Argument against Taxing the Rich

Ive been frustrated lately hearing both politicians and citizens talking about raising taxes on the rich as viable source of sustainable income for the government to help curtail its debt issue. Granted it wouldnt be an issue if those in power, on both sides of the aisle, didnt misuse the money allocated to certain things in the first place, and borrow trillions (1,000,000,000,000,000) of dollars that were and are nearly impossible to pay back. But back on topic, those out their claim that the rich dont pay their “fair” share, or they pay a lesser tax rate than those making lesser amounts do, (i.e. Elizabeth Warren’s Secretary as compare to Elizabeth Warren herself…) This is simply nothing but a ploy first off as a lot of multi-millionaires not only get taxed on income but also on Capital gains/dividends, where they have a lot of invested capital, often time accounting for a bigger lump some than their shown incomes. And to dismantle the “fair” argument… what is their fair share? Who determines that is fair? Why do they get to determine it, and how is that fair?

Now not only do I offer those simplistic, maybe even childish arguements but Id like to offer this very solid one.

The income the government brings in due to taxes is done so because people are making wages and their duty as a citizen is to give some of their income to this great nation of ours. Completely reasonable. Now in order to pay taxes, one then must have employment, then because with out no income, there is no taxable amount.

Now if the government were to raise taxes on those who they consider “rich”, which according to number reported out of the Obama administration would be anyone making over 250K, they would be taxing, yes some wealthy CEO’s, Fat Cats, Wall St gurus, etc, but they would also be taxing the heart beat of this country, most small businesses who employ the majority of people. As those business owners are hit with this new tax, they are handed a disincentive to hire and employ more people because they are now losing more money to the government without a choice. Even worse it may force them to layoff workers. Now those 4 potential employees and that 1 who was fired, remain  and become jobless, have no income, and cannot pay taxes. So yes while those making over the 250K mark pay more, less people end up paying into the pot because they simply have no income to pay on.

To add to this on a greater nationwide scale, now business and job growth is stifled. Businesses are more apt to remain complacent not spending or growing because they already have a new cost they didnt have before. After all, businesses are their to produce profit, and breaking even isnt helping anyone. Look at it like this, for every one making 250K or more there are multiple people making less. So while a slight increase in taxes at the top of the payroll may at a slight bump to revenue, it will eventually lead to a lot more people paying small percentages to drop off the map and bring that slight bump down to even or worse, less revenue. Not only that but when there are less people employed there is more reliance on government assistance, which takes more money from the revenue sources, other than what is already being lost.

All in all adding a tax to the rich seems fine and dandy but it really trickles down to everyone below them, to the middle class and lower.  tax increase on rich=less revenue than the money lost due to less employment and added reliance on welfare and government benefits.

Think about it…