I've heard it said that we are in a sort of second "Gilded Age" in the U.S. As the last Gilded Age was from about 1890-1929, and it was later from the end of WWII through the early 1960's that the U.S. was taxing the rich in the top tier at 91%, and we had the largest economic growth, and the largest increase in the standard of living in that period, I see no reason why we can't go back to taxing the rich at higher rates. After all, the rich aren't the ones who do the actual work, but they hire others to do the work for them.

Most of the increases in deficits and the national debt are due to our having reduced taxes on the rich, thereby reducing government revenues, and not making up for the losses in any significant way, and just borrowing to maintain government spending. Compared to other industrialized countries, the U.S. tax rate is definitely on the low side.

At some point deficit spending and increases in the national debt will collapse if it continues, as it is unlikely to be tolerated indefinitely. At that point, the rich who paid less taxes will be just fine, while the people who did all the work, to maintain the wealth of the rich, will be the ones who will be the ones to suffer the consequences.

I remember when Ronald Reagan first sold the idea of "trickle down", he promised to cut wasteful government spending, but he actually nearly tripled it. After over 40 years of "trickle down", the only thing that has ever really trickled down is the tax burden, and the middle class has slowly sunk down towards the ranks of the working poor.

"Trickle Down Theory" has always been a big con. The way it works is the Federal government cuts taxes on the rich. The Federal government then cuts back o programs to help the poor and also cuts funding for state and local governments. So, state and local governments now have less money, so they cut programs to help the poor, and raise local taxes and fees to make up the rest of the difference. Those increased taxes and fees are paid either directly or indirectly (mostly) by working people. Thus the tax burden has moved from the rich onto the people who actually do all the work that keeps society and the economy going.

That is capitalism. Because capitalism IS exploiting other for your own gain. Exploiting other people's labor, other people's ideas and other people's resources for one's own personal benefit.

Not that capitalism is completely bad, but the excesses of capitalism do need to be highly regulated, so the rich can't completely exploit the people who actually do the actual work that maintains the wealth for the rich.

Few people know that the progressive tax system, where the wealthy get taxed at higher rates was first suggested in "The Wealth of Nations" (1776) by Adam Smith. Even the man who wrote what some refer to as "the capitalist handbook" realized that those who benefit the most from the way a society is structured should pay the most taxes to support that society.

@snytiger6, the national deficit & debt is so high now that even if they could somehow pass legislation to drastically increase taxes on the rich it would be too little too late.

@callmedubious That may be possibly be true. However, if we don't raise the taxes on the rich, the national debt will likely reach a point where the entire world economy may collapse. The majority of the national debt is the result of tax cuts for the rich reducing tax revenuess, causing the U.S. to borrow more money.

The last two years of Clinton's presidency, they actually ran a surplus budget. So, it may not be too late to fix it. But it would require major changes.

I think that inherited wealth should be highly taxed, not as a percentage, but there should be a cap on how much wealth can be inherited, period. Hoarding wealth for generations, over the long run, is less economically productive.