Should The Wealthier Members Of Society Be Taxed To Pay For The Poorer Members?

well...or?

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
⦁The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
⦁The fifth would pay $1.
⦁The sixth would pay $3.
⦁The seventh would pay $7.
⦁The eighth would pay $12.
⦁The ninth would pay $18.
⦁The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”
Drinks for the ten now cost just $80
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay! And so…
⦁The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
⦁The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
⦁The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
⦁The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
⦁The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
⦁The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

This is a poorly phrased question.

In my view, those who can afford to pay more tax without sacrificing a comfortable way of life, should do so.

But the taxes would not be used to "pay for the poorer members"; they would be used to assist those who are unable to help themselves due to temporary misfortune, illness, age, or mental or physical disability. And the nature of that help would be to assist them to do as much for themselves as possible, including, if necessary, providing them with specialised kinds of work designed to meet their abilities. For those that are incapable of any independence, the help would be total.

The system would also provide rehabilitation for addicts - (I understand the failure rate, but some help does succeed and for that reason alone is worth it.)

But I think the biggest problem is multinationals taking their wealth offshore and getting away with not paying their taxes. To stop it, this requires international cooperation from all governments
If multinationals paid the taxes they already owe, it would be easy to fund social welfare and, as a result, over two generations the rate of poverty and social problems would greatly diminish.

They already are. Remember Romney's comment about 47% of voters paying no federal taxes, anyway?

Tax already goes up in bands according to how much people make.If the wealthy are taxed a lot they will emigrate and take all their assets with them.Then the country with that high tax level gets nothing instead.

If you win the lottery, you will be taxed at a 50% tax rate. So I would say that is already happening.

Wealth confiscation is what DiBlasio wants, to pay for the stupidity going on in NYC.

Hell no! You want it work for it! End of story!

To a degree, its actually in everyone's interest. The question is to what degree is necessary to make a stable society.

And just to be obnoxious, anyone that disagrees with me is an anarchist.

Sorry if anyone's offended, but its been a long day and I'm venting.

Yes. Money is for spending, not hiding and hoarding. Why let billionaires just sit on their wealth when it could help so many people who are struggling?

Still comes down to the same thing.

Decommission two nuclear missiles and you'd probably save enough to sort most social problems

The top tier here get taxed at 47% tax. It kicks in at about 150 K. I would say they are.

Yes.