Quote Originally Posted by SadisticNature View Post
I think "allowed to control" is kind of awkward. It seems to suggest society should basically forcibly take away this money at the point of a gun.
I think from a societal perspective such a massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few is very bad. For instance, it has been shown to radically increase crime and cause other problems.

Quote Originally Posted by SadisticNature View Post
I think the question is more: How can one justify decreasing taxes on the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class when the income disparity is so extreme?
When taxes are decrease how is that you see this only as taxes decreased for the "rich" at the "expense" of the "poor & middle class"?


Quote Originally Posted by SadisticNature View Post
In my parents generation the major corporate CEO's earned 20 times what the average worker did. There are CEO's now that earn more in a minute than a minimum wage job holder earns in a year. And if that's what their skills justify than fine. But keep that in mind when you suggest cutting that guys taxes and paying for it by raising taxes on that minimum wage earner.
Show me a time when taxes were cut for the "rich" and raised on the minimum wage earner?


Quote Originally Posted by SadisticNature View Post
Also from the earned perspective, why does it make sense to slash inheritance taxes, it seems to me inheritance is by definition unearned wealth.
Inheritance comes from three sources; wages, investment, or prior inheritance. In all of these instances these funds have already been taxed. Why then should it be taxed again?? In many cases there is a family business involved that suddenly becomes the property of someone else!


Lastly, why have we chosen to tax investment income at a lesser rate than income earned through labor. A long line of those who are claimed to be champions of conservative economics was strongly opposed to this, the likes of which include Adam Smith and Andrew Mellon. The liberal economists have always been against it. Warren Buffet ripped the US government because he paid a lower % on his income than his secretary did, despite earning way more, because investment income is taxed so lightly.[/QUOTE]