Surely you're not talking to the same wealthy that I've been.

What do you think will be the repsonse to, say, a 50% tax rate on the wealthy that they are able to distribute as they see fit (with strict controls such that it doesn't end up back in their own hands, or their family's)?

Yeah, good luck with that.

I see the "but government is inefficient" argument a lot - it would have some merit, if there's even the slightest hint of evidence that the rich would pay the tax even if the government were the most well-greased machine in the world. As it is it sounds like a lame scapegoat for wanting to keep all of your wealth.

You're forgetting that people can have principled objections to the role of the federal government.

I'm not rich, and I'm grumpy about what my 20% federal taxes are going to. The financial and GM bailouts, "homeland security", ag subsidies, congressional pork, federal taxes to pay for local schools, "war on terror", "war on drugs".

If the gov't was efficient in the things it did, and did the things I believe it should, I wouldn't complain about my taxes at all. But the combination of being inefficient and misguided is one of the largest wastes of human productivity ever devised.

This is a bigger waste than building the pyramids by hand.

With you there, except for "federal taxes to pay for local schools". What is your problem with education? This does not compare to anything else you were complaining about.

I'm guessing the parent isn't upset about paying taxes for schools, but is upset about the increasing amount of federal control of education (i.e. No Child Left Behind) that has been coupled to the increased amount of federal ed funding.

Why are you implying that wanting to keep your wealth is wrong?

I'm not ;) It seems that many wealthy people are, though.

The point is, the whole "big, inefficient government" argument, IMHO, is more often used in place of simply "I want to keep more of my wealth", and while a valid argument in theory, in practice its confused usage has caused it to lose credibility.

The fact that so many people are unwilling to just come out and say "I want to keep my wealth", and instead try to divert the debate to some other tenuously-related argument shows that they themselves believe that wanting to keep your wealth is wrong.

Personally, I've yet to make my mind up in this regard. I would like to keep my wealth, but the myriad of things that tax money supports I find necessary. Personally I see nothing wrong with wanting to keep more of your wealth, but the fact that many rich people feel such guilt about it, and society's perception of it, seems to imply that we've already made a judgment, collectively, about this issue.

Show me a company that is willing to feed and take care of _every single_ poor, elderly, and infirm person without the need for tax-exempt status, without the need for spiritual conversion or religious dogma, and without the "overhead" of paying executives millions of dollars for "administrative" purposes, and I'll urge Congress to redirect ALL of my tax dollars toward that company.

Oh, and btw, this company also has to defend our shores, find cures for disease (or at least fund them) and manage distribution to those affected, assess and remediate damage on massive scales when emergencies strike, set standards and regulations of measurement and safety so that industries can interoperate and first-responders can (for example) plug their water hoses into a hydrant and it actually fit, etc.

It's not just a couple rich charitable dudes that can handle all that. Sorry if I don't worship them as much as anti-tax crusaders do.

...but Bill Gates, Jr., and most especially Bill Gates, Sr., are not at all against this. Bill Sr. has written a book calling for higher taxes, in fact.

As of today, Sr. is also advocating an income tax on individual Washington State residents earning over $200K. Currently, WA has no income tax on residents.

Source: http://www.ballardnewstribune.com/2010/09/15/news/bill-gates... (includes some very interesting figures)