Although I can barely stand to look at Moore and he's usually a far-left wacko, once in a while he comes up with some good observations (his movie "Sicko," had a lot of eye opening revelations).
This isn't one of them however.
His own net worth is estimated between 25-50 million, so when he talks about "taxing these people at the proper rates"
....he's talking about himself too.
He is correct though, that only a small percentage of Americans hold most of the wealth.
First, though, some definitions. Generally speaking, wealth is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts.
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.
As noted in the first paragraph, "wealth"
isn't solely "income."
So when it is discussed that the top tier has their "income"
tax increased by 4%, that doesn't mean their "wealth"
is materially affected.
In my link, I found this very interesting.
One final general point before turning to the specifics. People who have looked at this document in the past often asked whether progressive taxation reduces some of the income inequality that exists before taxes are paid. The answer: not by much, if we count all of the taxes that people pay, from sales taxes to property taxes to payroll taxes (in other words, not just income taxes). And the top 1% of income earners, who average over $1 million a year, actually pay a smaller percentage of their incomes to taxes than the 9% just below them. These findings are discussed in detail near the end of this document.
Although I do not believe in "punishing"
the wealthy (as Moore seems to indicate), I do believe however in a progressive tax system.
After all, what's so bad about giving a little more back to the country that allowed you the ability to become so wealthy in the first place?
And even if government spending decreased significantly, if the amount the top 1% pays in taxes were decreased (as those who believe in "tinkle on"
economics want).....the vast middle would have to have theirs increased
As far as Moores' contention that the money the top 1% has is a "national resource"
.....he's waaaay out in left field on that one.
It's their money...not the United States money.