Why is the idea of raising taxes on the rich so popular with liberals?

Question

Raising taxes on the rich has never been proven to do anything except reduce the national Tax revenue and stifle investment and drive corporations and the jobs they provide to other countries, Even Bill Clinton understood this. So why is the idea still so popular among liberals?

Answer 1

I believe that they just don't get it. A friend sent me something so I'll pass that along:

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed.

Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party."

Answer 2

Actually, the result is the exact opposite, and that's been proven economically. There are a lot of junk economists out there who still push a voodoo economics platform using highly questionable data and personal ideology, though.

Basically, the premise of your question is that trickle-down economics works, so why do liberals oppose it?

That premise is incorrect... supply side economics does not work. Not all of that money trickles down. It's a nice cheap way to get a short economic boost, but long-term is the cause for recessions because taxation also serves to act as a wealth redistribution.

I know there are some right-wingers who are gagging at the use of the term "wealth redistribution" right now, but that's ideological bunk.

We need some wealth redistribution to keep the economy flowing. Ironically, through wealth redistribution, the wealthy only increase their fortunes long term (Clinton knew this, too) because the true measure of the economy is NOT how well the rich are doing (They're rich... they're always doing well) but rather how well the lower and middle class are doing.

A rising tide floats all boats and when the lower and middle class are doing well, they buy the commodities and services that make the wealthy more wealthy.

The fact is that tax cuts for the wealthy don't produce a measurably greater job bed. A lot of that money stays at the top. Removing a percentage of that is better for everyone. Further, because supply-side economics is an artificial boost (since jobs created through it are not created via the force of the market itself, i.e. the money for those jobs doesn't come through demand) it tends not to produce more jobs, because the lower classes still don't have the resources to buy those goods and services.

Also, that money really has to come from somewhere. Who can afford to give and who really benefits?

Can the person who works at the local supermarket to get by and pay for a small apartment really afford to shoulder the burdens of the rest of society? Of course not.

But the person with six luxury homes can. This person also tends to benefit from government services more as well, so their paying a fair share only makes more sense.

So the situation is really the opposite of the one you've presented. Supply side is a horrible failure.

Answer 3

Aug 2 is the final deadline before default (very serious stuff). DC knows some serious changes HAVE to take place or America doesn't pay her bills. Obama is proposing a decrease in gov spending in conjunction w/ an increase in tax revenue. Corporate America can EASILY be considered as "not paying their fair share" because the loopholes favor them (upper class) more than the rest of Americans. For example ... big oil enjoys 4.4 billion in SPECIAL tax breaks that by design pay for research and development. Why should the taxpayers front this cost ... especially on the heels of big oil's astronomical profits? Here's another thing. Corporate America doesn't care about the high unemployment. They are only in it for the money ... even if it means out sourcing the labor which denies the citizens of valuable jobs. Why should they keep getting tax breaks? So, it's not about RAISING taxes on the rich, it's about getting them to pay their fair share. Now, if you want Obama to raise YOUR taxes I will disagree (unless you are part of the upper crust enjoying the loopholes ... then it's fair share). However, if you want to volunteer to pay more taxes I'm sure that can be accommodated. The money has to come f/ someplace ... or else we're doomed.

Answer 4

Because trickle-down economics rarely works. Most job creation is due to small businesses--not major corporations who are down-sizing and sending jobs overseas because of cheaper labor costs. Also, from Bush's tax cuts, 90% of the cuts were for the top 1% of the salary scale. This is what makes Bush's tax cut different from Kennedy's or Clinton's. Reagan's was based on trickle-down economics, too. It won't reduce the national tax revenue. It will benefit the middle class, who more than not has been excluded from the largest amount of tax relief. Do you think Donald Trump needs a tax cut? Or Joe Schmoe, the taxi driver, with 4 kids who makes $35,000 a year? Bush's tax cut has not stopped jobs from going overseas, nor has it reduced the federal debt. For example, Kodak in Rochester, NY, 15 years ago had 61,000 jobs in the city alone. Now, after downsizing and overseas markets there are only 15,000 jobs remaining. Most have gone to China or Mexico.

Answer 5

Because Bush just cut taxes to the rich, liberals are just trying to level out the field a little more "this" time...but in the long run no one should really be taxed. However to make that a reality we would need to do away with, food stamps, medicaid, medicare, Social Security, Disability, public schools, pell grants, student loans, commodities, farm loans and grants, USDA block grants, rural assistance grants, and more...we would also have to stop waging war on the entire world every 10-20 years. We would need to stop asking for the government to save us from the Katrina's, the FDA would have to be disbanded, FEMA would no longer exist, neither would public parks, or Historic landmarks.

Answer 6

It's not, really. "Tax cuts for the rich" is the drum beat; it's used just to stir up hatred for Bush, who has mostly introduced tax cuts for the poor and very few for the rich.

Democrats care about one thing: raising taxes. That's how they pay for stuff. They have no clue how a country's economics work. That's one reason why we began sliding into a recession near the end of Clinton's term, the first since Carter.

Answer 7

It makes them feel a fuzzy wuzzy inside. If you take from the rich and give to the poor who does that remind you of? Robin Hood.They believe that these rich people must be too rich. The funny thing is . Look at allthe Hollywood liberals. Aren't they rich? I do not see them donating 90% of their money to a good cause. Until they do this , their cries will fall on my deaf ears.

Answer 8

the left winger or liberals specialty is appealing to the poor or minorities..raising taxes is popuar to them it on two fronts. sticking to people who are better off than lots of their members and giving people something for ...nothing...that are used to getting it. the problem is liberals never seem to understand that taxes never help an economy they stifle it and taxing at confiscatory rates as we have now is even worse. they also dont understand that ultimately the working poor or middle class pay for it. the rich just find another tax shelter or loophole.

Answer 9

Because cooperate gains are so high. It used to be about 1to40 now 1to400! Basically it takes the average worker about a year to make as much as his rich boss. To make matters worse they all pay the bare minimum ( much and cannot even get the wage hike promised) they can get away with. That is why!

Answer 10

Well when the rich get richer they are supposed to re invest and create jobs. Instead they decided to sell of these jobs to foreign countries to maximize short term profits.
So I guess it's pay backs for "selling off" the USA.