Those who argue that the rich should not pay "their share" because they provide jobs have it wrong, not only because society needs to function, but because the rich owe a debt to the society they have been allowed to "grow up" and operate in.

They built factories using roads, bridges, cities, developed land, infrastructure...and all that was paid for by the taxes of the people before them...and continue to benefit from a government that operates on annual budgets based on taxes. Some would argue, and the argument has merit, that the rich and large corporations actually influence government to pass laws for their sole benefit because they hire lobbyists, make large campaign contributions etc.

They also had an idea that was based on the work and research of others, with lots of that developed in public institutions. For example, there are huge spinoffs because of the American space program. You are using the internet today because it developed from a US Department of Defence project, then a publicly funded University research project. Very little is original thinking.

Now no one would argue that they should not be able to keep their fair share, but to argue that they should only pay a minimal amount because they create jobs is misleading and plain wrong.

Warren Buffet himself says taxes for the rich should go up. He says it is unfair that he pays less tax on his investment income that his secretary does. Buffett noted that he was taxed at 17.4 percent of his $46 million of taxable income last year, while his staff of 20 pays from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

Here's a good article to read
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/daily-money/tax-rates-of-the-super-rich-not-as-high-as-those-making-much-less/2658/?tag=content;col1


It is also about the optics.

Winston Churchill noted that people can collectively carry huge burdens, as long as they see everyone is carrying their fair share.

But that is not happening. I noted before that America's middle class has been gutted and it is true...more riches have been shifted to the wealthy few in the last decade or so...the poor are far more poor now, and the middle class has slid backwards, with many losing their jobs and houses.

Corporate CEOs earn on average just over 300 times what the rank and file earns, (2006 numbers) and that number was 30 times a few decades back.

Check this study out,
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
It details wealth and income distributuion in the US

Now I don't have an answer, that is the job of the politicians, the people who elect them, and the rule of law. But I can see that if politicians only focus on their own political agendas, and corporate America keeps going on this path, then protests will keep spreading. Moreover, if they do not yield change, then it could very well end up, as Scott says, in anarchy. History has proven that revolution starts because those revolting do not see themselves as being treated equally, and in fact, subject to the chosen few, who do all they can to hang on to their power.

Now I don't think the USA is anywhere near that point yet, and it is still, despite its issues, a great place to live, BUT its problems, including poverty and the inequitable distribution of income and wealth, MUST be dealt with.



If writing ever becomes work I think I'm going to have to stop