Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

You're arguing from the assumption that a tax increase on this upper end is some extraordinary repayment of debt it sounds like.I do not believe that I mentioned any particular increase in taxation. As I read it, the passage in question was a general defence of taxation, and not an argument for the levy of new taxes against the wealthy.If, however, I am wrong, and Mr. Obama was in fact attempting to persuade his audience that this particular measure was warranted, I do not see why his argument was framed in terms that can only be read as a strange and ill conceived understanding of the social contract.I believe though that this costs the upper end less in terms of "payment" as far as any decrease in lifestyleOnce more, I am not particularly concerned with the tax about which you argue with such alacrity. I had not mentioned it at all. However I might add that the only such measure that could possibly be met with my own support would affect stagnant moneys, and not the wealthy person's income in general. Money that is spent by anybody is taxed in the form of Value Added Tax, or, as it is known in the United States of America a "sales tax". It is the unspent hoards that the wealthy accrue that chokes an economy and deprives the lower and middle classes of a comfortable subsistence. If a government, which has proven itself at virtually every turn to be bloated and rife with incompetence, is to glean more revenue from the fortunes of its citizens, it should do so in a manner that is not likely to hazard the economy's fragility. even worse, the cost to several impoverished mothers, who do work, but need food stamps and must forgo these foodstamps so that this individual may, as stated in another line of this debate, make $23,000 that month instead of only $21,900 that monthIf it is the government that must provide these food stamps, then it is surely their first duty to attend the affairs of their own houses, before meddling in those of their wealthy citizens. I submit that if the United States were to finance fewer foreign adventures and reduce its extravagant military expenditure, then it would be able to provide its dependants with food stamps without any increase in taxation whatever.The assumption from your perspective sounds like those who are not rich do not have value to societyI do not believe that anything written within my argument could possible be construed as such. Those who are not rich compose the bulk of society, and perform the majority of the labours of that society, and must therefore contribute the most to it. they are not paying societyI do not know what you mean by "paying society". As the people in question compose in fact the overwhelming majority of society, I do not see what they should be paying themselves for, or with what they should pay.They are paying society in terms of low paying jobs that somebody has to doIn comparison to what incomes are these jobs "low-paying"? Surely, when compared to those who are rich, any income, even the national average, may be made to appear low?Your assumption seems to be that their sacrifice is less. I disagree.Again, I must enquire as to where I said anything like what you have written above?In fact, I think they are giving society more when it's measured in terms of personal sacrifice, albeit not by choice of course, who doesn't want to be rich?I do not believe that unhappiness or frustrated personal ambition are particularly useful to society. I do not think that either of these increase the worth of anybody's labours.But the point is this tax increase would do a little to equal how much each is giving back, it in my estimate is still uneven, but it's something.Once more, perhaps if the United States Government did not spend $689'000'000'000 per year on its military, it would be more capable of providing redress to those issues that you have mentioned.So if fairness is the point, then it is fair for the upper end to pay more.It has always been my opinion that, as the wealthy do not receive any additional benefits from the governments which rule them, that are not afforded to those who are less fortunate, there is no fairness in the argument that they ought to pay more for these services. They are not giving more, but in terms of money, they would be paying more.They would be paying more than anybody else even without these increases. But even so, consider this: Two men have between them $100, one having $80, the other $20; if both pay 40% tax, the government's income is $40 ($32 + $8). If both men have $50, the money is more evenly distributed, yes? But the government's income remains $40 ($20 + $20). You suggest that the wealthy man with $80 ought to pay 50% tax, say, and that the other man ought to pay 40% as usual. But now the government's income is $48. Behold! By some alchemy, the government has derived more revenue by the wealth tax! However, before the wealth tax, the government's income was not affected by the distribution of wealth. Now it is. But what is the good? The government has not redistributed any wealth. It has simply increased its own income. The rich man is assuredly slightly less rich than he was. But the poor man remains equally mendicant. My purpose in writing the scenarios above was to illustrate that the welfare of the poor does not depend upon the taxes levied against the rich. It depends entirely upon how the government spends the moneys derived from the taxation. We have no guarantee that the government shall spend this money with any more competence or wisdom than it does the other $3'500'000'000'000.I do not believe that it can be proven, by historical reference, that an increase in taxation upon the wealth of the nation, when the previous taxation was not unnaturally low, produces a substantial improvement in the wellbeing of the poor. Ideally, the money would be used to create more opportunity for others to become the ones paying this slightly higher tax rate.What is the point of forming our taxation policies upon what would ideally be the effects? What is ideal rarely happens. Words such as opportunity are very easily bandied about, but to which opportunities do you refer?  But this is the theory and I think it is a very viable one. More so than the stagnation I believe the notion that everyone did it all on their own, and no one owes the society they were raised in a penny of their riches or a drop of their sweat.I do not see how the rejection of an extraordinary tax can be construed as a rejection of taxation in general.