Taxes should be decreased for the Rich

Point 1: How does the rich spending their money put regular people in a bind? In fact, it helps them by giving them more money and getting them employed. "Rich people also spend a lot of money. And in so doing, they provide a lot of employment for those lower down the income scale. Frank notes that the top five percent of earners today account for more than 37 percent of consumer outlays. "Most Americans are very strapped for cash, so they're not spending," said Frank. "And at the top you have an arms race in status spending and conspicuous consumption, which, love it or hate it, creates la lot of jobs."[1] "The top 5%, those making about $150,000 or more, account for 37% percent of all consumer spending, about as much as the bottom 80% put together."[2] Point 2: It doesn't work like that anymore. The Government generally gets blamed for economic problems. "Poll: 51% still blame George W. Bush for economy"[3] That's at least 51% of the population blaming the Government, specifically George W. Bush. "The reason we're most likely to believe that is it takes capital to start businesses generally, and usually the people that have capital are going to be wealthy."[4] "The President's new taxes could threaten to destroy up to 1.2 million jobs per year and would cost small businesses $74 billion annually. Americans making more than $150,000 spend an average of $125,000 per year – enough to support more than two middle-class jobs."[2] Take away money from the rich, you lose jobs. Point 3: The U.S. has the most progressive tax system among OCED Nations. And what's with your statement with this point? I don't get it. "The typical household with over $1 million in income will pay an average of 29.1 percent in taxes this year. The typical household making between $50K and $75K will pay 15 percent in taxes. Lower income households (below $50K) will pay an average of 12.5 percent in federal taxes (virtually 100 percent in the form of Social Security taxes)."[5] "America has the most progressive tax system. The top 10% of households pay 45% of all U.S. taxes, a higher tax burden on upper income earners than any other industrialized nation."[2] Is this fair? Is this what Obama calls economic fairness? No! He wants to make the tax system even more progressive! Point 4: "the rich are often the ones that are providing more of the money that valuable charities need to survive and thrive, these charities are more important than government imposed services because they are funded by choice, not by force."[6] "Charities in the United States play a vital role in areas such as education, health care, community development, and meeting the needs of the poor. In 2008, those making more than $200,000 accounted for 36 percent of all charitable contributions. Raising taxes on these individuals and families will leave them with less money to contribute to charities.[2] Convinced yet? And as a side note: "Whereas someone in the 39.6% tax bracket could previously give $1,000 of earnings to a charity without having to pay taxes on those earnings, the itemized deduction limitation would mean that $116 of their previous donation would be taken away in taxes, leaving only $884 left to give to charity."[2] Attack Point 1: These taxes are almost worthless. "Sowell explains that high taxes don't really effect the rich because they can hide their money in ways the common small business owner can't. Your local restaurant owner, your gas station owner,your car lot owner, your retail store owner or your factory owner won't have access to loop holes."[7] "Squeezing the rich doesn't work. Despite marginal tax rates as high as 90% and as low as 28%, federal tax revenues have remained fairly constant around 18% of GDP."[2] [1]:http://finance.yahoo.com... [2]:http://www.demint.senate.gov... [3]:http://www.politico.com... [4]:http://www.miller-mccune.com... [5]:http://www.newsmax.com... [6]:http://debates.juggle.com... [7]:http://freadomnation.blogspot.com...