You realize that even the rich get social security right? So they are paying for their own SS benefits as well.

Secondly, yes... the rich should be taxed on the full amount of their income as do the middle class, the poor, everyone else, for the benefit of everyone being able to recieve social security and medicare (it would may result in reduced payroll taxes for the middle and lower classes... which would be a very popular reduction, so that'd probably go through if you had something to make it up).

Do rich people pay into social secruity? Isn't social secruityand taxed outside of income taxes run seperate of the federal budget? I though you couldn't, or receive a lower SS income, if you are making a certain amount and working full-time. The max a person can collect is $2,185 in 2008 (and higher if you retire later).

The question is, why should a rich person be taxed a higher rate (if all income, regardless of source) than any other person? Just because they make more money? Do they use more of the services or products of our government than a "regular" person does?

Well, if they recieve a payroll, I believe the payroll tax goes into SS. And while it's supposed to be outside of income taxes and seperate of the federal budget, as pointed out, it really isn't used as such.

Though it seems that Medicare has no upper limit. People are taxed on the entirety of their payrolls, not on the payroll up to a certain level.

Yes I do realize that. There is a maximum benefit one can receive with social security. Are you planning on raising that?

Their wealth has been accumulated due to rules and protections society has provided. As I mentioned before, compare the system in Western countries to, say, some sub-saharan African countries, where the society for promotion of a healthy economic system is non-existant.

Also as pointed out, they feel far less of an impact of a higher percentage of their money taken for taxation than those of lower income brackets. 30% of a person making $30,000 a year is far, far more painful than 30% being taken from a person making $3 million a year.

So two reasons (for me), only one being "because they can more easily afford it" (a different way to say beause they make more money). The main one, which is connected, for me is that they have benefited greatly from the system put in place by the society, so taking a higher tax rate (which is relatively not that much more because of the greater income) to help support the lesser off in the society is warranted.

Well that and the whole staving off revolution thing ;). Realistically, though, a number of historians believe that the New Deal may indeed have prevented a Communist Revolution in the United States.

Nope. After all, the guy making $90,000 is already paying more per year than he'll get back. So why should I care so much over the guy making millions a year paying more than he'll get back?

I'm confused by what your saying. You argue that they get money from SS, yet they pay in. Yet they won't get back, even close in %, what a regular person does.

If you're self-employed or an owner of a business, do you pay social secruity? If you don't collect a "salary", but your income is dependent on what you earned from your shares or profits.

Here's Mark Cuban's take:

http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/12/...he-presidency/

I don't agree with his 10% luxury tax idea however.