If we taxed the rich more, how would it affect job creation?

[eleison]

Originally posted by: JKing106
I have thought about it, and I don't have a problem with it, because I'm not fucking greedy. I don't sit up a night thinking about someone getting food, going to school, driving on a usable road, or being able to call the cops/fire department with my tax money. And yes, $100k a year is a fucking fortune. I grew up in a house that had $30k maximum income. I always had clothes, food, cable television, air conditioning, and even a computer (fucking Vic 20 > Commodore 64 > PC,) and went on vacations every year. I never wanted for anything. You know why? Because my parents never blew their money on bullshit. Don't tell me that's not a lot of money, I fucking lived it. And I'm living it now, and I'm not complaining one iota about paying my taxes. I'm complaining about greedy sociopathic fucks who have more money than they can ever spend trying to fuck blue collar Americans into having to pay more, while they pay less. You want to be rich in America? Pay the fucking piper, or leave.

You are fucking greedy. The rich pay alot of the taxes. Man up and send the US government more money next time.... "Pay the fucking piper, or leave" -- they are in California; heck the mexicans are even leaving... trust me, keep taxing the rich and they will leave. probably a good thing because then you will be made to pay your fair share, freaking free loader...

 

[JKing106]

Not resentful of the rich at all. I don't wan't their money. I don't covet what they have. I'm satisfied with what I already have. I do, however, want them stopped from buying politcians to keep shifting more and more of the tax burden onto the lower and middle classes. And before someone says they pay more, because they have more money, I say bullshit. More than half the population makes less that $50k a year. There's much more of us paying taxes than there are of them.

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: JKing106
I have thought about it, and I don't have a problem with it, because I'm not fucking greedy. I don't sit up a night thinking about someone getting food, going to school, driving on a usable road, or being able to call the cops/fire department with my tax money. And yes, $100k a year is a fucking fortune. I grew up in a house that had $30k maximum income. I always had clothes, food, cable television, air conditioning, and even a computer (fucking Vic 20 > Commodore 64 > PC,) and went on vacations every year. I never wanted for anything. You know why? Because my parents never blew their money on bullshit. Don't tell me that's not a lot of money, I fucking lived it. And I'm living it now, and I'm not complaining one iota about paying my taxes. I'm complaining about greedy sociopathic fucks who have more money than they can ever spend trying to fuck blue collar Americans into having to pay more, while they pay less. You want to be rich in America? Pay the fucking piper, or leave.

You are fucking greedy. The rich pay alot of the taxes. Man up and send the US government more money next time.... "Pay the fucking piper, or leave" -- they are in California; heck the mexicans are even leaving... trust me, keep taxing the rich and they will leave. probably a good thing because then you will be made to pay your fair share, freaking free loader...

You don't fucking know me, jack. I pay my taxes. California ran California into the ground. Put blame where blame is due. And good fucking riddance if they want to leave, someone else will step in to fill the hole, and maybe create some jobs in fucking America, instead of a third world shithole, and not be traitors to their fellow Americans. Do you think the rich the only people in this country smart enough, or motivated enough to start a company? You are fucking moron. Keep sucking that corporate cock, and believing you have a snowball's chance in hell of getting rich. You're exactly the type of idiot who keeps these scumbags living like kings.

 

[Matthiasa]

And each one of them pays a fraction of what the wealthy pay. Make less then a certain amount and they dont even pay taxes at all and lower then that they start to recieve government funding, which depending on the reason can actually be a right thing or total bs depending on the circumstances. And as for not coveting what they have how come you wish them to have higher taxes than what you currently pay. At your income your personal taxes should be marginal.
As for half the population making 50k or less a year, in this country that is almost always due to choice. Straight out of college you can make more then that, or in construction, or in manufacturing unions, or well you get the idea. A persons choice is no reason to punish those that chose to rise above that if they so choose.

Though I will agree with the lobbying thing but i would prefer it to stop across the board not just from the rich, and not just for about taxes.

 

[JKing106]

You don't know what my income is. I never said. Automatically assuming since I'm not screaming about negroes and wetbacks stealing my money? How white of you. And I'm white.

 

[Matthiasa]

You stated you grew up living on 30k a year then said you are living the same now. It is a safe assumption that you are lower middle class at best.

 

[JKing106]

I didn't say I was making $30k a year, I said I was living on less than $100k. I can see where you got that impression, though. I should have worded it differently.

 

[Matthiasa]

Ah oops then about the income, I should have maybe read a more carefully or something.

 

[StageLeft]

Hopefully this will end the discussion.

Nice. Make a thread and then in the first post say you hope it doesn't even become a discussion; so, it's more like a soundboard.

One of the richest men in Western NY has recently decided to move from NY to Florida after the most recent tax increase. If he starts up any new businesses where do you think he'll find his employees?

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Patranus
Less jobs would be created.

That assumes that jobs are created because of the charity of the wealthy.


I really think Republicans want a gilded upper class aristocracy that they can adore and worship.

You are a bozo. It's because they want to make more money. How the hell do you even think that?

R's want a gilded uppercrust? No they want something to aspire to. Dems like to control masses of labor groups, government leechs, and educrats.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: techs


Microsoft needs the US and its military to enforce copyright laws so other countries don't just pirate away Windoze.

:laugh:

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: SammyJr
-snip-
Nonsense. The rich aren't going to leave. They didn't leave when the top rate was 90% after WWII. They're not going to leave now. All things are not equal. The only places with similar quality of life to the U.S. have equal or higher tax rates.

Bill Gates isn't going to move Microsoft anywhere either. Moving Microsoft facilities would cost a tremendous amount of money. He'd lose a lot of access to the U.S. business and Government market. Microsoft will ship some development work abroad and they'd do that regardless of our tax rates.

And make sure you read up on marginal tax rates. The country is full of people who don't get it.

I don't know how you're so sure the rich didn't leave when we had high tax rates after WWII?

IIRC, in the 80's when we had lower taxes than Europe many of them relocated here.

I suspect you're laboring under the mistaken impression that when the wealthy 'relocate' for tax purposes they actually stay in the country of 'tax residence'. That's wrong.

I've done country-by-country tax comparison studies for wealthy people. They are looking to find where their country of (tax - income, estate & gift and wealth tax etc) residence will be. But that has nothing to do with where they actually spend their time. They'll still stay their apartments in NYC, Paris, Switzerland etc. I.e. While the point of the study was to choose the best country of residence for tax purposes, it had no real effect on where they actually spent their time or where they stayed.

BTW: If we raised our income tax rate as significantly as the OP suggests our rate w/b the highest in the world. You do know that many wealthy/famous 'live' in Monaco which has NO income tax? (In fact, there are plenty of nice islands that have no income tax rate. Just buy a mansion there and claim it as your tax residence and go about your normal business.)

The other part of the equation not addressed here so far is that we'd like successful/wealthy people from other countries to move here, that sure as heck won't happen with a 75% income tax rate.

Finaly, high rates encourage evasion; there's no doubt about that. Also, capital would leave the US to be deployed in other lower tax juridictions and that's a negative for us. Plus, the wealthy have a great deal of flexibility as to when they recognize income, they'd be able to plan around this rate increase hoping it would eventually come down. A lot less income would be reported if such a rate went into effect. I do think the very high earners could handle a few more percent in their tax rate, but one must be careful of the psycological effects of an income tax above 50%. When factoring in federal, state, local income tax rates and Medicaid/medicare some are already close to 50% now.

Fern

Well, then, I guess what we need is a race to the bottom until the countries of the world are bidding against each other to pay the rich to live there. Otherwise they might leave!

It should be a bidding war similar to when municipalities offer lower and lower tax rates, and more and more benefits to large companies (Walmart, Home Depot, etc.) in order to get them in their town instead of their neighbors'. Some taxes is better than no taxes.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Patranus
The simple fact of the matter is that historically, lower taxes has lead to the creation of wealth among the middle class and actually increases government revenue.

Your pants are on fire.

QFT
In fact if you look at the top tax rate in the US over the last 70 years the economy did FAR better the HIGHER the top tax rate was.

Really? Why don't we tax the rich 99% and maximize the economy? Enough with this pithy 75% business.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: JKing106
I have thought about it, and I don't have a problem with it, because I'm not fucking greedy. I don't sit up a night thinking about someone getting food, going to school, driving on a usable road, or being able to call the cops/fire department with my tax money. And yes, $100k a year is a fucking fortune. I grew up in a house that had $30k maximum income. I always had clothes, food, cable television, air conditioning, and even a computer (fucking Vic 20 > Commodore 64 > PC,) and went on vacations every year. I never wanted for anything. You know why? Because my parents never blew their money on bullshit. Don't tell me that's not a lot of money, I fucking lived it. And I'm living it now, and I'm not complaining one iota about paying my taxes. I'm complaining about greedy sociopathic fucks who have more money than they can ever spend trying to fuck blue collar Americans into having to pay more, while they pay less. You want to be rich in America? Pay the fucking piper, or leave.

Oh look, another partisan idiot.

Whew; was afraid we were running low on them around here.

 

[teclis1023]

It is important to not only consider the positive assumptions of a proposed policy, but also its normative qualities. While taxing the wealthy 75% may cause the desired effect (though I would assume just for the short time), we need to consider whether it's just.

By treating the wealthy as test subjects for job creation (instead of, say, moving forward with sustainable energy technology projects and mass transport technology) we're necessarily creating inequity in the social order of the United States. While there certainly is a large disparity of inequity, it has primarily been created organically - by dividing the rich, the middle and the poor. But this is the government imposing upon the rich a social status of 'guinea pig'; punishing them for their wealth.

This becomes, truly, taxation without representation (not that BS that the 'tea parties' were claiming). We're massively taxing the wealthy for the purpose of circumventing real organic job creation. And while I don't mind a tiered tax system in which middle and upper class people pay slightly more than lower class people, it's not fair or "American" to impose upon the wealthy such a huge responsibility.

I do support job creation, and I do support a strong social program (health care, welfare, etc.) in America. But I think that the idea of actively punishing the rich by taxing them nearly 150% of the middle class is unjust. This seems to me to be absolutely against the Declaration of Independence, strangely enough.

I like the socialist systems of the Nordic countries, and lived in DK before moving to France; but it's also important to understand the massive deficits that they run, as well as the huge disparity in population size and demographic pluralism. America was built on a different principle, and while I think that we need a stronger social program, this suggestion is just ridiculous.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Craig234

Well, then, I guess what we need is a race to the bottom until the countries of the world are bidding against each other to pay the rich to live there. Otherwise they might leave!

It should be a bidding war similar to when municipalities offer lower and lower tax rates, and more and more benefits to large companies (Walmart, Home Depot, etc.) in order to get them in their town instead of their neighbors'. Some taxes is better than no taxes.

Yes, those are excellent models when the big corporatins are able to buy their way into sweetheart deals that screw the local communities bdly with the massive tax cuts and eliminations and the taxpayers footing the bill for all kinds of infrastructure development for the companies that deplete the government budgets and are unfair to other smaller businesses. Tat's the way to go!

Here's an excertpt of one article on the largest such deal:

At the University of Alabama's Legion Field, there's a long, rich tradition of victory. At the stadium, legendary football coach Bear Bryant and his Crimson Tide posted on of the most successful records in sports history. Now the stadium is the site for yet another Alabama trophy: A huge, $75,000 Mercedes-Benz hood ornament perched atop the scoreboard. While intended to celebrate the German car company's recent decision to locate a $300 million manufacturing plant near Tuscaloosa, it has instead before symbol of how much, in money and self-respect, the state had to give up to win the high-stakes bidding war for the plant.

Not only did Alabama pony up a package of special tax breaks and other goodies for Mercedes valued at roughly $250 million, but it also agreed to buy more than 2,500 of the company's cars for state use. As the details of the deal have leaked out since its announcements last September, citizens have expressed second thoughts about it. "There are a lot of people in Alabama who think we gave the farm away," says state legislator Johnny Cagle. Among state residents, says Auburn University professor Wayne Flynt, reaction to the Mercedes deal has "gone from euphoria to fright."

Clinching The Deal

Alabama's purported Mercedes coup is only one of the latest skirmishes in the bidding wars raging among states to recruit high-profile corporations, particularly manufactures, using taxpayer-backed bonds, tax abatements, special training and infrastructure subsidies, and other sweeteners to clinch the deal. The dollar-amounts continue to rise--the Mercedes deal is thought to be the largest one ever--and so does the controversy.

Here's an excerpt from another article on the issue more generally:

Lurking within the records of most cities and states in America there lies a scandal. A tax scandal. A jobs scandal. A corporate and political scandal.

It's the Great American Jobs Scam: an intentionally constructed system that enables corporations to exact huge taxpayer subsidies by promising quality jobs - and then lets them fail to deliver. The other benefit often promised - higher tax revenues - often proves false or exaggerated as well.
Take for example: New York City, which must hold the record for job blackmail, though it is hardly alone. One study of 80 companies that had received "retention" subsidies from the Big Apple found that at least 39 had later announced major layoffs, or they had entered into large-scale mergers or put themselves up for sale - events that usually trigger mass layoffs....

That the scam could get this far out of hand suggests a profound breakdown in whatever consensus we ever had about corporate responsibility to our society. The way you handle your money is your value system. By their rampant tax dodging, large corporations are collectively saying: We don't care if the schools fall apart and the bridges are crumbling and the public health systems are impoverished and college is becoming unaffordable. We are not all in this together. We are not investing in our communities' futures. We are disinvesting.

The only clear winners are large corporations. In return for building new facilities in many states, companies are actually getting negative income taxes. Subsidy packages routinely exceed $100,000 per job. Guess who's getting stuck with the tab. When the big boys pay less, either the rest of us pay more or the quality of our public services declines - and usually it's some of both.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: JKing106
I have thought about it, and I don't have a problem with it, because I'm not fucking greedy. I don't sit up a night thinking about someone getting food, going to school, driving on a usable road, or being able to call the cops/fire department with my tax money. And yes, $100k a year is a fucking fortune. I grew up in a house that had $30k maximum income. I always had clothes, food, cable television, air conditioning, and even a computer (fucking Vic 20 > Commodore 64 > PC,) and went on vacations every year. I never wanted for anything. You know why? Because my parents never blew their money on bullshit. Don't tell me that's not a lot of money, I fucking lived it. And I'm living it now, and I'm not complaining one iota about paying my taxes. I'm complaining about greedy sociopathic fucks who have more money than they can ever spend trying to fuck blue collar Americans into having to pay more, while they pay less. You want to be rich in America? Pay the fucking piper, or leave.

So what you're saying is you want OTHER people to pay more in taxes because THEY'RE the ones that are greedy?

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Your argument, your analogy, was a right-wing one.

I'm not sure how you figure this. If the landlord raises rent, it's a good bet that plenty of people will search for new homes.

No need to bring politics into that.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: Craig234
Your argument, your analogy, was a right-wing one.

I'm not sure how you figure this. If the landlord raises rent, it's a good bet that plenty of people will search for new homes.

No need to bring politics into that.

Yes, when you completely change your argument so that it's no longer an analogy to goverjnment and ojnly about rent literally, then it's no longer political.

But that was not the argument you posted.

Why are you being disengenuous about that?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard

Originally posted by: JKing106
I have thought about it, and I don't have a problem with it, because I'm not fucking greedy. I don't sit up a night thinking about someone getting food, going to school, driving on a usable road, or being able to call the cops/fire department with my tax money. And yes, $100k a year is a fucking fortune. I grew up in a house that had $30k maximum income. I always had clothes, food, cable television, air conditioning, and even a computer (fucking Vic 20 > Commodore 64 > PC,) and went on vacations every year. I never wanted for anything. You know why? Because my parents never blew their money on bullshit. Don't tell me that's not a lot of money, I fucking lived it. And I'm living it now, and I'm not complaining one iota about paying my taxes. I'm complaining about greedy sociopathic fucks who have more money than they can ever spend trying to fuck blue collar Americans into having to pay more, while they pay less. You want to be rich in America? Pay the fucking piper, or leave.

So what you're saying is you want OTHER people to pay more in taxes because THEY'RE the ones that are greedy?

One of the flaws in your argument is its relativism - 'more' in taxes.

What if Scrooge McDuck had been president and wiped out all taxation of billionares, and then a poster said he wanted to tax them at least 1%, 'to be fair'.

Your response would fit that too - you could attack him for 'wanting others to pay more in taxes'. Your argument doens't account for whether the group is paying low taxes now.

You like so many warriors for the billionares are lacking in common sense as you attack this person who grew up with $30K household income as 'greedy' while you are utterly unable to respond to the issue of the exploitation by the very wealthy that has such harm for most of society. It's just ignorance, IMO. I see these people defend billionares with analogies to their own situation as if there's any comparison. The result is what we are getting - less and less opportunity and wealth for the average American.

The wealthy are used to winning the class war. They have in most of history; they do in most of the world. and they did in the US with a speed bump under FDR as the middle class grew well from the liberal policies, but they are wanting to return to the policies pre-FDR and are making good progress as the middle class is not only directly well off but as it has its appearance of prosperity sitting more and more over big debt - both personal and as a share of the national debt.

These right-wing economic ideologies are a poison to our nation, perhaps the biggest threat our nation faces.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: b2386

Originally posted by: techs
If the super rich want to leave because we raise taxes, I say let the traitors leave.
We should drop them off, with all their money in cash, in Somalia.
Or lets send them to Russia. Putin will have them in jail in a hot minute.
Or I guess they can go to the those Reagan economic republics of Ireland and Iceland. Where the economic collapse could bankrupt them.

Or better yet, just take back from them the money they made because they lived in the US.
Bill Gates would still be a pauper and never had created Microsoft if he lived in any other country on earth.
So let Bill go anywhere he wants. He can take 50 grand with him.
If he is such a great entrepenuer and job creator lets see how he does in Botwsana.

Wow, that sort of thinking is about as un-American as you can get. I am new to this part of the forum so pardon me for asking, but are you being serious?

Un American? You mean people who make alot of money in this country and then threaten to leave because their asked to pay their fair share are patriots?
There freakin leaches who we should all spit on as traitors.
And if you agree with them than you should go somewhere you'll fit in, like China or Russia.

So what is "their fair share". The rich already pay the majority of taxes in this country. They are a small minority but pay around half the total tax revenues. People making over $250k are already paying 35% of that income to the government. Meanwhile, the poor are making far less money and only paying 10-20% of it as tax revenues. So the rich pay more (because they make more) and even more (because they are taxed at a higher percent). They already pay more than their fair share. Remember that the rich don't benefit/need a lot of government services that they are paying for. The rich probably use government services the least yet they pay the most by far. The "fair share" argument doesn't make any sense. If anything you should say that the poor/middle class need to "pay their share."

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: Craig234
Your argument, your analogy, was a right-wing one.

I'm not sure how you figure this. If the landlord raises rent, it's a good bet that plenty of people will search for new homes.

No need to bring politics into that.

Yes, when you completely change your argument so that it's no longer an analogy to goverjnment and ojnly about rent literally, then it's no longer political.

But that was not the argument you posted.

Why are you being disengenuous about that?

It wasn't me that posted the argument ...

Originally posted by: b2386
Let's say I was a tenant in an apartment paying $500 a month for rent. I had an extremely nice landlord who was always on top of things that needed to be fixed or otherwise taken care of. Suppose I received a notice from the landlord on day saying my rent was going to be doubled to $1000 a month. If I told the landlord I was moving out due to the increase in rent, am I somehow betraying the landlord by doing do? Even though he was a great guy who did provide me with a place to live, would you really expect me to be obligated to stay? By your logic, the landlord should throw me out on the street and keep any belongings I had stored inside the apartment. That does not make any sense.

But yes, it seems that it was his argument. B2386 argued that if rent was raised on an apartment significantly, the tenant would probably move out. This seems like a fair analogue for significantly raising taxes on the wealthy. We've seen countless businesses move overseas and outsource jobs, I'm not sure why we wouldn't see the same with wealthy millionaires and billionaires.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: teclis1023
But yes, it seems that it was his argument. B2386 argued that if rent was raised on an apartment significantly, the tenant would probably move out. This seems like a fair analogue for significantly raising taxes on the wealthy. We've seen countless businesses move overseas and outsource jobs, I'm not sure why we wouldn't see the same with wealthy millionaires and billionaires.

No, it's a terrible analogy. It's tedious to get into the various reasons - as debunkinng or deconstructing propaganda often is.

So, to minimize the tedium, I"ll mention a few flaws in the analogy.

One is that it completely eliminates the relevant differences between tax policies and rent- the public policy issues when yiou 'race to the bottom' *only* for the wealthy which necessarily transfers their burden onto everyone else, and doesn't fit in the rent analogy; the opportunities for where you live as a nation are not the same as for a home; there's a hell of a lot higher overhead to leaving the country than to moving into a new residence, and empirical data shows that even in the periods of a top tax rate of 90% and when corporate taxes were a far larger share, you did not see the flight out of the country. In a way, one flaw is that it's like arguing 'the rich are going to flee the best neghborhood for the poor neighborhoods because the rents are far lower'.

It is simply in my opinion a propagandistic argument to try to get yet another concession by society for the very wealthy.

What we should rather be discussing are how to effectively balance the tax system and make that work - including the retention of the wealthy.

 

[teclis1023]

I'm not sure why you keep responding to me as if I wrote the post, but I'm still unconvinced that it's a political propaganda analogy. There's no doubt that comparing rent and tax will result in a large remainder, but in that case, we'd never be able to use analogies in any situation, for fear of discrepancies.

As for whether high tax rates affect residency and job rates, it seems like there is a significant amount of mixed information out in the ether. (http://online.wsj.com/article/...4260067214828295.html) (http://www.therealestateblogge...s-drive-out-the-rich/) (http://www.statesmanjournal.co...PINION/906150310/1049). I'm not really interested in that argument.

But perhaps you should re-read what I've actually posted. I think that taxing a specific class of people at such a high rate is unjust and immoral. It's not because I foster any great love for the ultra-rich, but that doesn't mean it's fair to unload an entire nation's burden onto them simply because they have full pocket books.

I think we absolutely do need to balance the tax system, create stronger social programs and find a way to minimize socio-economic inequity, but that doesn't mean we should take the short-cut of simply unloading it onto one class of people.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: b2386

Originally posted by: techs
If the super rich want to leave because we raise taxes, I say let the traitors leave.
We should drop them off, with all their money in cash, in Somalia.
Or lets send them to Russia. Putin will have them in jail in a hot minute.
Or I guess they can go to the those Reagan economic republics of Ireland and Iceland. Where the economic collapse could bankrupt them.

Or better yet, just take back from them the money they made because they lived in the US.
Bill Gates would still be a pauper and never had created Microsoft if he lived in any other country on earth.
So let Bill go anywhere he wants. He can take 50 grand with him.
If he is such a great entrepenuer and job creator lets see how he does in Botwsana.

Wow, that sort of thinking is about as un-American as you can get. I am new to this part of the forum so pardon me for asking, but are you being serious?

Un American? You mean people who make alot of money in this country and then threaten to leave because their asked to pay their fair share are patriots?
There freakin leaches who we should all spit on as traitors.
And if you agree with them than you should go somewhere you'll fit in, like China or Russia.

So what is "their fair share". The rich already pay the majority of taxes in this country. They are a small minority but pay around half the total tax revenues. People making over $250k are already paying 35% of that income to the government. Meanwhile, the poor are making far less money and only paying 10-20% of it as tax revenues. So the rich pay more (because they make more) and even more (because they are taxed at a higher percent). They already pay more than their fair share. Remember that the rich don't benefit/need a lot of government services that they are paying for. The rich probably use government services the least yet they pay the most by far. The "fair share" argument doesn't make any sense. If anything you should say that the poor/middle class need to "pay their share."

The typical argument, in simple terms, is that even if they were taxed at 50%, they would still be rich, so they should be grateful that a country allowed them to get that way. Proponents of "tax the shit out of the rich" dont think that 1. paying a higher percentage of taxes is fair enough, 2. paying the lion's share of taxes for the country as a whole is fair, and 3. a group who uses the most amount of government resources themselves pays virtually nothing for them...is fair. Its mind boggling, but they think that way. It really comes down to the idea of wealth redistribution, which is loosely based on socialism, meaning everyone as equally as possible shares the benefits of the country as a whole without regard of effort or luck.