• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do The Rich Need Saving?

Do The Rich Need Saving?


  • Total voters
    54
Exist? Sure. Use? No. The wealthy use them more, and benefit from them more.

That goes straight back to my argument that truck drivers benefit more from the existence of an interstate highway system, therefore they ought to pay more gas taxes. It makes no sense to support one without the other. Besides, tons of people have access to and use the stock market. I do. There's a whole category of people called day traders who do. In fact, just about everyone out there who has a retirement account does. Do we tax them all at a higher rate? Or are you just trying to single out a particular group of people that you don't like to stick it to? If you want to charge a usage tax in the stock market for anyone and everyone who ever performs a transaction, say so. Limiting it to some group of people who may or may not use it, just because you're jealous of their wealth is ridiculous.
 
As a percentage of their income, the rich pay less.

I'm not sure if that's entirely true. I've never been able to find real data on effective federal tax rates in the US. If anyone can find this data, please share.
 
As a percentage of their income, the rich pay less.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. When you get rich enough, yes you can claim your income to be not income and pay less taxes and lower your tax rate. Buffet and folk like that are rich enough to do so, and do. Buffet pays a lower marginal tax rate than his secretary. However, there is certainly a significantly large group of rich people who, while rich, are not rich enough to buy Congress and those poor jerks pay a LOT of taxes.
 
I'm not sure if that's entirely true. I've never been able to find real data on effective federal tax rates in the US. If anyone can find this data, please share.

The us is said to have the only tax system where the rich pa less....... as far as I know. In a general statement.
 
That goes straight back to my argument that truck drivers benefit more from the existence of an interstate highway system, therefore they ought to pay more gas taxes. It makes no sense to support one without the other. Besides, tons of people have access to and use the stock market. I do. There's a whole category of people called day traders who do. In fact, just about everyone out there who has a retirement account does. Do we tax them all at a higher rate? Or are you just trying to single out a particular group of people that you don't like to stick it to? If you want to charge a usage tax in the stock market for anyone and everyone who ever performs a transaction, say so. Limiting it to some group of people who may or may not use it, just because you're jealous of their wealth is ridiculous.

How do truck drivers benefit more than their employers? The drivers don't reap the profits from moving goods around the country. The very nature of employing a truck driver requires that the employers make more from moving the goods than the driver does. Else they would do the driving themselves.
 
How do truck drivers benefit more than their employers? The drivers don't reap the profits from moving goods around the country. The very nature of employing a truck driver requires that the employers make more from moving the goods than the driver does. Else they would do the driving themselves.

I was including the entire trucking industry, but that would include independent drivers as well. So are you willing to bill everyone higher for anything they use than those who use them less?
 
I'm not sure if that's entirely true. I've never been able to find real data on effective federal tax rates in the US. If anyone can find this data, please share.
The very wealthy earn their money through capital gains which has a maximum rate of 15%. Hedge fund managers earn billions per year and pay this rate. Other rich people have various tax shelters available (not you) to them.
 
And the tax shelters are bad? I'm sorry, but I'm not about to try and skewer the "rich" anymore when the top 1% of America in terms of wealth pay more in taxes than the bottom 95%. America has the largest overall tax rate in the modern world. So, while the rich may not need "saving", they don't need a bunch of Robin Hoods running around, trying to act like they know how to spend their money better than they do.
 
And the tax shelters are bad? I'm sorry, but I'm not about to try and skewer the "rich" anymore when the top 1% of America in terms of wealth pay more in taxes than the bottom 95%. America has the largest overall tax rate in the modern world. So, while the rich may not need "saving", they don't need a bunch of Robin Hoods running around, trying to act like they know how to spend their money better than they do.

Were near the top when it comes to income, but that's not the whole picture. Many European nations utilize heavy VAT taxes, for instance. On balance, in terms of tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, we're far behind many other OECD countries.
 
The very wealthy earn their money through capital gains which has a maximum rate of 15%. Hedge fund managers earn billions per year and pay this rate.

Many of them don't even pay taxes at all. They loan themselves whatever income they want for the year from their own Fund at 2% interest a year or so, and report no income at all for the year.

Other rich people have various tax shelters available (not you) to them.

Very very large shelters.
 
Last edited:
I think the balance is the problem. We spend a LOT of money on programs designed to aid the poor in "rising up". And we're not seeing a lot of poor "rising up", even in good economic times. Why would we throw more money at the problem, lessen their responsibilities and the expectations we have for them, or encourage them to continue utilizing programs that aren't helping them advance beyond their current station? Why aren't we creating programs that will actually change the status quo, instead of just holding everything in place??? We have major, major spending problems in this country and nobody is touching them...but the quick fix and the first thing I see time after time is to just tax the "rich" more because they aren't paying their "fair share". How about before we ask ANYBODY to contribute more money to a broken system we actually fix it. It's like handing out more buckets on a leaky ship...sure, it'll give you more time..but ultimately the boat's still full of holes.

most of those programs pretend to help the poor so their sponsors get credit from the uneducated. in reality they are designed to keep the recipients voting for dems and addicted to entitlements so the sponsors get wealth and power through public office
 
Many of them don't even pay taxes at all. They loan themselves whatever income they want for the year from their own Fund at 2% interest a year or so, and report no income at all for the year.



Very very large shelters.


I would ask for proof but I have read the IRS data enough to know there is none. even with all the breaks you whine about the top one percent still pay 40% of the income taxes though the uber wealthy pay a lower rate (due to their income mainly being capital gains) than the majority of those in the top 1 percent-those making more than about 375 K and Less than Five million
 
from Turtle

even with all the breaks you whine about the top one percent still pay 40% of the income taxes though the uber wealthy pay a lower rate (due to their income mainly being capital gains) than the majority of those in the top 1 percent-those making more than about 375 K and Less than Five million

Which is an excellent reason why all forms of money going into someone's account or pocket should be taxed as income at whatever is the normal rate for that income level.
 
The government is not the economy,

It pretty much is, and has been for a while now. 'Free enterprise' fails often and needs the government to keep the illusion going, especially technology research and basic science.

Secondly, does it matter if Bill Gates or Steve Jobs invented it?

So, you're agreeing they are irrelevant, you just hate to agree with me on that, and concocted some sort of semantic hand wave here hoping nobody noticed that they are indeed irrelevant. Thanks again.

They are rich men who own companies that benefit the country. Period. The rest is pretty much inconsequential and your argument sucks.

They are men who boosted a lot of research from others, and got in the ground floor of an infant industry, one entirely created and developed by public money.

What is with today, today? I seriously must have fallen through a blackhole or something.

My original (and only) point was that rich people are not automatically worthless "drains" on society, and that some (or even many) of them founded, own, or operate companies that greatly benefit the "little man" in this country. Bill Gates owns a multi-billion dollar company which employs millions of people and sells millions of products each year. That benefits every single aspect of the U.S. economy. Therefore, Bill Gates founding and ownership of a company makes him valuable as a "rich person".

No, you just think the 'private sector' is far more 'private' than it actually is. That's an ideological illusion, not fact. Government spending is part of the GDP calculations too, which you apparently aren't aware of, and the tech subsidies all these faux 'Self Made Billionaires' got their wealth from are the heaviest contributors to the economy.

Your argument was idiotic. I'm very sorry if it's hard to admit that. It's okay, though. You can try again next time.

It's tough to aspire to brilliance when the 'competition' is dumber than rocks and you have to explain the basics to them.
 
I would ask for proof but I have read the IRS data enough to know there is none.

And my Dad is the Pope and my Mom was Mother Teresa. Congratulations.

even with all the breaks you whine about the top one percent still pay 40% of the income taxes though the uber wealthy pay a lower rate (due to their income mainly being capital gains) than the majority of those in the top 1 percent-those making more than about 375 K and Less than Five million

They pay 40% while making over 58% of the total income, which of course means they aren't paying their share, going by your numbers. Since they also own over 80% of the wealth, they are also hiding income overseas, through corporate fronts and the loopholes for overseas earnings. One drug company in particular was holding over $48 billion in earnings in the Netherlands banks, which worked out to about $6 a share. Do you think you included that in the numbers, along with all the other earnings and unpaid dividends stashed overseas?

$375K to $5 million is middle class, not 'wealthy', but these days the media and the Party hacks have the yokels convinced $50K is 'middle class', but that's another topic.
 
And my Dad is the Pope and my Mom was Mother Teresa. Congratulations.



They pay 40% while making over 58% of the total income, which of course means they aren't paying their share, going by your numbers. Since they also own over 80% of the wealth, they are also hiding income overseas, through corporate fronts and the loopholes for overseas earnings. One drug company in particular was holding over $48 billion in earnings in the Netherlands banks, which worked out to about $6 a share. Do you think you included that in the numbers, along with all the other earnings and unpaid dividends stashed overseas?

$375K to $5 million is middle class, not 'wealthy', but these days the media and the Party hacks have the yokels convinced $50K is 'middle class', but that's another topic.

58% of the total income

that is completely a lie

even most of the other rich bashers have said 22-24%
 
58% of the total income

that is completely a lie

even most of the other rich bashers have said 22-24%

you're right, I was wrong; it's 59.1% of total income, not 58%. The wealth holdings I stated are also wrong. They hold over 90% of the wealth. I was using older numbers, not the number updated for 2010. these numbers don't include the bib bucks held overseas in shelters, like the Big Pharm company I mentioned previously and it's $48 billion that won't be taxed at all, and it's jsut one of hundreds of companies.
 
Last edited:
you're right, I was wrong; it's 59.1% of total income, not 58%. The wealth holdings I stated are also wrong. They hold over 90% of the wealth. I was using older numbers, not the number updated for 2010. these numbers don't include the bib bucks held overseas in shelters, like the Big Pharm company I mentioned previously and it's $48 billion that won't be taxed at all, and it's jsut one of hundreds of companies.


any proof of that I call that a total lie

its more like 22 percent according to the IRS
 
Many folks around here seem so very concerned about the rich folks, their money and the taxes they have to pay.

So I ask the folks here do we really need to be worried about rich folks having to pay too much tax? Are you gonna sleep less at night worrying about tax burdens of the rich?

For the rich folks here at DP? Sorry if I offend you.

I could give a crap about the tax burden on the rich. What I do give a crap about is 1) How the tax hikes are going to affect small business owners, like myself and 2) What's going to happen to the rest of us, when the government comes for our hard earned money.

It's scary how the, "tax the **** out of the rich", crowd is being very short sighted on this issue.
 
I could give a crap about the tax burden on the rich. What I do give a crap about is 1) How the tax hikes are going to affect small business owners, like myself and 2) What's going to happen to the rest of us, when the government comes for our hard earned money.

It's scary how the, "tax the **** out of the rich", crowd is being very short sighted on this issue.

or how they whine about billionaires while targeting people making 200K a year-which is hardly filthy rich
 
That goes straight back to my argument that truck drivers benefit more from the existence of an interstate highway system, therefore they ought to pay more gas taxes. It makes no sense to support one without the other. Besides, tons of people have access to and use the stock market. I do. There's a whole category of people called day traders who do. In fact, just about everyone out there who has a retirement account does. Do we tax them all at a higher rate? Or are you just trying to single out a particular group of people that you don't like to stick it to? If you want to charge a usage tax in the stock market for anyone and everyone who ever performs a transaction, say so. Limiting it to some group of people who may or may not use it, just because you're jealous of their wealth is ridiculous.

Not really the same. We probably use the highway system as much as they do, so I'm not sure they benefit more. But there is something eating at my memory concerning truck drivers on this, so I may revisit it later.

The wealthy benefit more, use more, get more, hands down, and I do keep linking examples of this for you.

But with the Bush tax cuts, data show that from 2000 to 2007 the top 10 percent of the wealthy became richer (100 percent of the total income growth) and the bottom 90 percent of wage-earners actually had incomes decline. The top one percent gained over 90 percent of total growth.

Study says tax cuts benefit the wealthy : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis

(Reuters) - Billions of dollars in U.S. tax breaks to encourage home ownership, retirement savings, business start-ups and education mostly benefit top income earners and do little to help low- and middle-income people build wealth, a report released on Wednesday said.

Wealthy benefit most from tax subsidies: study | Reuters
 
The working folks need saving and when we get rid of the Libbos in the government, we can get to work doing that.
 
The working folks need saving and when we get rid of the Libbos in the government, we can get to work doing that.

Interesting concept. How will you go about it?
 
Not really the same. We probably use the highway system as much as they do, so I'm not sure they benefit more. But there is something eating at my memory concerning truck drivers on this, so I may revisit it later.

Considering that 100% of their income is derived from the highway system, I don't know how you can make that claim. Without the highway system, they'd be entirely out of business. Of course, this is the claim that was being made, that the ultra-rich were using things like the stock market to make their money, hence they should be charged more because they were benefiting more. So why not do the same with any group that benefits more from a particular bit of infrastructure?

And since the stock market is a public entity, not owned or controlled directly by the government, nor funded by taxpayer money, it's largely irrelevant anyhow.
 
Considering that 100% of their income is derived from the highway system, I don't know how you can make that claim. Without the highway system, they'd be entirely out of business. Of course, this is the claim that was being made, that the ultra-rich were using things like the stock market to make their money, hence they should be charged more because they were benefiting more. So why not do the same with any group that benefits more from a particular bit of infrastructure?

And since the stock market is a public entity, not owned or controlled directly by the government, nor funded by taxpayer money, it's largely irrelevant anyhow.

No, their trucks and cargo are a part of their income as well. But, that isn't what I said. I said we use the highway as much. The examples gave showed the rich USE these institutions more.

And what did I say that had you throw in the stock market?
 
Back
Top Bottom