Reasons for Taxing the Rich

One reason I have for advocating taxing the rich is that I am not one of them. Aside from that obvious and selfish reason it makes good sense to "rob" the rich and give to the poor. The reasons for doing so are the same as they were back in Robin Hood's day--the rich then were busy robbing the poor and otherwise keeping them down-trodden, using government goons--the Sheriff and the tax collector.
The Rich have been very successful so far in convincing the masses that it is only fair that the middle-class are the ones to be taxed rather than the Rich. The middle-class have fallen into a tax trap of their own making, one designed for them by the Rich.
A rationale being bandied about by proponents for the Rich is that the Estate (Death) Tax is unfair; because it is a tax on money already taxed. It is not much of an argument. We all pay taxes on things already taxed, as well as paying taxes on taxes; and no one makes a big squawk about the unfairness of that.
Then too, is a Rich person more worthy to receive medical care than a poor person? He or she is if we create a tax system envisioned by the Rich.
Their reasoning is, "why should the Rich pay for medical care for those who cannot afford it?" "It simply is not "fair" to take money from someone and give it to someone else". Yet taxes are now being levied on the lower and middle-class to help subsidize corporations and their CEOs. Is that fair?
Why should someone, who has had all the advantages of "class"; connections, inheritance, fortune, and a good education; have more "health rights" than someone who has been born more or less to poverty, lacks opportunities, fortune, and has a mediocre education? Hasn't taxes been the great societal equalizer, diffusing, at least in appearance, the boundary lines of class and reducing to some extent the tyranny of the Rich?
Then too, I'd argue that the Rich don't seem to mind giving money away--look at all the $100,000 diner donations made to political campaigns. Since it is maintained that there is no "quid pro quo" the money therefore means little to them, why shouldn't they then opt to pay more taxes, to give back some of the "blessings" they have received from our way of life; for where else can you make $30,000 for every dollar invested in politicians? (Kevin Phillips', "Wealth and Democracy")
"Taxing the Rich means less money to invest, and investment is important because it creates jobs". The argument they make, that investing creates (significantly) more jobs, is a bogus one for, from what I've seen, investments end up buying equipment that makes workers more efficient; which means fewer workers are needed to do the same amount of work. Investors are antagonistic to labor, they are "not" going to give labor any more power, by increasing their numbers, than is absolutely necessary.
"Investments" and "jobs" are words often said in the same breath. Investments do not "guarantee" the creation of jobs; in fact an investment may instead result in a manufacturing company obtaining the finances needed to move south of the border, or overseas.
Investments have also been used in the past to buy up and merge large companies; which invariably meant workers would be laid off.
In the Reagan era, as well as now, large companies were bought and their assets sold, than allowed to go bankrupt. This callous strategy created large profits for the major investors, but was a major disaster to the workers, many of whom had worked for the company up to 20 years.
The big corporations do not have any loyalty to their workers, who are often laid off so that their companies will make a big profit. The investor's bottom line is to make that quick buck, regardless of who gets hurt.
Enron brought to light just how the Rich have been getting rich, and richer, by robbing the small investors, pensioners, and even their own employees, by falsifying company earnings, cashing out their stocks before they tanked, and not "expensing" their stock options.
It is estimated that the CEOs of 4500 of our largest corporations engaged in similar schemes, but by being less "greedy", had less impact on their corporation's earnings, thus escaping the wrath of their stockholders and attention from the SEC.
CEOs ae now getting 1000 times the salary of that of the average worker; compare that to their European counter-parts, who make 70 times the average worker. U.S. CEOs salaries are not linked to company performance; that means if a company loses money the CEOs still get their "big bucks". If a worker doesn't "produce" he gets canned. Talk about a "stacked deck"!
However, the people have a choice of whether they want "Corporate Welfare" or "Social Welfare".
If you choose to eliminate "social welfare" you can kiss good-bye to child services, public schools, public health services, regulators, food inspectors, infrastructure (roads, bridges, sewer, water, parks, etc.); with no "corporate welfare" you can kiss good-bye to Boeing, Lockheed, Bechtel, Halliburton, GE and many others who have been feeding from the government trough. It is a simple case of who gets the benefits--the Rich, or everyone else. Talk about who gets the benefits, the type of tax is also important.
The Rich would love to have a "Consumption" tax--because they have the "choice" of where to consume--The Riviera, Monaco, Switzerland, Paris, Bahamas--and the Rich do not consume "essentials"; food, clothing, toothpaste, etc. at much of a greater rate than those of the non-Rich.
Most "luxury" items are already have "consumption" taxes, so there would be little difference in tax revenues there. No, a consumption tax would be a real boon to the Rich as it would significantly lower their taxes as well as reducing the costs involved in finding all those loop-holes.
No, I don't get all choked up about the taxes the Rich have to pay. They are better off than ever before and their contributions to political parties and candidates assure that they always have loopholes to slip through if the going gets too rough. The Rich have many ways to make up for the "losses" that the lower classes don't have.
Dodges, such as buying a painting for $100,000 then in a few years, when the tax load is heavy, donate it to a non-profit at a value of $250,000 or more, which means they pay a lot less in taxes due to a healthy deduction. Talk about "leveraging" an investment.
Making the Rich pay high taxes is a form of insurance for the rest of us. It results in their having less money available to subvert our Democracy; reducing their ability to buy up TV Networks, Radio Stations, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, financing "Think Tanks", and their "ace-in-the-hole" the politician. The ownership of media outlets increases their "power" exponentially--Fox News comes to mind.
No, taxing the Rich would be like "turn about is fair play"; an indirect means, but a means never-the-less, of getting back some of what they have robbed from us. A little justice maybe?
(Definition of Rich: The Rich know who they are, and how they got that way. Some people have a lot of money, like Michael Jackson, but they are not rich. They are just people with a lot of money. Some people have power, like Reagan did, and G.W. Bush has now, but they got that power by of knowing and associating with the Rich--get the idea?)