If you drive a car, I'll tax the street. If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat. If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat... etc...etc...

After an extremely interesting discussion in AS today about taxes, I thought that I should respond to today's comments in my blog. Today, the class looked at "basically accurate" numbers, showing % of income dedicated to taxes of the upper-class vs the lower-class. The wealthy give about 33% of their income to the government, and the not-so-wealthy give about 15% of their income to the government. O'Bolos asked this question: "In your opinion, is this proportion fair?"

To me, this proportion is very fair. A lot of other students disagreed, asking other critical questions such as: "Shouldn't hard work be rewarded?" and "Wouldn't it be better to have each family dedicate the same percent to taxes? The rich would still pay more."

To respond to: "Shouldn't hard work be rewarded?" This statement implies that people who make less money than a CEO, or another higher-paying job, do not work as hard because they do not make as much money. To me, that is complete phooey. First off, not all people who are wealthy are wealthy because they worked at all. In fact, some people are heirs and heiresses to a fortune that another person made for them. However, we cannot label all wealthy people as such.
But think about this, most low-paying jobs are a necessity for America: factory workers, teachers, nurses, physical laborers, etc. You're telling me that these people don't work hard, and therefore, deserve to throw the same amount of money at the government as people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year? This could put the little guy out of a house and out of a life, and the big guy hardly breaks a sweat. Oh well, I guess the big guy can't get the new plasma screen or invest in the new summer home...
Don't get me wrong, not all people in the upper class spend their money this way, but don't these proportions seem fair to you?

To answer the other question:"Wouldn't it be better to have each family dedicate the same percent to taxes? The rich would still pay more money to the government." I would say no. I completely agreed with Mr. O'Connor this morning, when he made an analogy that put this issue into simpler terms for me:
If a charity comes to your advisery to ask for money, and says, "We'll take 50 percent of what you have on you." The kid with the hundred dollar bill gives 50, and the kid who has two dollars gives one. We are left with Kid A, able to purchase lunch, and Kid B, not able to. So once again, the big guy can float through life, able to survive with what he has with a higher tax percentage. The little guy barely can get through the day with the same percentage. Think about it.
One may say, "If you feel bad for the little guy, but still want people in the upper class to keep their 'hard earned cash,' then lower taxes altogether." This is unrealistic. The government needs money. How are we going to bring ourselves out of debt from this war and other money absorbers if we lower taxes?" Not easily.
This is a really complicated issue, especially relevant with the financial crisis at hand and the upcoming election, and I would really hate to see the middle and lower class suffer from unfair tax policies.
Would anyone else like to argue with me? :)