Question
In the United States, are the rich paying enough taxes?
Answer
There are more actual facts here than the polarized left/right leaning answers suggest. Look at this excellent 2002 piece by Krugman in the NYT.
http://bit.ly/dS7gEt
Short answer: yes, they pay too little, and it is not entirely a matter of ideological opinion, but a conclusion based on benchmarking against historical levels about which we have data about the consequences. We are now back at Robber Baron era levels of income inequality, which most people agree, did not have healthy consequences in an objective sense.
Income inequality is not just a question of who deserves how much and whether the world is/should be "fair" and Ayn Randish OR communist rhetoric. There are predictable correlations between income inequality and economic performance, social stability, crime etc. Too low (communism) and too high (predatory capitalism) are both massively damaging in an almost objective sense. The trick is to find the right level...
In modeling income inequality correctly, you also need to account for, and adjust for, the fact that taxation policy is figured out under conditions of extreme moral hazard. Neither the rich, nor the poor, are saints. Whoever dominates the policy-making will put in at least some bias to favor themselves. A few rare people like Warren Buffet may loudly assert that they aren't being taxed enough (he did this at some point), but most rich people will use their moral-hazard levers (campaign contributions etc.) to their advantage.
The poor are not much better. A few poor people may proclaim, despite their personal destitution, that hardworking entrepreneur millionaires deserve their riches. Most will attempt to whine their way to a hand out if they can.
If the poor find the right moral-hazard levers (currently they don't have many), they'll find ways to make themselves better off, in ways ranging from sending the rich to the guillotine, to looting during a riot, to trying to keep houses that they can't afford the mortgage payments on. You only have to look at historical periods like when the citizenry of Rome with their free bread, or when the poor in Britain were benefiting alongside the rich in the "let's loot the colonies" 17th/18th centuries, to realize that the poor don't exactly complain when they are allowed to join in predatory regimes.
Funny how all policy questions become somewhat easier when you base your model on the idea that all humans are flawed and slightly evil. Step 1 to thoughtful analysis of any policy question is nearly always to make the moral high ground off limits to all parties. Except in extreme cases like slavery, nobody is any more moral than anybody else.
http://bit.ly/dS7gEt
Short answer: yes, they pay too little, and it is not entirely a matter of ideological opinion, but a conclusion based on benchmarking against historical levels about which we have data about the consequences. We are now back at Robber Baron era levels of income inequality, which most people agree, did not have healthy consequences in an objective sense.
Income inequality is not just a question of who deserves how much and whether the world is/should be "fair" and Ayn Randish OR communist rhetoric. There are predictable correlations between income inequality and economic performance, social stability, crime etc. Too low (communism) and too high (predatory capitalism) are both massively damaging in an almost objective sense. The trick is to find the right level...
In modeling income inequality correctly, you also need to account for, and adjust for, the fact that taxation policy is figured out under conditions of extreme moral hazard. Neither the rich, nor the poor, are saints. Whoever dominates the policy-making will put in at least some bias to favor themselves. A few rare people like Warren Buffet may loudly assert that they aren't being taxed enough (he did this at some point), but most rich people will use their moral-hazard levers (campaign contributions etc.) to their advantage.
The poor are not much better. A few poor people may proclaim, despite their personal destitution, that hardworking entrepreneur millionaires deserve their riches. Most will attempt to whine their way to a hand out if they can.
If the poor find the right moral-hazard levers (currently they don't have many), they'll find ways to make themselves better off, in ways ranging from sending the rich to the guillotine, to looting during a riot, to trying to keep houses that they can't afford the mortgage payments on. You only have to look at historical periods like when the citizenry of Rome with their free bread, or when the poor in Britain were benefiting alongside the rich in the "let's loot the colonies" 17th/18th centuries, to realize that the poor don't exactly complain when they are allowed to join in predatory regimes.
Funny how all policy questions become somewhat easier when you base your model on the idea that all humans are flawed and slightly evil. Step 1 to thoughtful analysis of any policy question is nearly always to make the moral high ground off limits to all parties. Except in extreme cases like slavery, nobody is any more moral than anybody else.