Often in debates you see Demcorats argue that we need to raise taxes in order to help society.

Hillary Clinton said it best:

“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

This is the kind of thinking one would expect from people who don't have the foggiest understanding of real-world economics.

First, some facts to begin with:

1. The wealthiest income earners 10% pay the vast majority of the taxes (nearly 3/4ths of it).
2. The wealthiest income earners work harder and consume far less than their means than on average. (see this Washington Post article for specifics)
3. Our tax system punishes earned income while ignoring investment income and the "idle rich". (hence, we call it the "INCOME" tax).

According to Democrats running for President, we should confiscate the earnings of the most successful Americans and have the government spend it instead of them.  That's precisely how taxes work. We take earnings from one person and then have the government decide how those earnings will be spent instead.

The result is that we are left with a stark choice: Who do you think will make better use of a dollar?

It's a subjective question and I invite you to invest all of your subjective prejudices to the question. Who do you think will do more to benefit society with that dollar? Who do you think will generate the most properity with that dollar? Who do you think will help the poor most with that dollar? Who do you think will create the most jobs with that dollar? And so on.

Let's look at the "rich" and the government.  Make sure you've read the linked to article from the Washington Post. But if that's not enough, you can do your own research on the net as to the demographic info on "the rich" really is.  It's not unknown. Similarly, who decides how money is spent by the government is not unknown.

The case for the rich.  The highest income earners have already demonstrated the ability to take that dollar and turn it into many dollars. That is how their income is derived in the first place by definition.  They indisputably are able to generate wealth and use the money in ways that benefits society since their money must necessarily come from other people voluntarily purchasing a product, good, or service from them.  This creates jobs. Creates opportunities. Helps people across the entire economic spectrum.

The case for the government.  Congress decides where money is going to be spent. Congress is made up of 100 senators and 435 representatives.  Their qualification for making these vast decisions is that they were elected. Period.  Moreover, while the "rich" group includes millions of people making individual decisions based on very adapted circumstances, the government's arbiters number exactly 535 (536 if you include the President and his veto). Conservatives complain that politicians are incompetent and corrupt.  Liberals complain that politicans are bought off by "big business". In either case, there is absolutely no requirement that one of these 535 people have the slightest inkling of how economics works (as Hilary Clinton made obvious in her idiotic statement quoted at the start of this article).

If the rich make poor decisions with their money, they cease being rich.  If politicians make poor decisions with money, they simply ask for more money in the form of higher taxes.  In other words, one has an incentive to use money well, the other has an incentive to be wasteful with money.

So next time you see a politician argue that we need to take money from "the rich" in order to help society, think carefully about who is really helping society more.