I only know of two arguments against raising taxes on the wealty. The first is that higher taxes will reduce growth and investment. To that I say that not all taxes are the same. Credits and deductions providing incentives for investment do not exclude taxation on wealth that goes to lifestyle. And the rich can certainly spare a few bucks. But the argument I want to address here is the issue of fairness. Many people claim it is unfair that almost half of Americans pay no taxes! Of course that is incorrect. What is correct is that they paid no Federal income tax. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3622644...finance/t/half-us-pays-no-federal-income-tax/ To that I respond with this: http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan/4 The real question is, what pecentage of a person's income goes to all taxes paid, directly or indirectly? And this isn't just a number's game. In the case of the lower end of the income spectrum, the taxes paid may constitute a significant percentage of the minimum cost of survival, less living on the streets. When people are just barely getting by, those taxes are significant percentage of the cost of life [food, water, rent, power], not lifestyle. We have to balance the budget. On that I think we all agree. The notion that this cost should all be carried by the poor and middle class is, in my view, morally and logically unacceptable, and unjustifiable.