When discussing taxing the rich, how do they miss this point? If the military

[brewens]

protects us and our property, shouldn't the people with the most property expect to pay more? The military is one of the biggest expenses for taxpayers. How do the wealthy expect to get off cheaper on that?

Other areas of the budget they can at least claim that they are against that spending. Not military spending though. They are always all for that.

[ErikJ]

1. JEFFERSON SAID TAX RICH GEOMETRICALLY-

As Jefferson said in a 1785 letter to James Madison, "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
-----------------------
As Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1784, "Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." And, as earlier noted, as wealth rises, so should taxes -- "geometrically."

[Bigmack]

2. I've used the same argument about local property taxes....

If ya' got more to protect, you should pay more.

You need to pay more taxes on your home because the cops, courts, and laws protect you more than the guy in the trailer living in the woods.

[brewens]

4. I'd also like to see an analysis of what the 1% makes directly off the taxpayers. Like people

invested heavily in arms manufacturers. Look at a CEO of one of those corporations. His income could be almost 100% taxpayer funded. The same could be said for a lot of people that earned their fortunes in the private sector. Microsoft with massive government contracts, pharmaceutical companies selling to Medicare and the V.A.

I'd like to know how many of the 1% actually make more directly off of the taxpayers than they pay in taxes.

[JDPriestly]

7. +1000

[99th_Monkey]

3. Not to mention local police and fire protection

the more someone has to "protect", the more it costs ALL of us; so
there is a legitimate equity issue here. The fatter the cat, the more
they should pay on both fronts.

[ErikJ]

5. Flat tax.

The Cons will just say, "then have a flat tax with no loopholes."

So the real rationale is that as Jefferson and Madison say, those taxes should be in proportion to that which you can AFFORD. So a guy making a million a year can pay a geometrical rate above that of the average employee.

The other rationale Thom Hartmann always gives is that the rich use a much higher proportion of the COMMONS to make their fortune. Their employees have all been educated at public expense, they use 1000 times mor eof the public roads to make their fortune, the courts and legal system etc. So they should rightly pay a GEOMETRIC ALLY higher proportion. In the 1950's the top tax rate on the rich was 92%.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

6. Another amusing catch 22

The rich also have the furthest to fall is the system should someday collapse under its own weight.

(Of course the smart zillionaires probably have their mountaintop fortresses already prepared. As soon as things go to hell, they jump in a helicopter and they're all set to sit out the food wars.)