Leonid, <please read it all before hitting the reply switch>
It seems to me then that you are simply not interested in discussing this subject. Rather you wish to state YOUR position, implyling that all other positions are incorrect and then leave the thread.
Sorry, but this seems a lot like "intolerance" to me. If you're really interested in
"seeing this country becoming more socially conscious and responsible of its own citizens" it would seem that you will have to educate those of us that don't meet your standards.
That's why I asked you to define the term "wealthy". You propose "penalizing" those who accumlate wealth, partially I suppose, through the progressive taxation system.
All right then. Let's look at the stats again:
1998 Tax Statistics
% Of Taxpayers/Income Split Point/Group's Share of Total Taxes
Top 1% - above $269,496 pay 34.8%
Top 5% - above $114,729 pay 53.8%
Top 10% - above $83,220 pay 65.0%
Top 25% - above $50,607 pay 82.7%
Top 50% - above $25,491 pay 95.8%
Bottom 50% - below $25,491 pay 4.2%
I think most people would consider those in the top 1% as "wealthy". They are paying about 35% of the total US tax bill already.
Perhaps most would also consider the top 5% "wealthy" as they are all above "six figures". This group is paying ~54% of all US taxes.
I doubt many would consider the $83k - $114K group as "wealthy". Well-off perhaps but certainly not what most people consider incredibly rich.
So looking at the top 1% and 5% respectively, how much more of the tax burden do you suggest they shoulder? I assume that this would allow releasing those in the bottom 50% from any obligation at all, since the 4% is essentially negligible if we increase the upper bracket share of taxes.
In short, what do you suggest given these statistics? Or do you not want to talk about it other than to generalize that we phillistine capitalists don't meet your personal moral standards?
Further, please look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Surely you've stumbled across Maslow in your studies?
http://www.connect.net/georgen/maslow.htm "Maslow set up a hierarchical theory of needs. The animal or physical needs were placed at the bottom, and the human needs at the top. This hierarchic theory can be seen as a pyramid, with the base occupied be people who are not focused on values, but just staying alive. A person who is starving dreams about food, thinks about food and nothing else.
Each level of the pyramid is some what dependent on the previous level for most people. <Note: I think this is a KEY point. You move up one level at a time, without skipping a level. Toad> Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (rephrased) includes seven levels:
Physiological Needs. Biological needs such as oxygen, food, water, warmth/coolness, protection from storms and so forth. These needs are the strongest because if deprived, the person could or would die.
Safety Needs. Felt by adults during emergencies, periods of disorganization in the social structure (such as widespread rioting). Felt more frequently by children who often display signs of insecurity and their need to be safe.
Love, Affection and Belongingness Needs. The needs to escape loneliness and alienation and give (and receive) love, affection and the sense of belonging.
Esteem Needs. Need for a stable, firmly based, high level of self-respect, and respect from others in order to feel satisfied, self confident and valuable. If these needs are not met, the person feels inferior, weak, helpless and worthless.
Self-actualization Needs. Maslow describes self-actualization as an ongoing process. Self-actualizing people are... involved in a cause outside their own skin. The are devoted, work at something, something very precious to them--some calling or vocation, in the old sense, the priestly sense. When you select out of a careful study, very fine and healthy people, strong people, creative people, saintly people, sagacious people... you get a different view of mankind. You ask how tall can people grow, what can a human being become?"
Leonid, I will suggest to you, given Maslow's theory, that "wealth" is not necessarily dependent upon income. I will suggest that "true wealth" begins when one has reached the "self-actualization" level of Maslow's hierarchy. Further, my hypothesis is that, until that point, no matter how much money a person makes, that individual isn't going to be truly interested in creating your personal idea of a basically "socialist utopia" here in the US.
Obviously, different people reach that level in different ways. I suspect Mother Teresa reached it much earlier and with far less money than the johnny-come-lately philanthropist Bill Gates.
My point is, it's NOT just about money, although money (for some) is a key factor in ascending Maslow's pyramid.
Therefore, a simplistic "tax the rich" solution is highly unlikely to generate the necessary level of Self-Actualization Needs that will accomplish your personal goals for the US.
In fact, I think it is likely to have exactly the opposite effect on those that have the most to share. It may well delay the reaching of the Self-Actualization level in those most able to "do good works".
Sorry this is so long.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 02-10-2001).]
