get stuck in a queue 2 hours deep because people without access to basic healthcare waited until the last possible minute to seek medical attention for what started as a simple ailment.

A flat tax in it's purest form does not make sense. While someone making $200,000 and someone making $30,000 could each pay 15% of their incomes in taxes, taking $4,500 away in taxes from an individual who barely makes $30,000 is significantly different than making the other pay $30,000 in taxes.

Ever notice that the only folks who are really enthusiastic about the flat tax are the ones making enough for it not to matter? Heh heh.

Lofty philosophical debates about the role of government and the citizenry aside, it makes not a lick of sense that we have a grossly overinflated military budget and wage wars of choice on the other side of the world while forty million of our own citizens can't even see a doctor if they (or their kid) gets pneumonia. Period.

I've got a question for the original poster (samloco). Mate how you define "DESERVE" ? Did the dude who worked his backside off 12 hours a day for 30 years sitting on a 2 million dollar retirement fund deserve it more than say the son of a billionaire who gets 2 mill in his trust fund allowance ? Gross generalisations are hardly a good catalyst for healthy debate.

Hey im not judgeing anyone but u know this "land of the free" is not so free. can i just shoot heroin if i want? no. i cant even smoke pot. well i can but if i do ill be thrown in jail. adults can't even drink beer here until they are 21. america is not free..... we are working for Uncle Sam and sending him taxes. taxed for working our butts off. what if shell the nurse wanted to start a family? she couldn't because Joe the Plumber has 4,000,000 hits on youtube and shes just a hard working American saving lives.

people are suppose to share there money

what good is it gonna do with $2,000,000 in an old mans bank account he's too old for hookers

It sounds like you were not born in the US. I'm very happy that you are in the US. I find it ironic that someone would choose (if you did) to live in the US and complain about the taxes. I'll look for information comparing taxation for nations around the world, but I do believe that the US is not among the highest taxing nations around.

It's also very difficult to compare countries because some may have only an income tax, which would seem very high to those of us in the U.S., but that country may not have any of the other taxes Americans have like property tax, sales tax, etc. Maybe I should call my political science professor from college and ask him to assign this as a research paper to his students

This is the most baffling debate I had this year.

If people have to share their money just because they have plenty (although I don't think $2M should be considered plenty), instead of asking individuals to share his/her wealth, can you draft a letter to China, Japan, or Russia (or any other countries sitting on top of surplus foreign debt) to share their wealth with poor US?

After all, this country is sitting on tons of debt. Other countries should abandon investment in their own infrastructure, education, and society in general. Instead, they should send us the money. In fact, draft a letter to OPEC while you are at it and ask them to share us oil for free since they have plenty.

P.S. - How did this post get kudos 3 times (+3)????

This debate is endless and neither side will convince the other to switch. I respect the views of the otherside, but disagree. I think this is the best way to leave it.

Agreed.

For some reason, I feel like this is some kind of GMAT AWA practice.....

My (liberal) views are pretty well outlined above... but I do find it fascinating how many of the most stridently critical voices of America around the world all want to come here nonetheless. Chinese, Indian, European, to say nothing of the Arabs... folks will rant and rant about how awful the U.S. is for our open society and brass-knuckles capitalism and then beg for a visa to come here to live and work and make money. Sounds like that also applies to the OP.

There are many things about liberalism that I adamantly disagree with, but what I think is best is that regardless of which view a person takes, liberal, conservative, libertarian, or anything else. I truly believe that every person does want the best for America. The road we each believe will get us there is different as is the point of "arrival". The key though is that we are all striving for the best for all. I believe that taking money from those that have earned it legally (Yes there are those that have earned $2M illegally, but I believe those are a rare few that earn it illegally and keep it. Let that be on their own conscience) is wrong because taking away a person's earned wealth is a disincentive to work towards earning that wealth.

For those that propose redistributing wealth, how do we determine the line which is "too much"? Do we start at $2M? What makes someone that has earned $1,999,999 so different from someone that has earned $2,000,000? Would it be a better solution to redistribute wealth according to income? Those earning over $2M must give up 15%, $1.5M to $2M = 12%, $750k to $1.5M = 9%, etc etc etc? If so, how is this any different than the progressive taxation we currently have? Portions of our taxed income does go to programs to help those that are less fortunate such as Medicaid and welfare (etc). It sounds as if the proponents of taking money from the wealthy believe that what the government is doing is not enough. If so, why and what could be done to make these existing programs more effective? Is the argument for redistribution of wealth based upon poverty or the anger at those that have earned the large amounts of wealth? Anger or resentment is not a good motivation for this type of redistribution. While I believe it is still wrong, motivation to help those in need is certainly better than merely anger at those who have attained a lot. Also remember this, few people that have done little or nothing to earn something given to them cherish it the way a person does that has worked hard to earn it. This concept is true whether you're giving someone a $20 item or a $20,000 item. It's human nature to place more value on things we earn ourselves. We feel a sense of ownership in the things we earn on our own, or at least had a significant stake in earning.

people should be allowed to have $20,000 in their bank account after that it gets spread to people who spend all their money on drugs

samlosco, now you're just trolling.

... and hookers.