Our country has laws, rules, and regulations to make sure things stay fair. These laws were created to ensure our government and our citizens are on the "up-and-up." We simply can't ignore our principles just to solve problems. I've said this before, but I will repeat this little example:
Child pornography is a problem, right? I think we can all agree it is. We can easily eliminate this disgusting problem if we simply allow the government to raid suspects' homes or monitor their personal computers and their internet traffic, right? It would be a simple solution, and the problem would be solved.
Wrong! We have laws that are based on equality and fairness. We cannot simply solve a problem by overstepping the concepts of fairness and equality or the Constitution itself. So how is the problem of government over-spending and potential lagging revenues any different? Sure, we can easily solve this problem. We can just make those earning more than $1,000,000 annually pay more and more in taxes (this really wouldn't work, but many on the left think we should employ this as a large-scale solution). Even if we made millionaires pay 100% of their income in taxes, it wouldn't come close to closing the budget deficit. So now what? Hmmm... I know. Tax people making more than $200,000 heavily! Yes, that's it! It would actually make more of a dent in the deficit. It wouldn't solve it, but it would close the gap a lot more than taxing millionaire-dollar earners more.
But let's think about this. While we can't simply go against a major founding principle and invade suspects' homes and violate the Constitution to solve a disgusting problem, how can we go against the founding principle of equality and equal treatment for all by pointing to only a select group in society and forcing them to pay more in taxes while not changing tax rates for anyone else? Thought it might solve the problem, isn't this discrimination? Why is it okay to discriminate for the sake of problem solving? Why is it okay to go against this founding principle of equality and equal treatment for all for the sake of conveniently fixing a budget issue? Would it be okay if the government said, "to solve the budget crisis, we are going to tax only Asian and white Americans?" Would it be okay to say, "we are only going to tax people whose names begin with L, M, and N?" So why is it okay to single out the wealthy?
Ohhhhhh, I know why. Because they are in the minority. It's truly odd. We are against oppression and discrimination in this country, and we are for equal treatment of all citizens (I am 100% for this, of course), unless it involves someone else's money. We despise government discrimination, unless it conveniently doesn't affect us personally. We always want to protect minorities' rights, and we have made great strides over the last 50 years in doing so, but we won't hold those same standards to millionaires. It seems that if the wealthy are in the minority, screw 'em! Many on the left view it this away. They tend to think the wealthy's lives are nice and easy, and they wouldn't even know the difference if they were taxed more. While that might be true, it's still inherently unfair. But no one cares. Though the Westboro Baptist Church acts in a way I truly despise, their acts are protected by the Constitution and the very freedom-loving notions on which our Founding Fathers designed this country. Though millionaires more than likely have an easy life, AND we can solve budget problems by taxing them more, AND they might not feel the sting financially if we do, we should, out of the supposed "American way," treat them equally, even if we despise them or are envious of their lifestyle. But we don't extend to them equal treatment with regards to taxation. The final tax rate (yes, FINAL effective tax rate after all deductions, "loop holes," etc. according to IRS data) for the wealthy is far greater than that of the rest of the population, but recent polls show that 68% of Americans favor raising tax rates on the wealthy more. Does this surprise anyone? As of 2009, there were approximately 140,000,000 middle-class earners in this country compared to 236,000 million-dollar earners. Dollars and cents aside, that's a huge majority-minority ratio. The large middle-class group can vote and affect the minority any way it wants. It doesn't make it right.
This is why I favor flat-rate taxes. It eliminates government-sponsored discrimination, and it ends the trampling of our principles of equality and fair treatment for all. If we all paid the same rate, we would all be devoting the same amount of time worked per hour to the government. Under the current system, one person devotes 10% of their working hour to the government while another devotes 28%. Why should one guy work 6 minutes out of every hour for the government, while another guy works almost 17 minutes per hour for the government? How is that fair? Sadly, most people in this country want to make the person already devoting 17 minutes to the government devote MORE time! Again, this isn't a surprise. Most people want someone else to volunteer, as long as they themselves aren't affected.
Regardless of the revenue-raising proposition of increasing the wealthy's taxes, it's still discriminatory and unfair. The government should not discriminate simply because it's easy and it solves a problem. None of our founding documents contained a wealth clause. None of them claimed we should treat everyone equally, unless they fall into a certain income band. But of course, politicians need to get votes to maintain power... so what easier way to do it than telling the largest voting bloc their taxes won't go up... only the minority's taxes will?