More to the point, a wealthy person probably will get better care for his broken arm than a poor person. That's what this is about. The wealthy get better teachers, better healthcare, nutrition, dentistry, haircuts, skin cream, therapy, tutoring, professionally written resumes, etc. It all goes to why they have an advantage over those who are not as wealthy. No matter how hard a poor person tries, the wealthy person has the edge. Let's face it - it's wealthy people typically who do the hiring. People will typically hire people who are like themselves - it's human nature.

So?

I have... that has nothing to do with anything.
I choose to have one.
To try to force it is wrong.
You cannot, and should not, try to make someone care.

So, unless wealthy people have a monopoly on talent, ability and worth, they are depriving society of the benefits that could be gleaned from t hose who do not come from a wealthy background.

That is called natural selection.

no. society skews 'natural selection' to favour an unnatural set of criteria.

If you choose to live in a society and benefit from doing so, you should have one. If you don't, the state has a responsibility to make you do so because you have benefitted from the state.

Nothing occurs outside of nature.

At the risk of sounding like Ebeneezer, that is what taxes are for... I believe each should be taxed per-capita, not one group more than another.
I don't understand you...
Are you saying you want to get rid of social programs and rape the rich for it?

True enough, but plenty occurs within nature. Natural tendencies can be subverted by societal norms.

It's actually unnatural. Natural selection would be for the "best person" to succeed. Her the "most connected person" to win. The one who was given more just because his parents had wealth.

Including stepped tax rates. So what?

Sure... which is why the rich have a vested interest in continuing the current system that allows them to get out of most taxes the rest of us pays.
If you want them to have to pay like everyone else, tax them like everyone else... duh!

"Social norms" is our system of natural selection... "just because" they have wealth is it's determiner. Way it is.
& one has to hang on to the wealth and do something with it... a hell of a lot more than a "just because". It is called swimming with sharks for a reason.

So now your problem is that the rich pay too few taxes?

A = A

I have a problem with the tax system as it is. I feel all should pay a flat percentage of what they earn or spend... I could care less which.
Rich or poor. I have heard the argument that this would be easier on the rich. Bullshit, no easier than it is now. Being rich is easier, it should be.
Many want the rich to be taxed MORE than poorer people.
This is wrong. Not only is it unethical, but it encourages them to do what happens now... take over the tax system and rig it with loop-holes so they don't have to pay as much in taxes, or any at all.
I have some extremely rich family who have told me that if they did not want to pay taxes that they would not have to and that they have peers that make money off of the tax system. I also know that for what they make they pay a lower percentage than most.
The reason that there is so much resistance in government to a flat tax is that the rich are in control of it and they don't want it because they will pay more... not because the poor will, that is a scare tactic.
By doing this we would eliminate a sales tax (the states would just get a percentage), it would be easier on the poor and middle class.

Ok, well from what I've read here, and I've only skimmed the last few pages to get up to date, it seems to me that some here think that if you are super rich, you should be taxed higher to support those who do not make as much money. Or, if that doesn't follow, then they at least think that if you are not one of the super rich, then you will need to become dependant on the government to meet your needs. I would argue that it is not the government's job to take the place of charities, as well it is not the governments job to redistribute wealth, regardless of how hard one may think the rich had to pay for it. Now, maybe in a traditional sense, an executive may not work 'hard', but they are worth what they are paid. Now before anyone craps thier pants from what i just said, let me say it again... EXECUTIVES ARE WORTH THEIR PAY, and here is why.

While the U.S. economy is not a capitalist economy in its pure form, it is capitalistic. One of the fundamental concepts of capitalism is supply and demand. Most people only think of supply and demand when it comes to how much you might pay for a certain good or service, however you can apply the same idea to the labor force. You can take any job and an employer will only be willing to pay up to a certain amount to fill that position (demand). At different levels of pay, different amounts of people will be willing to work and become part of the labor force (supply). So for the people who may not be making much for their efforts, know that there is a supply of people who would do the job for the same or less, which keeps pay down. That is one reason unions are effective, they essentially cut off the supply from the people who demand it.

While most people at the bottom of an organization may not see it or know it, executives play an important role in a company. They are the leaders, they set strategy, decide on production levels, prices, they make all the important business decisions and have to do all of this while trying to stay competitive in a global economy. Now, when you look at a good executive, a company is going to pay a lot of money for that person. Good executives are hard to come by. Ok, a small company is not going to have the resources to pay for one, but a large, fortune 500 company is, and when they are depending on the leadership and vision a good executive has, they are going to pay them a lot. It is more of an investment, in that if they pick the right one, they can turn around a company and make them more money in the long run. If they can't pay them what they are worth, they will leave to work somewhere else, possibly even a competitor.

Take Bill Gates for instance. What is a 'fair' rate to tax the richest man in the world? He is a college dropout who created one of the most sucessful companies in the world, and most of his wealth has come from appreciation in Microsoft stock as well as what he made from Microsoft. Once the company matured, how much work do you think he did? Should he be taxed more than the rest of the population? Is it the governments job to decide that even? If you think he should be taxed more for the benefit of the 'less fortunate', consider this. As a wealthy individual, he created the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The foundation's grants have provided funds for college scholarships for under-represented minorities, AIDS prevention, diseases prevalent in third world countries, and other causes. The Foundation has also pledged over $7 billion to its various causes, including $1 billion to the United Negro College Fund. Also consider that this is not the exception, but a norm with wealthy. Most don't hoard their wealth. Warren Buffett matches all of Gate's contributions to the foundation. Would that money be better spent by the government? Most can agree that if the government had that extra money, it would end up in 'pork' projects rather than in the hands of the less fortunate. So rather than take their money, let us put more responsibility on the shoulders of the people so their is less dependancy on the government, as well as also more hope and faith that people will continue to be generous with their money for the causes they believe in rather than give it to the government in the form of taxes to be spent on causes the government believes in.

I know... long and rambling, but now I've said my piece. have a superb day