@Dabnasty
You mentioned a lot and I will do my best to address it in 1 post:
1) Your grocery store analogy makes no sense. No business will stay in business if not profitable. This business does not need your help, the business already knows it needs to cut expenses and maybe raise profits. Realistically if this is the only grocer in town, it will raise prices as high as possible to whatever the market will bare. The ideal scenario would be to have prices just high enough where the towns people are not yet willing to drive 1 hour out of town for better prices.
2) Personally I see no reason why we need to raise taxes further. We waste enough money as it is. I get it, there are a few very very rich people in the US who take advantage of the capital gains tax, but I don't think their actions should be a reason to penalize the rest of us.
3) Here is the link to give the US treasury more money: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtFinance
They have all the information you need. Looking through the site it appears people donate to the government every year. in 2012 the treasury received over $7,000,000. Not too shabby. You too can practice what you preach and be one of the few who donates. You even get a tax deduction on your donation allowing you to donate extra. I would respect you and your arguments more if you lead by example instead of trying to impose your views on me.
4) Why do you think we need to raise taxes? How much further do you think we need to raise them? Is there a limit to your greed to take from others?
The point of the analogy was to ask, does it make sense to overpay for groceries in this scenario if the grocer refuses to charge rational prices... that's it. Of course there are significant differences between the government and a privately owned store. Of course in the real world they would go out of business. That's why I set hypothetical parameters.
I think it's difficult to come up with a good analogy because this situation really shouldn't need one. Someone has the opinion that investors should pay higher taxes on their income and gives an explanation as to why they feel that way. If someone disagrees they should offer some reasons why. Saying "you go ahead and pay more if you want" is a cop out, it doesn't address the situation. A proper argument would look a bit more like "It makes sense to tax investment income at a lower rate than earned income because x, y, & z."
To your next three points, you're making lot of assumptions. I don't believe I've made any arguments in favor of raising taxes here, I've only countered some of the blanket arguments against raising taxes. Even if I was in favor of increased taxes on investment income, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm in favor of increasing taxes overall. Perhaps an increased tax on investment income paired with a decreased tax on earned income is in order. If someone has an argument for shifting rather than raising the tax burden, would you be willing to talk about that?
My only goal in this conversation was to encourage logical arguments. Arguing against increased taxes because "you can pay more if you want" and "the government is inefficient" don't make the cut for me. It's not that they aren't true, it's that they aren't relevant.
Is there a limit to your greed to take from others?
Come on now, I don't even know what you're basing "my greed" on. Rule #2.
Exactly, your grocery store analogy is pointless because this scenario could never exist. Lucky for us grocery stores look for profits instead of social equality.
Why do we need to discuss increasing taxes on investments? Who wants to increase them? I don't, and plenty of other people don't either. Just because someone is interested in the proposition does not go and make it law especially when there are plenty of people who have no interest in that endeavor. Plus, let's be honest with ourselves. Those who want to increase taxes on investment income and are willing to pay more themselves are actually talking about taxing people who make a lot of money via capital gains in non tax protected accounts. I would wager that most of the people here who think capital gains should be taxed higher have 6 figures or less in taxable accounts and will likely pay very little if anything at all in those taxes. Frankly this is just one more self serving act of taxing those who have more. Therefore, on behalf of all people with large taxable accounts I proudly extend my middle finger to them. Unless those people are willing to pay similar taxes on their tax deferred accounts and prove so by actually cutting a check, I don't have a shred of respect for any of them.
My point stands to anyone who is so eager to make the guy above you pay more in taxes, why not go and pay more yourself and then come and talk as a leader. One who commands respect because they lead by example. Until then, keep your grubby fingers out of my pockets.
I think most people would agree that taxes are justified insofar as they prevent a descent into anarchy, and insofar as they prevent people from going without food or shelter.
But taxation if often seen as having a broader redistributive element, i.e., not just protecting those who are impoverished, but actually lifting up those who are merely working class or middle class.
It is the second category of taxation/redistribution that I object to, as it results in punitive taxes on successful investors who could otherwise retire months or perhaps years earlier.
You bring up the right point. I do not believe in taxation to redistribute wealth and vehemently against the notion of doing so. It is immoral, and harms a population. Unearned wealth is often times squandered just as fast as it was received.
Let's have a system where we protect our citizens from hunger, and being out in the elements. Let's provide the tools and infrastructure they need to learn skills and be able to find gainful employment. But please don't enslave the country to the government paycheck by providing luxuries and amenities outside of basic necessities. Let us help people help themselves to be the best that they can be.